Slashdot Mirror
More Performers Are Demanding Audiences Lock Up Their Phones (nytimes.com)
More performers -- and other venues -- are discovering a new anti-piracy technology called Yondr -- including comedian Dave Chappelle. Slashdot reader HughPickens.com quotes the New York Times:
Fans are required to place their cellphones into Yondr's form-fitting lockable pouch when entering the show, and a disk mechanism unlocks it on the way out. Fans keep the pouch with them, but it is impossible to snap pictures, shoot videos or send text messages during the performance while the pouch is locked.
'I know my show is protected, and it empowers me to be more honest and open with the audience,' says Dave Chappelle...But some fans object to not being able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape...
"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it." But the device is becoming more common, and according to the Times it's now also being used at weddings, restaurants, schools, and when movies are being prescreened.
'I know my show is protected, and it empowers me to be more honest and open with the audience,' says Dave Chappelle...But some fans object to not being able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape...
"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it." But the device is becoming more common, and according to the Times it's now also being used at weddings, restaurants, schools, and when movies are being prescreened.
Like emergencies. Can the phones be retrieved quickly enough in the "fog of war". Can a police situation be recorded?
.. holding mobiles and tablets. That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.
how else will a customer pay for a t-shirt/beer/etc?
I'm guessing the man would be all for tying a body camera to every police officer on earth, but god help you if you point a camera at HIM. Do that and you'll have to put it in a DRM-enabled "satchel" and pay a few hundred bucks for a ticket to see his drugged out ass.
Maybe someone should mention to Chappelle that he hasn't been relevant since he literally clicked his heels three times and went back to Africa.
That's one Olympic-level strawman you've built there - probably gold-medal caliber!
Are you too dumb to see the difference between police officers - agents of the GOVERNMENT who we HAVE to deal with - being required to videotape their interactions with citizens and a PRIVATE performer that you only get to see on HIS TERMS and who NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO SEE?
Or maybe you just trust that those government agents known as "police" will always do the right thing?
Use your eyes. And brain.
They make it pretty clear before you finish buying the ticket that they use this technology.
He thinks his act is so poor that if anyone catches a clip of it on line, they will realise there is no point in paying to see the show?
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
One great benefit of the smartphone era is that we can easily find out when two-faced, dissembling politicians attempt to say things in private lectures that conflict with their publicly stated policy positions.
So let's imagine a typical fundraising dinner in Dave Chappelle's dystopian future. A keynote speech will be given by a prominent politician, and a comedian will lighten the mood with a short gig between dessert and the auction. The comedian insists that his intellectual property is protected by Yondr, so the politician is free to promise unpublicised tax-breaks for his loyal supporters, to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.
Don't have a cell phone.
Then be ready for them to refuse entry. Even the homeless have phones now.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm tired to go to nice performances, including circus, movies, etc (i.e., most stuff that is funny in a dark room), and then people insists in get their big phones and tablets and turn on the bright screen in your face and ruin your experience, blocking your vision and spotting light in your eyes.
If people really used to just attend urgency calls, devices like this will be not required. For sure, probably doctors will be allowed to keep their devices. In case of fire, there are employees in the place able to make a call. Like in the old days.
Went to a Rob Zombie show rather recently. He was not happy with the sea of phones and asked several times for people to put them away before finally just saying, "You know guys, you all ask why it seems rock seems like it is dead. It's because of stuff like this. I'm a rocker, not a tv guy. I don't know what to do when all I see staring me in the face is a bunch of cameras. I can't do anything with that." Thankfully people finally got the damned hint and he went on with the show instead of leaving (and yes, it was fscking great - he even went through an entire White Zombie album on top of his solo stuff).
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
You comment as if such things would adversely affect a politician's election campaign. That doesn't seem to always be the case.
I was recently at the Louis C. K. show here in Helsinki and they did not require anyone to lock away their phones, but prior to the show there was an announcement that anyone caught filming the show will be ejected.
As a lover of stand-up, I can understand why they're strict about this: the tickets to the show cost nearly 60 euros and essentially people are paying that to hear new material. It's different from music and other performing arts where most often people know what they're going to see. AC/DC won't lose any ticket sales if a few dozen guys upload a shitty quality video of Thunderstruck from midfield. But a recording - even audio only - of the new material by a stand up performer will probably hurt ticket sales.
That being said this seems like overreach: I did not see anyone being ejected from the aforementioned show (well, outside 1 dude who was way too drunk but he wasn't recording). People who've invested money to get to the show are unlikely to risk missing the show just to get a clip online, so I don't see a need for such a high-tech solution.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.
That is why I do not go to concerts anymore.
That's why? I don't go because the value for money almost always sucks. Once in a while a concert is an awesome experience but most of the time it's just an expensive, overly loud, poorly produced, sloppily performed, rehashing of music I've heard before and better in a recorded format. Sometimes you get the bonus of drunk or stoned concert goers and of course the numerous inconsiderate a-holes or thugs that too often seem to attend. Sure, live music CAN be awesome but it usually isn't. I really don't get the point of concert where i need ear plugs to avoid getting hearing damage.
Maybe all that is your bag and you dig it in spite of the problems. Cool by me. Have fun. Personally I find many/most concerts something to be avoided because the experience is decidedly unpleasant. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions and I've been to a handful of excellent concerts myself. But most simply aren't worth even a fraction of the price of admission.
1) go to a concert and get a Yondr pouch .....
2) put inside a Samsung Galaxy 7
3)
4) Profit!
I guess if you're selling out every show and can't find a bigger venue in town then you can get away with this.
As a D-list performer? Please, tag yourself at my show, throw a couple pics up on social media, drop a clip on youtube. Selfies at the merch table after our set.
Tomorrow night we're in Sheboygan, tell your friends there how awesome tonight was...
Why would he care at that point? He got his money. They're the immature brats who think they're entitled to his performance.
If your life revolves around your phone, you need to reevaluate your life.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Don't worry. They will give you an iPhone upon entry, so that your presence can be reduced to the previously solved case.
Been better if the audience just said a collective "Fuck you" and walked out...
I'll now ask you to kindly elaborate as to exactly how your recommendation would have helped anyone.
You can try and make a point about being an "adult" and "choices" and all the usual BS excuses, but nothing you will bring forth can excuse the stupidity of paying a LOT of money to see a live performer in order to disrespect and ignore the piss out of them and their performance all evening with a cell phone in your face or theirs.
to make racially insensitive remarks or to heap insults on some random basket of deplorables with no threat of being exposed during his next election campaign.
You comment as if such things would adversely affect a politician's election campaign. That doesn't seem to always be the case.
I'm not in the US, but my understanding from afar is that Hillary's 'deplorables' gaffe was accompanied by a measurable swing toward Trump. Then Trump's own gaffes come to prominence...
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
So, yes, election campaigns can definitely be affected by mobile phone footage.
"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory," one live-music fan told the Washington Post, adding "If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it."
If you don't want to see the artist's performance enough to abide by their wishes and see it live rather than filtered through your smart phone, then stay home. Those of us attending the concert will be quite happy not to put up with the jostling, distracting light from your device's display, and the general assholery of a self-entitled little prick who believes he has some kind of divine right to be accommodated.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.
The only similarity is videos are involved.
Maybe you're dumb enough to think cat videos on Facebook are related, too.
When you find yourself in a hole, the best advice is to stop fucking digging.
Or not - you ARE amusing. Mildly.
