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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Not wasting a cent on any performer who engages in this nonsense.
Good. You stick to your guns and never go to another live show again.
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.
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.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
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.
"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.
I beg to differ.
I completely agree with you that it is a live experience that should be experienced live.
But it's a difference between a