In this day and age, with cheap cameras and practically free storage, performers should record everything, and they should give out the recordings to their audiences. Every joke Dave Chappelle ever makes is going to be on YouTube, their is nothing he can do about that. If he is unwilling for the public to hear something he says, then he probably should not say it in front of an audience of several hundred.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I've never used my phone during a movie or concert, but I'll be damned if the performer I'm paying to see will force me to part with my property for their convenience.
The primary reason I carry a mobile device is for safety and security. I'm not giving that up because others can't control themselves.
I guess if the performer doesn't trust me with my mobile device, then they really don't want my money that badly.
Your phone is never in their possession. It's always in your possession, but in a locked bag. (taht will be unlocked remotely after the show)
bickerdyke
Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.
The only similarity is that video recording take place. The context in which these two occur are so vastly different that the similarities are irrelevant.
Vote "No" by avoiding venues that use this stuff.
He's not the customer's employee. They're the customer of the business. He's a business partner, not an employee.
And yes. I make all sorts of demands of my employer. They tend to be reasonable (salary, days off, essential equipment) so my employer says "okay".
Artists that are exceptional live entertainers do not have to worry about this. No jerky phone recording can do the real thing justice.
Agreed but that describes relatively few performers in my experience. Particularly among the flavor of the day pop acts. Some well known bands are absolutely terrible in person. Some like Rod Stewart are inexplicably popular despite a profound lack of singing ability. The Beach Boys were renowned for using hired hands in the studio (others did too) and I can confirm with my own eyes and ears that they were not a great live band. Any performer that has to use auto-tune or lip-syncs is a waste of money.
I don't really understand the point of trying to record a whole or even substantial portion of a concert with a shitty smartphone camera. Especially given that it isn't likely to be watched by anyone ever again.
Don't agree to it. Walk away. Convince your friends not to. A wedding? Really? How about just announcing that the bride and groom don't want people holding up their phones. Then it'll be obvious who really respects them.
..."If you don't want your music heard, then don't perform it."...
The performer does want the music heard, the performer does not want the music recorded. See the difference?
.
The solution to this is simple. If you are unable or unwilling to enjoy the performance under the guidelines set by the performer, then do not go to the performance.
See how simple that is.
"In this day and age, my phone is how I keep my memory,"
Really? I know people say this shit, but do they REALLY mean it? I'm a tech guy, I love my smart phone, and my cloud storage, and everything else as much as the next guy. I have been "guilty" of snapping a picture at a concert, but that's not how I remember the concert. Do people actually go through their phones to reminisce and re-watch the inaudible, grainy, shitty video they shot from 50 rows back at the Katy Perry concert? Need a memory, take your picture, then put your god damn phone down. There are people behind you watching a concert. (And then get off my lawn)
Any great performer knows the show is never about them, it's about the audience.
Post Modern art rung true in light of War Time propaganda, Beethtoven composed his art to be comprehensible to the widest of audiences, Show Boat reflected interpersonal racial dynamics in southern states. Art reflects through an individual by shared experiences. The critical mistake here is that the person behind the lens has reached for their phone because of an accumulation of personal desires, say by a deep urge to appear digitally relevant, or to feel socially desirable by their peers. An artist knows how to relate to the times, not stamp their feet.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I'm sick of people like you trying to film shows and blocking my view. Instead of me being able to enjoy a show, I have the experience stolen from me so while some narcissistic tool holds their iPad above their head to take shakycam footage with abysmal audio, and all I can see is their poorly exposed image on the iPad's screen.
Curious argument. You want to enjoy the performance on your terms while denying others the right to do the same. The idiot holding the smartphone could make exactly the same argument in reverse and it would be equally valid. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that trying to record a concert with an iPad is an idiotic thing to do and can definitely reduce the enjoyment for others. But if the folks producing the concert don't prohibit that behavior it's kind of hard to argue that they are ruining the experience because that IS what they want from the experience. The fact that you or I don't like what they are doing is kind of irrelevant.
I have no problem with the concert requesting *in advance* that people leave their recording devices at home. But if they don't prohibit it then they are effectively giving it the go ahead and those of us who don't like it become the self entitled douche-bags for complaining about what we knew in advance was likely to happen.
It's a LIVE performance. The entire point of the exercise is what's happening right in front of you at that very second. Whatever you're recording on your phone or iPad is a miserable substitute. Try actually paying attention to the show instead of fiddling with your widget.
Far be it from me to defend someone using a smartphone to make a shitty recording but to be honest that is the least of the annoyances at a lot of concerts. I find it far less annoying than the smelly drunks that seem to find their way to near my seat or the concerts that are played loud enough to cause permanent hearing loss or the concerts where performers lip sync or otherwise try to hide their lack of musical talent.
Just another performer that I wouldn't go and see live then.
Sorry, but recording devices are not new.
Interruptions from the audience are not new.
Why we feel the need to act on them now that copyright law is VASTLY in favour of the artists, whereas before it wasn't, I can't fathom. But that also seems to be the trigger for this kind of reaction.
If you want me to effectively cripple my phone, something that stays with me all the time EVEN THOUGH I WORK IN SCHOOLS, then we're going to clash heads. I either won't come and see you perform, or I have to jump through a specific, special, nuisance every time I want to do so. Like a form of DRM on a live performance. That will affect my enjoyment, and the rate I'd be willing to pay for that performance.
There's a time and a place for smartphones. I happily agree with you throwing out ANYONE whose phone goes off at a classical concert, for instance. No problem at all. Their own fault for failing to manage their device when they were given the opportunity to voluntarily manage their device.
Even chicken-wire cages around the venue, or whatever. Fine. But to demand I start putting useful items in little bags, you're just trying to be like the TSA and other places who are overstepping their remit under the name of something else (terrorism, etc.). And do you demand the same of, say, a smartwatch?
I can get a mobile phone with camera and wireless and bluetooth that's the size and thickness of a credit card. Literally, now, on Amazon, for 30 GBP. You can't police that kind of thing. And you're at a large venue with people who've paid to see you and you object to them immortalising that special performance?
Wholesale copyright infringement is an entirely different problem. Taking people's phones away doesn't solve that either.
But the problem of "how can I convince an audience that they want to pay money to come and see me?" That's a difficult enough prospect as it is without adding obstacles for yourself.
If I ever did want to go to such a thing, and there was a warning on booking that this was required, I'd cancel. If I turned up and this was an ad-hoc policy, not notified and only implemented on the door? We're going to have an argument and I'm going to seek a refund for more than just my ticket and time wasted.
Or someone will upload the video to youtube or bittorent... where others will watch the show and guess what? Fewer ticket sales. If money was not an issue, most of these performers would not mind cameras. But they have to make a living... so no cameras, no piracy.
Nonsense argument. The Grateful Dead was a band that allowed recordings of their concerts and it didn't affect attendance one bit as far as anyone can tell. They cultivated a genuine relationship with their fans unlike too many of the overly entitled "artists" we see today. If a crappy cell phone recording of your concert makes people want to go less then you probably weren't selling anything worth attending in the first place. A good concert cannot remotely be replicated by a shaky video taken on an iPad. I think a lot of performers are trying to hide behind this stuff to cover their lack of actual ability and the poor value for money of their concerts.
I avoid any concerts or performances where they specifically say I can't take pictures.
If you want to threat me as a pirate then I'm not going to pay you money to see you. Recording for your own private use is fair use anyway. Noone is going to record the entire show from beginning to end on their phones. Only short parts, with extremely crap quality. Those videos ending up on youtube are actually advertisement for you you moron.
timberland Homme Quelle idée ! Hein ? On marche derrière moi. Des pas d'homme. Merde ! Et si c'était ce jeune gars ? Zut. J'suis coincée. Obligée d'aller au bout de cette rue pour rattraper le parking. Allez, pas de panique. Plus que deux cent mètres. J'ai le cur qui va exploser. Et si j'donnais juste un coup d'il rapide en arrière. Au moins, j'saurai et si c'est pas lui, j'pourrai souffler. J'ai super envie de pipi. Ça c'est la pluie. À chaque fois, qu'il pleut j'ai l'envie de pipi. Et s'il me forçait à rentrer sous un porche ? Si ça continue, avec la trouille que j'ai, j'vais pisser dans ma culotte. Bon allez, je m'arrête et j'vois s'il me double. Tiens, j'vais faire semblant de remettre ma chaussure. Mon Dieu, j'espère qu'il va passer son chemin... J'espère... Allez, un, deux, trois, je stoppe. Mon Dieu, qu'il me double... Je garde la tête baissée. Hum... Beaux mocassins et trench-coat, ça sent bon l'homme tranquille. Ouf, il a continué. Ah non, il s'est arrêté et il revient vers moi.
I'm not in the US, but my understanding from afar is that Hillary's 'deplorables' gaffe was accompanied by a measurable swing toward Trump.
Hard to say. Pick a poll, and pick an answer, pprobably based on what the answerer wants. Iv'e seen people call it her 47% moment - recalling Mitt Romney in the previous election, and others saying it didn't hurt her at all.
And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
So, yes, election campaigns can definitely be affected by mobile phone footage.
IIRC, that was how the 47% Romney chitchat was obtained.
And for all of the brouhaha over the DNC leaks that show favoring Clinton over Sanders, odd how people forget the old Permanent Republican majority movement, where Republicans targeted other Republicans who were deemed "too moderate". This is merely politics at work, but with a new wild card. Whether this eating your young policy is manifested in their current presidential candidate might make for good discussion.
Heaven knows it is a cautionary tale of catering to your most extreme and irrational base, something akin if the Democrats catered to the extreme far left kooks.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You millennials have nobody to blame but your own narcissistic asses for this.
Yeah, Hitler really hated all those cell phones recording his speeches prior to starting World War II.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The wishes of the performer are bullshit, they are showing themselves to the public and getting filmed. Boo hoo. I don't owe them a revenue stream above and beyond what I paid to see them. If Chappelle wants to have stormtroopers locking up cellphones, well, I wasn't going to go see that lame ass anyway.
On a different note, I took my wife three times over the past few years to see John Prine, the folk singer. Prine doesn't give two shits who films him. I watched him sing. She got out her cellphone and went up to the edge of the stage and filmed him playing Angel from Montgomery and a couple other tunes. She wanted to remember the night that she saw him before he croaks.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
>But some fans object to not being able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape..."
So they copy the shows from their phones over to video tape?
How interesting...
I don't go to concerts to hear the lyrics. I go to concerts to knock people over in the pit while the music is played.
Sounds like you need counseling rather than a concert. If you really need to go hit people I can suggest a few sports like boxing or MMA. You can even play music while you do it.
Fortunately, you won't have a young child forever.
You are a good parent, please continue being one.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Performer in a private venue is not public.
I don't break the fucking law
I bet you do every single day.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Now they can sell all their smartwatches with the in-build camera to people who want to go see and record Dave Chappele live. That should seriously boost their sales.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Well, given that he clearly didn't make any point explaining how he thought private persons vs public government are different, he failed mightily.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
No, but a performer has no expectation of privacy, which is typically the rule of thumb used when determining if recording is permitted.
This is already spiraling... so pardon me for going on a tangent.
If it says on the TICKET THAT I PURCHASE that I'll be required to surrender/bag my cellphone then that's fine. I can choose to go or not go.
If it does not say so and I show up, the ITEMS ON MY PERSON are NOT SUBJECT TO SEARCH OR SEIZURE by agents of the government (4th am) or private parties without my agreement.
If they'll play fair (say so ahead of time) ... I'm fine with this. People who are willing to give up their rights are always happy and welcome to be the sheeple they are to go see awesome shows (Dave Chapelle, etc.). I'd rather keep my phone (silent, screen off, thanks).
E
You act like it makes a difference. We've got two candidates running for president of the United States at this very moment who have both been caught in multiple lies and various activities if not unlawful they should be. One of them will be president in a few months, most likely the most crooked of the two. What difference do you think all that evidence makes? None really.
Yes, your local peace officers do the right thing. That's their job and there is a multitude of tools, trainings, and stats to back it up.
OTOH, them wearing body cams is a great way to show the world just how much of an stupid asshole YOU are. I think those should automatically be uploaded to youtube and found by a simple google search by your future employers, possible friends, love interests, family, etc etc. It'll also tie the hands of a peace officer in not being able to let you go with a warning - something that is the most common occurrence today but unfortunately disappearing.
Don't demand something without accepting reciprocation.
Scissors, razor blade, and knife are a few objects that can defeat this. Do it at the bottom of it and no one needs to know it was damage when you turn it in. But hey, security theater needs money also.
Be seeing you...
According to Yondr's site, "simply step outside of the phone-free zone to unlock the case." Almost sounds like it's an active locking technology or a signal you pass through when you enter/leave. Stick their stupid sock in some kind of radio shielding to block the locking signal.
Failing that, seems like an Arduino & an SDR shield should be more than capable of broadcasting the unlock code. Anybody working on reversing this mess?
I can't wait to read all the "Help! Help! I'm too mentally weak to survive for an hour without my phone!!!!" whining.
Looks like that wish has been granted in spades!
I love their what if scenarios. Maybe we can do a what if subthread - I'll start
What if a farrier throws a refrigerator at my third cousin and they are waiting in a Best Buy store for me?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Performer in a private venue is not public.
That's an interesting point. Since the venue is not public, can the venue owner ban blacks and jews from entering the "private venue"?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Sounds like you're a wimp who wouldn't last five minutes in a pit.
Wimp huh? Ok Mr Internet Tough Guy. We will all pretend for you that a mosh pit is something other than a pathetic effort to compensate for a lack of sizeable genitalia by people with serious social issues.
If you think that somehow proves that you are actually tough you've told us everything we need to know about your lack of self confidence. Here's a hint. People that actually are tough don't need to brag about it or try to call other people wimps. When you actually are serious about proving you are a tough guy let me know and I'll introduce you to some people who really know what that means and can help you figure out just how tough you really are.
In the case of Yondr, could you still record audio? Start it before you go in and let it run for the duration.
Venue owners can ban anyone not in a federally protected class of people.
So, smokers yes, races no.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Exactly why do you think a performer, in a private venue, has no expectation of privacy? That can be totally determined by the venue owner. Who may or may not have an agreement with the performer on what is or is not allowed.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"I don't have a phone."
They can't search me ...
They can use a "walk-thru" metal detector, and refuse entry to anyone who won't go through it. With the shootings lately, even movie theaters are searching for guns.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Who will go broke first - the performers or the venues?
So when I arrive an hour early to make sure that I'm not late because of traffic or the crowds, I can't pass the time until the event starts by playing games on my phone.
And parents can't check up on their kids by sending texts.
No, thanks.
Most already charge too much money for an evening's entertainment. If the price of admission didn't keep you away, then the price of food/snacks/drinks might. Now, if the total cost doesn't keep you away, this silly rule might. In my case, it definitely will.
what does his status as an AC have to do with the validity of his comment?
Nothing at all. It's the hypocritical run-to that many Slashdotters employ when they have no legitimate argument.
But surely "ph0rk" is that guy's real, legal name so he is totally putting it all out on the line there.
Has no one even read the summary?
This company provides bags to lock your cellphone in, and carry it around yourself until exiting at the end of the show, when it will be unlocked. This is not a big deal in Chappelle's show, where you go to a seat, sit down and put the bag on your lap until the performance is done. It is a big deal for Chappelle himself, because if your brother goes to the show, records the performance, then plays it for your extended family at Thanksgiving, Chappelle just lost the possibility of 3-10(?) ticket sales. As opposed to you going to dinner, raving about how hilarious the show was, and 3-10(?) people deciding to buy tickets.
Concealing cameras? Make people walk through a metal detector on the way in.
Do you think you have some entitlement to carry your camera into the show? They can put a condition on the ticket. It's not your right to do anything when attending a private show that has informed you of the conditions to enter. Resell a ticket - it's called scalping, not a right because you have to work late. If you don't want to follow the rules of the show, you're not allowed in. Chances are there's already a clause that says they can eject you for any reason at any time during the show. Not to mention you're already on private property, so get kicked out and see if a court will refund you your $50.
It has nothing to do with copyright, will probably not spread to the shows of musical performers, and I thought it was a great idea when I heard it, perfectly enforceable and intelligent. You keep your phone in a reasonably durable bag, and pay $300 damages if you don't return an intact bag at the end of the show.
Well done.
Funnier with Samsung Note 7
A poor quality cell recording of a concert is nothing like the experience of actually being there. I'm not at all convinced that such recordings hurt sales, they might actually help them by acting like advertising. If a friend shows you a bouncy video of an awesome concert isn't it more likely to make you want to go to the next one?
There are some people who can't afford to go to concerts and will watch the videos instead - but the artist was never going to get money from those people anyway because they didn't have it in the first place.
Have to pipe in with a pet peeve with YouTube. Too many times when surfing for videos of a band, I click on a novice phone or palm device video from a live concert. The quality of the audio from a palm device at a live concert is atrocious and the volume is WAY TOO LOUD in my headphones. The shaky fuzzy video makes them unbearable to watch. There are a humorous few that capture a goof in performance, they are the rare exceptions.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Holy textwall, Batman.
That is a long Wikipedia entry just to discuss the use of the word "they" in the singular.
It's 17 screens long on my laptop. YRMV
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
So, no point to be made. Good discussion.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
...fans able to disseminate and see live shows via videotape
Does he really think there's little reels of tape inside smartphones?
Maybe like one of those 1960's mainframes, but smaller...
I also "tape" shows on the DVR. It's a colloquialism. Just like how shows are "filmed" in front of a live audience, even though hardly anyone uses film anymore. Musicians still release "records" even though many of them will never press any vinyl.
They are going to tell you to walk through the metal detector, same as everyone else. When it beeps, you can either take the phone out of your ass, or go back to your car.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That was quite impressive, you spent the whole time bemoaning celebrities that you failed to point out why you would have the right to film someone against their wishes in a private establishment.
Police should wear a cam because they are individuals in a profession that is going to put them in a situation at some point where we need to know what happens. Not want to know. They are going to be put into a position where they might have to fire their gun or use other physical force. We need to know if that's justified or not. It's a way of watching the watchers. It's a way for the Police to get some vindication when they are falsely accused of doing something wrong. There's so much benefit to it as a public servant that it makes sense. We don't require them to wear it home.
Performers are being a bit ridiculous in not wanting to be recorded, but I do kind of understand it. They don't want to be distracted with flashes during a performance, they don't want their material leaked and stolen online, they don't wan't a joke taken seriously that was highly inappropriate. They know it's inappropriate but a good comedian might tell it anyway to emphasize a point, shock people. They don't want it taken out of context.
You only want to record them. Take a step back and think about it for a second. Do you have to allow me into your house with a video camera and record everything you do? Maybe, but you sure don't have to let me. You don't even have to let a police officer into your home with a camera, they would need a warrant. So why you as a public citizen who rented a space can't deny people from entering your rented venue can't deny it.
Now you go and learn how to properly debate instead of skirting an issue and changing the subject.
Oh shit, we're fucked now. Hillary found out how to use her powers of ESP to go online.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Sorry, but my safety overrules your greed. If terrorists start shooting up the place and I can't call for help (because I'm not allowed defend myself), don't be surprised that I don't spend my hard-earned money on your crappy show.
"Since when does the paid employee,... tell the employer ... what to do with their property?"
Unions?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Rob Zombie feeds off his audience, as most live performers do. His audience shouldn't be 10,000 Cameras recording from every possible angle ... unless he is doing some new form 3D performance piece. The art pieces you named weren't performance pieces per se. Paintings and compositions are for display, and as you said are for the viewer's experience, not the artists. However LIVE performances are not static pieces audiences, but rather are interactive. Rob wasn't being interactive with cellphones and iPads.
The fact that you don't understand the difference between a static piece of art (composition, painting) it is why you go see a play, and not just read the script.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It's a private venue, open to the public. That is the difference.
All the relevant laws apply - no discrimination against the usual groups, etc. But the venue owner has always reserved certain rights, such as prohibiting flash photography or audio/video recording. This is nothing new, and nothing has changed here other than venue owners now have an apparently effective preventative measure.
Don't like it? Vote with your wallet. Don't attend concerts / shows that require you to lock up your phone. You won't be missed by anybody.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
while the benefit for Chappelle is that his shows aren't recorded the benefit for the 99% of the audience that would prefer to experience the show without some asshat holding a bright screen up in front of them is enormous as well. I more and more only go to venues that enforce their no phone policies reasonably well because I am tired of having shows ruined by a couple of people who can't just stick it in their pocket and be there in the moment.
Yeah, because someone acting under the color of law is completely the same as someone performing a private show in a private venue, which you have every opportunity to not go to.
Super equivalent.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Maybe a better word would be skeuonym? We still say dialing a number, even though telephones haven't had dials for decades. Sports teams refer to looking at game film, when it's really digital video.
Want to know how I do it? I don't break the fucking law.
I break the law all the time and I never have to deal with police either. Are you just not that bright? Is that why you conflate those two things?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
So when you're driving home and there is a DUI checkpoint ahead, how do you not deal with the police?
I had this exact situation a few weeks back - on my way home with my girlfriend in the car, police had a checkpoint set up. The office claimed he could smell alcohol on my breath (total fucking horseshit) and performed a field sobriety test on me. Unsurprisingly, I passed and continued home, a little salty over the affair.
How would you "not deal" with that? Turn around as soon as you see the checkpoint, all but inviting a good legal rogering from making an illegal U-turn and giving them all the probable cause in the world to fuck you over? Tell the officer to fuck off, inviting arrest, or some other bullshit 'humble' charge they want to stick on you for not being cooperative? Refuse to get out of the car, which opens you up to being cited for DUI and the mountain of bullshit that comes with it?
Just because you "don't break the fucking law" doesn't mean that the law won't still fuck with you.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That private venue can have (legal) restrictions and rules placed on it by the owner.
Just because it's a public venue doesn't mean you get to do anything you want. Go ahead - go to a theater on opening night of the next blockbuster movie and whip out your phone and start recording. See what happens.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So, in other words, it would be just like the previous 225 years of the existence of the United States of America.
How did Abraham "Honest Abe" Lincoln ever get elected (twice) without smartphones to keep him honest!?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Go ahead and record a movie in the theaters with your phone and see what happens when you apply your rule of thumb. Here a movie showing in a theater is a public performance that is similar to concert, except it's not live.
Second-hand cellphone sellers report a surge in the purchase of second hand phones. "The trend is clearly towards people wanting a second phone" they say, surprised themselves by the development.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Haha, you've never actually been outside, have you? You know, to an actual live show?
You're only ever getting your money back if the show gets cancelled in advance. Once you're in the door and your ticket is scanned, the ticket has been used, your money is forfeit, the artist is 100% free to stop the show after a single song.
Don't like it? You're welcome to moan and complain to the organizers, and say you're never going to another show. In turn, they will tell you to go piss up a rope and get lost. The ticket pays for entrance, it is not a guarantee of a full show being performed.
Eat the rich.
Fuck that. You've paid to see an artist perform their material. In return, the artist expects some sort of feedback from the audience, it's a two-way thing.
The very least you can do is to be mentally present and engaged in what is happening, not staring into a screen wondering whether you've got the best angle for your crappy Facebook video.
Eat the rich.
Captain Gumption here.
Yes, a private citizen should get to decide how he's monitored.
I find the idea that he mentions being "more honest and open" indicates that he's worried about PC police as much as copyright infringement. The belligerent left is really beginning to destroy art and free expression from all directions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Do you really that's the only way people find out about concerts? Are you completely ignoring Facebook events created by the organizers/artists? Bandsintown? Actual word of mouth from talking to actual people?
If you cannot "word of mouth" a concert without having to upload a crappy photo or video, maybe that's because no one listens to what you say.
Eat the rich.
I hear a lot millennials are puzzled by the "Save" icon used in most software.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Now that people know what happens, they will bring one of their old phones to lock in and take pictures with their actual one.
I think it would be best for everyone if you just stayed at home, with your anger issues.
Eat the rich.
As a diabetic I am now using my phone to test and track my blood sugar readings by scanning an NFC enabled sensor I wear on my arm. I wonder if the people who make these policies consider that sort of (fairly legitimate) use case? Personally I would be in disbelief if someone attempted to lock away my phone at an event but I assume they make the policy clear up front so you at least have a choice on whether to attend.
I've heard this argument too many times. Setting commonly accepted private contractual standards by "voting with your wallet" is a flawed economic theory that makes the assumption that your average consumer makes rational economic decisions.
The fact is, consumers typically make terrible decisions with their purchasing power due to the desire of immediate gratifiaction and ignorance. Some of these bad choices manipulative pyschological marketing techniques are more responsible for than consumer ignorance.
That argument also assumes there's a competitor offering an equivilant alternative product/service with a better set of policies. This, too, is growing less and less the case.
Industries are well aware of these facts and abuse them often to their advantage by subtling changing the standard expectation consumers have. The recent trend in the entertainment industry is no exception.
The wishes of the performer are bullshit, they are showing themselves to the public and getting filmed. Boo hoo. I don't owe them a revenue stream above and beyond what I paid to see them.
If they're performing at a park where nobody has to pay, it's public. If they're performing at a private venue where you had to pay, it's not public. No, you don't, but you do have a contractual obligation if you purchased tickets and were notified about the requirements at the time of purchase.
If Chappelle wants to have stormtroopers locking up cellphones, well, I wasn't going to go see that lame ass anyway.
Your prerogative. I wouldn't go to see him, but simply because I don't really care for his work.
On a different note, I took my wife three times over the past few years to see John Prine, the folk singer. Prine doesn't give two shits who films him. I watched him sing. She got out her cellphone and went up to the edge of the stage and filmed him playing Angel from Montgomery and a couple other tunes. She wanted to remember the night that she saw him before he croaks.
I don't have any problem with any artist allowing people to record them. If John Prine wants to let his audience record him, more power to him! Aside from your inability to identify public and private venues, I don't see how what you wrote counters what I wrote.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I can tell you're not a performer. When you're performing, you're not thinking about the money. You're thinking about the show, and the energy of the crowd. At its best, you get a high better than anything else you will ever do in your life short of skydiving or (I assume) going into space. When the crowd sucks, it will piss you off and ruin your day, even if you've been paid.
Look at it this way: You're coding for two months on a project, and you're really proud of the work that you've put in and the way the project is going. When you show it to your boss, he barely looks up from his phone to see what you've been working on, sending a clear message of "Meh." Does the fact that you've been paid make you immune to being upset that your boss doesn't value the work you're doing?
I do not see how anyone is ever going to sell, or otherwise profit from, a shitty distortred recording from a fucking gig/concert.
Why doesn't this get mentioned? Who the fuck is going to watch a recording from a god damn iPhone, posted to YouTube, instead of buying a record? Can anyone explain how that is supposed to work?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Trump's PussyLeaks comments helped him with blacks. Apparently the only men in America who will still admit to liking pussy.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
>>>That's an interesting point. Since the venue is not public, can the venue owner ban blacks and jews from entering the "private venue"?
I called up a friend, he's a lawyer. he said,
the word venue is vague in this context so...
if you rented a place, and it's a peaceful gathering to speak, and people are by private invite only ( friends and family with no $$$ )
you can block the door to all or anyone, it's your place, your rules. think of weddings, whom you invite is private. you can not discriminate against the staff that works the location.
if you are selling tickets to a show, then everyone is welcome
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I see both sides of this argument. Performers don't want to stare at cell phone camera lenses, they want to see and connect with their fans. You can only do that when you see the whites of their eyes. Also, all that money bullshit for some more shallow performers comes into play I'm sure. But I think the core reason is that when you're a professional, performing live in front of a room of people, no matter how big or small, it's a very intimate experience. Seeing that very literal layer of abstraction with someone simply holding up their phones at you and looking at their screens just ruins it.
I also see the side that people want to be able to see and share the performance they paid for later. In a lot of ways it should be a given that you can record something like this. Not only does it make sense nostalgically but it makes sense in a sharing, exposure kind of way. Of course, if the video is shaky and the audio sucks ass, it really does do more harm than good. Maybe venues can offer a professional shot video of the concert and give it to you afterwards? That could rake in some additional revenue as well.
Anyway, I think augmented reality will help. I believe people won't be holding up phones in a few years. They'll be wearing camera lenses on their hats, their shirts, their glasses. This will free people up to experience performances the way they were intended - with their full attention on the performer that's working so hard to make the experience unforgettable.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
There is nothing private about an arena or large theater. If I were filming him in his house, he'd have a complaint.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
He had to go speak in person
As media reach increases, the asymmetry between your voice and "their" voice increases.
Recording reduces this asymmetry somewhat by helping to expose hypocrisy and lies.
Waiting for the person who pouches it with the ringer on max and then can't turn it off while it rings and they decide whether they have enough time before it stops ringing to even push past the 50 people in the row and get to the phone-zone.
Nah, no chance. I'm so sick and tired of these so-called "stars" and their ilk thinking they can dictate reality to the rest of the world. We pay their fucking salaries and they tell us how much better they are than us. All of Hollywood and the mass media can fuck straight off.
Personally? I support the right of musicians, comedians, and other performers to make these sorts of demands of their audience. As soon as you buy a ticket to any show, you've agreed to all sorts of contractual obligations (as printed in the fine print on the back that few people bother to read). So this is really just one more requirement to add to the list of things you can't do (like bringing in coolers).
BUT, I'd probably refuse to pay for a show with this rule in place. I know it drives some people crazy seeing others trying to take photos or video of a live performance with their phones. But in this day and age? That's a part of the experience people are paying for. I know when my wife and I went to see Van Halen last year, for example? We both grabbed video recordings of Eddie doing his guitar solo. As far as I'm concerned, that's one of those moments of "rock history" worth preserving. How many more years left of monster guitar playing does the guy have left in him? (And for that matter, how many more times will Van Halen perform live with David Lee Roth?) For what we paid to see it, I feel like getting to take home a little piece of the concert to replay later for friends isn't too much to ask.
Yes, it's stupid trying to record a whole show. All you're going to do is waste the money you spent to see it live so you have poor quality audio and relatively poor video of it that nobody will ever sit through and watch again. But making me put my phone in a locked bag until it's all over? That's a bit much.
Oh cry me a fine arts river. Matisse displayed his work in farm houses, at a time other artists demanded audiences trek to Paris to revere their holy arts. Marcel Duchamp engraved art on a toilet, when most artists expected shrines to their works. If history is any indication, it's doubtful future generations will look back with admiration at the "artists" who threw tissy fits at cell phone users.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
... except the performer.
Seems rather shortsighted to be blocking all that free publicity.
Stealing a joke? Really? If they are so concerned, that's what copyright is for... otherwise, they are just another lame entitled person with no real skills relying on secrecy to dupe people into spending money to see their lame show.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
What performers are complaining? I've been to 3 concerts in the past year. Not 1 has complained about cellphones, photos, recording.
This is an excellent point.
If I'm performing in front of a bunch of cameras, I'm not going to give as good a show. Then people will say, "See? Why should I spend the money to go to a live show?"
IMO, he gave a better answer/explanation for his request than many musicians do who have problems with phones.
Still? That whole attitude rubs me the wrong way. I'm from the generation who listened to White Zombie when it was new, and part of what gave that music its character was all the dubbing in of clips of sound f/x and people talking in old horror movies. In other words, he has re-recording pieces of other artist's work to thank for making his own music better.
But now, he takes issue with people recording his own performance.
Rock seems like it's dead to me, NOT because of people wanting to record parts of concerts they attend -- but because the core audience is older. I went to see Disturbed and Breaking Benjamin in concert recently. There just weren't that many of the energetic, partying college students and 20-somethings in the audience. You had far more middle-aged or older folks who got more excited about Disturbed's remake of Simon & Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" than anything else. As a 40-something myself, I'm not going to scream my lungs out and go crazy jumping around at a concert anymore. Not happening when it means it'll impact my ability to do my job the next morning or other commitments. I think many of the people going to ROCK concerts today are in a similar mindset. We still love the music and want to experience it live, but we're happy to sit on the lawn drinking a beer and maybe eating a slice of pizza or a burger from the concession stand while we take it all in. If you, as a performer, need the whole audience going crazy to validate what you're doing? I can understand that, but that's going to be an ongoing challenge for you when you perform a type of music that appeals to an audience that's maturing and aging.
...as long as they make it VERY clear that this is a condition, BEFORE you buy the ticket.
If its not mentioned, or buried in some post-sales small print, then they can go fuck themselves.
Go record your next phone call without telling the person you're talking to, then try to convince the judge that copyright matters when he rules for the person you recorded and awards damages. The mind boggles at how stupid some of you people are.
Go try and stick up for your rights as a "cellphone carrier" at the next show where they're banned, get arrested, then tell your friend he gave you inaccurate legal advice and sue him.
(not legal advice)
I get to a wedding, and the Bride/groom asks me to do this, I'll turn around, head home, and take my gift with me
Enjoy your wedding
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
I can imagine a world where no self-respecting politician will give a speech without the comfort of an accompanying comedian who conveniently insists on 'protection'. This is not good for democracy.
You can imagine that world, but it's Dave Chappelle's "dystopian future", huh?
There's a point that I think people like you are missing: Yondr does not disable recording devices or stop them from working. If someone wants to secretly record a political speech then they aren't going to put their recording device inside a bag that is going to lock itself when they go inside, they're going to use a camera and microphone that don't look like a camera and microphone. This "technology" requires the consent of the participants.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
My first thought was revulsion: people don't want to be treated like children. They will start bringing decoy phones or even box cutters.
Then I saw that they're also being marketed toward schools. Treating children like children makes more sense.
Also, it's better that we have technology like this instead of denial features getting baked into the phones (as has been proposed in the past) by law or by corporate collusion.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Who can't search you, the private security hired at a private venue? They may not be able to force anyone to submit to an arbitrary search, but they sure as hell can say that a requirement of entry is that you allow them to search you. If you don't want to be searched, fine, you don't have to, go away. If you want to enter the private establishment then they can tell you that they get to search you first. There's nothing illegal about that, you don't have some right to enter any building you want on your own terms.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You can lock my phone up, but I can still record audio with my smartwatch. You can also purchase eyeglasses with a hidden camera if you want to take pictures or video. I don't think this solution is going to work for very long as more and more wearables come to market.
Just experience the performance. That is the reason you are there, not to make a crappy recording of it.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
ERROR: INVALID LOGIC.
DETAILS:
In your fallacious example, you attempt to conflate an activity with a state of being. You cannot ban a black person for being black. Likewise, you cannot ban a smoker for being a smoker. However, you can ban the activity of smoking in your venue.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
NatasRevol, interesting that you are willing to put your limits on private venues but completely reject somebody else wanting to impose their limits simply because they are not your limits.
How about we go back to honoring the actual law of the land (the US Constitution) and let private property be private property and recognize that we are not supposed to have the notion of "class" in this country, especially not a notion enforced by law.
Oh yeah, let us also not forget that many concerts are actually taking place in actual publicly-owned venues.
Having recently had our teenage niece visit, I want these for the dinner table. Kids these days can't unhook from them, but really don't have the multitasking skills they seem to think they do. You can't listen to music in one ear, Instagram with your right hand, eat with your left and carry on a conversation with your other ear. You become a babbling pile of "Huh? What mom? Justa sec... Huh?".
My wife ended up realizing a couple months back that she had to leave her phone totally in silent and non-vibrate mode and out of reach or she could not help herself checking on it every time a text or alert came in. We had let things slide and let our 4 year old kid occasionally watch TV while eating dinner for a while, but we learned our lesson when it was clear he was tuning us and his dinner out and instituted a no-electronics policy at meal time. It is very cliche, but it has really made meals be enjoyable family time where we actually talk to each other. I really have turned into my parents...
There is nothing private about an arena or large theater.
Unless the arena or theater is owned by the local, state or federal government, it is indeed private. You seem to be engaging in some kind of equivocation where you're substituting private in a personal sense as opposed to private in a property sense.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Well that's a nice big ole strawman you got there.
I was saying the federal gov't has a class of people that can't be biased against.
Bitch to them, not to me. I didn't make the fucking laws.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Oh we don't even need to go that far. To use Chappelle as an example, he references the Michael Richards rant that basically screwed Richards' career in one of his stand up shows, and mentions semi-jokingly that's one of the reasons he's terrified of cameraphones.
And going back to that rant of Richards', if there wasn't a video of it, chances are nobody outside of that club would have even heard about it.
A live performance cannot be copyrighted due to the fact that it's live.
Read the rest of the lawyer's argument here:
http://www.socialbrite.org/200...
No kidding.
Ah yes. The first movie theater shooting was at the one theater that already banned firearms so all the others will prevent shootings at themselves by also banning guns. Logical failure.
You do know most states have a 1 party law, right? ie only one party has to agree to the recording. The party doing the recording.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Either I would refuse to participate in such an event, or I'd immediately tear/cut open the pouch upon entry, sorry. Phones are for a lot more than just videotaping concerts - including keeping an eye on my kids via texts from my babysitter, etc. I'm not going to be 100% unreachable due to the artists' paranoia.
Yes, I fully agree with their right to ban videotaping and photography. But - locking away my phone like that bans a LOT of other stuff they have no fucking right to even think about.
I hope this falls flat on it's face.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
So are they strip-searching everyone as they enter the venue? Seems like it would be rather trivial to conceal a device on your person, especially if you brought a decoy phone to put in their magic box. I was appalled at the huge number of rent-a-cop-types present at a recent comedy show I went to, yelling at anyone who had their phone out, even if they were clearly not using it to record the show.
I really want to support live performance--this is something performers really deserve to be paid well for (as opposed to royalties on recordings they already did the work for). This is not a viable solution, however. We've got to come up with a better way...and that may just be honestly. Fair use allows limited recordings of such events, and anything outside of that can and should be prosecuted. It seems to me like this isn't that much of an issue. No one's going to want to watch some shitty, low-light, phone cam version of an entire performance. These are usually just for oddball occurrences within shows and/or racist rants by performers.
Because a live performance, by a living human being, in front of an audience of living human beings is based on the performer's ability to interact with and perform in front of said audience.
I.e. To stand in front of and be observed by thousands of people.
Which is about as private as standing naked in the middle of a panopticon, and yelling so everyone can also hear you.
The fact that those people paid the toll to do that doesn't make any of it more private or less exposing.
Hell... Jim Jeffries got punched in the head by an audience member.
He later took the video of the event and included in his material - instead of demanding it be erased from the internet, because privacy.
Even though it is unflattering AND though he makes some bigoted statements about Irish in the "punch video".
Then again... he's not the kind of guy who would get a nervous breakdown and run away to Africa because he got paranoid about people wanting to see him in a dress or a kinda guy who'd file DMCA requests on account of being fat in a photo.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Exactly. I go to a show by myself and somebody hands me one of those without warning and I'll demand my money back and leave.
If, on the other hand, you're out on a date you might not realistically have that option in that exercising it might cause you undesirable consequences. Corporations and entertainers take advantage of this too.
I had a free ticket to a movie preview courtesy of a friend of mine. They wanted to take our cellphones on the way in. I told them no and turned around and left. Not on a date, wasn't gonna sleep with her, so had freedom. Otherwise, standing on principles causes domestic strife and the best bet is to just avoid events like this in the first place.
Oh cry me a fine arts river. Matisse displayed his work in farm houses, at a time other artists demanded audiences trek to Paris to revere their holy arts. Marcel Duchamp engraved art on a toilet, when most artists expected shrines to their works. If history is any indication, it's doubtful future generations will look back with admiration at the "artists" who threw tissy fits at cell phone users.
If Marchel Dechamp were to walk in and find someone shitting in the very toilet he created his art on, I promise you he would be irritated, in much the same way fellow artist Rob Zombie is rather irritated to look up at 10,000 camera lenses instead of true fans who clearly appreciate the moment.
Just wanted to clarify how different your examples are to the disrespect being served up to artists today.
For supposedly being on a debate team, your refutation of his points is at Trumpian levels.
HAHA! Indeed, and the desire to post as AC speaks volumes, too... at least Trump owns his rhetoric, no matter how incorrect it may be.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
It was a great insult to have art displayed in a contemporary place at one time, but it took someone of slightly higher mental acuity to recognize their own bombastic tendencies and look beyond them. It's incredibly pigheaded to have ten thousand people willing to get out to see you and immortalize their experience, and have no respect for that. Rob Zombie can either get a check on his gigantic ego or go the way of the rest of the artists whining to make it into the Louvre while Matisse immortalized himself in farmhouses.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
None of which is true.
It looks like a neoprene case, presumably with other layers to make it more robust. Audio would he very muffled at the very least.
Maybe you just don't understand the similarities in your haste to point out the differences.
But the differences are key. You can't just point out the similarities while disregarding the differences.
Well, you CAN, but you won't have a valid point to make.
Move to non-US country and check back, american...
People get searched for clubs and concerts all the time. You can refuse, but you won't get in if you do.
If you really wanted to smuggle a phone in, you'd take two phones. But then try to use it, and you're the odd one out with the phone everyone knows you're not supposed to have, and security may come get you.
Most people are reasonable enough to understand a no-phones policy, but many don't have the self-discipline to then leave the phone alone once in a venue. It's these people that it works for.
.... claims "not to be a tv guy" - yeah, sure: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm095...
I mean: If you don't want people to tell others about your festivity, why bother the efforts and expenses to celebrate a wedding in the first place? Just close the contract before either secular or religious authorities, go to bed early and enjoy your newly church-sanctioned conjugal intercourse.
I was a little surprised when I walked into the show and they had a check at the door set up to accommodate this. Honestly, the only practical downside was that they should have a option to check the stupid thing at the door so I didn't have to lug the bag around with me.
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
"I know my show is protected, and it empowers me to be more honest and open with the audience"
translation:
I want to be able to speak my mind but I am terrified the outrage machine might latch on to one off hand comment I might make and crucify me.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
it sounded to me less like he was annoyed with people recording and more with not being able to see the people for all the devices. I wonder how he'd do with an audience with a bunch of google glasses?
It was a great insult to have art displayed in a contemporary place at one time, but it took someone of slightly higher mental acuity to recognize their own bombastic tendencies and look beyond them. It's incredibly pigheaded to have ten thousand people willing to get out to see you and immortalize their experience, and have no respect for that. Rob Zombie can either get a check on his gigantic ego or go the way of the rest of the artists whining to make it into the Louvre while Matisse immortalized himself in farmhouses.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps an entertainer should simply give up on the notion of actually entertaining their fans, and stop touring altogether. Sure seems like a rather pointless effort from the perspective of the one sweating for two hours on a stage every night.
I'm certain Rob Zombie, being an old-school kind of entertainer, would respect that rather obvious point, even when 10,000 ignorant "fans" don't. Because the point Rob is trying to make is that obvious, it also has support from fans today, unlike other spoiled artists of yesteryear.
And if anyone needs to get a check on their out-of-control ego, I'd say it's the over-entitled shithead who thinks they can ruin the experience for everyone around them with their cell phone addiction during a concert just because they paid for a ticket.
They can ban protected classes too, just not *BECAUSE* they're a protected class.
Have you ever been on stage, and tried to perform for a completely unresponsive audience? It's an extremely shitty experience.
Eat the rich.
In that case, I think everyone would prefer if you would just stay at home at interact with no one.
Eat the rich.
What if an emergency arises and now my mobile device is locked in a pouch? I have given up my ability to use the device.
Yes I still possess the device, but that is cold comfort if someone starts shooting up the place and I have to call 911....and can't.
Did you even read my post?
My mobile device does lots of things. But as I stated in my post - I don't USE it for anything DURING a concert. Did I say I ONLY use it for safety and security? No - I said that was the PRIMARY reason for carrying the device.
You apparently have difficulty with reading comprehension maybe you should try reading stuff a few times before posting replies.
So if my kids are trouble and they need to contact me, your suggestion is that they call me at the concert or venue.
Have you even put two braincells into your reply?
IF my kids could figure out what number to call - there is no guarantee that anyone there would take the call.
Then there is the problem of the helpful "staff" as you call them finding me in a sea of other people.
You aren't the brightest bulb on the tree now are you?
So is recording a concert an activity or a state of being?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
That's because it would be an unreasonable demand in the circumstances. Nothing they can do with their phone in any way affects me, or any other customers I might have.
Have you ever spent $50 to see someone perform and try to capture the moment, only to have the jerk you spent $50 to see yell at you for not experiencing things how they see fit? I actually have several friends who have bands, and I can tell you they'd be more than happy to have 10,000 cameras flooding them onto social media. Further more, art and general aesthetic response is subjective. Art isn't even about the audience per se, though artist and audience can blend those lines. Of course, I don't think grumpy musicians are generally reveling in meta-art the moment they tiss fit about cameras from stage, though I'm sure at some point a clever artist will play those strings.
I am a god! ...
The audience in the palm of my hand,
Moved by my every word,
Swaying to the rhythms I command,
I am a god!
Wait, what are you doing with those cameras my worshipers!?
Put those up you plebeian scum, I am your god.
Put those up so you can worship me how I see fit!
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
I doubt it's about stealing a joke. It's more about potential ticket holders seeing the material on YouBook rather than buying a ticket and attending the show.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Good job being obtuse. You responded to the actual situation, rather than the hypothetical.
Can you seriously not think of some scenario where you are already engaged with police without knowing it, and "disengaging" would simply increase the level of suspicion? If you can't then I'm thinking that you really do live in a basement and just get everything delivered by Amazon and DoorDash.
Another example that happened to me: you are in a park on a particularly beautiful fall day. You have your camera because you want to also take some pictures. You're taking pictures and a police officer walks up and starts asking you pointed questions because the park also happens to be a water reservoir for the city, and he's thinking that you are casing the joint for some future attack due to you vaguely pointing the lens in his direction, even though he has no idea what you have framed, and the level of telephoto zoom you are using in order to get his car out of the shot. How do you not deal with that?
There are thousands of completely innocent non-law breaking actions that can be taken every day that can be interpreted as something that police will take issue with. To say that "I don't break the law therefore I never deal with the police" is asinine, and you sound like a complete fucking moron.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Thanks for sharing. This link is very helpful.
It's a two-way respect kind of thing. Some artists love it, some don't. Similarly, some people just have to record literally everything, while some people prefer to live in the moment.
A quick snapshot? Sure.
Recording the whole damn show? You're an idiot. Your video is going to be utter shit, and you're missing the actual show to record it.
Eat the rich.
Liking pussy != grabbing pussy without prior consent, formal or informal
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm pretty sure he said "they let you do it." Almost as if there are women who enjoy getting their pussies grabbed by famous musicians, TV & movie stars, etc, and seek them out for that very purpose.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
In the UK, several Labour politicians have been embarrassed by phone footage of speeches given to groups of far left activists. For example, the shadow chancellor was recently revealed as celebrating the Great Recession in 2008 as something that he had been waiting years for in his fight to overthrow capitalism. And phone footage of Momentum meetings has shown activists scheming to have moderate politicians deselected (essentially removed from office for those not familiar with UK politics). There has definitely been a backlash in the polls against these revelations.
None of which is true.
It's all true.
The Momentum footage appeared on a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary. I've viewed it myself. Similar evidence was shown on a BBC1 Panorama report. Again, I've viewed it myself. The footage of the shadow chancellor was highlighted by the Daily Telegraph and it's also on YouTube. Once more, I've viewed it myself.
Your denial of reality demonstrates why video evidence is so important if the public is to know the truth.
No, there's also a difference between letting someone do something and enjoying it or even being OK with it. There also may be women who want Trump to grab their pussy, but Trump sure didn't imply that he checked that first.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Have you ever been with a woman? How did you know when it was the right time to grab her pussy?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
You sound like a broken record. You aren't the kind of person I'd interact with, anyway.
Just because you say it's true, and say that you've seen video, and that's your interpretation, does not make it true.
It's not true.
"Grab" sounds more abrupt and rough than my usual lovemaking, and as far as I know my wife has no complaints about me in that department. I touch my wife's pussy in the context of privacy and a sexual relationship (which I've had with two women) and good feelings towards each other. It isn't my first move of the cuddling, and I can judge how she reacts to other things I do.
That's how it works with me. If you want a more general answer, you'll get better from someone not on the autism spectrum.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Okay. Well, for non-autists, here's how it works. The man says something to the woman like "hey baby, wanna come see my collection of erotic Japanese lithographs?" (or in the modern parlance, "netflix and chill") This is called a "pretext." No one actually cares about the lithographs. It's just an excuse to be alone.
Once you're alone, the man and the woman chat and flirt. The girl tosses her hair, laughs at jokes that aren't funny and generally signals her interest and availability to the man. When the guy thinks she's ready, and will agree to move forward, he tries to kiss her, and honk her boobs. He does not get the express written consent of the woman (and Major League Baseball) before making his move. Essentially, he's reading her mind. And this is exactly what she wants him to do: correctly read her mind. She does not want some pussy meekly asking "M'lady, w-would it be acceptable if I was to kisseth thy on the lips, and grabbeth of they womanhood?"
Now, most of the time, this works out well and sexy-time ensues, because she wouldn't have agreed to be alone with the man, or laughed at the stupid jokes if she didn't want to get physical with him. Sometimes, though, the woman is incredibly naive, and actually just wanted to see the lithographs. Sometimes she's a cocktease who just wanted the attention (particularly from a rich, famous man) and so she led him on. She will then say "no, this isn't what I wanted" and so long as the man stops when she says "no," his worst crime is failing to read a woman's mind. But there's no malice involved, and no reason to condemn an honest misunderstanding as "sexual assault." Everyone should just feel a little embarrassed, move on, and not talk about it again.
This is why modern feminist ideas of "rape culture" are stupid. Before the sexual revolution we didn't let men and women be alone together. We had chaperones. We socially shamed men who wanted to be alone with women as pigs and women who wanted to be alone with men as sluts. This prevented most cases of unwanted touching. Now however, they want to be able to put themselves in positions where unwanted touching can occur without judgement, but when the man fails to read the woman's mind properly, she's suddenly a poor innocent victim and the man needs to punished (by government, even!).
You don't get to have it both ways. Women are either incapable of navigating sexual situations in which case we go back to chaperones and slut shaming, or they're strong independent wymynz and they can deal with a misplaced grope here and there when somebody gets their wires crossed without having to run to the state.
Personally, I don't give a shit about any of this crap. I think feminism is retarded. What I find hilarious is the feminists telling me Trump is the bad man for disrespecting women and therefore I need to give up on the policies of his I like. But Hillary, silencing her husband's rape victims (objectively worse), and they're not willing to give up on their policies to dump her! Clearly, the president's treatment of women in private is not actually that big of a deal to them. If it isn't a big deal to them, and it's THEIR FUCKING ISSUE, then why the hell should I care?
It'd be like yelling at a Democrat that they can't vote for Hillary now because her Wall Street speeches reveal she'll use executive actions to enact gun control. If you're voting for the Democrat, you either want the guns snatched, or you don't give a shit about guns anyway. It's not your issue, and not persuasive!
Article II of the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being a proxy battle for gender culture wars, so I do not give a fuck one way or the other how the president treats women in private. Feminists can take their gender politics bullshit and cram it right up their pussies. Nobody else wants to grab them, that's for damn sure.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Having not been to one in years, I have to ask, do they tell you before you buy your ticket, or when you show up at the venue? If they let you know in advance, than it should be trivial to avoid them, if it happens at the venue, do they even allow refunds at that point?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You pay for a concert, but that does not make you the employer, any more than buying an item at a convenience store means you "employ" the shopkeeper, nor does paying taxes mean you can order around the guys fixing potholes.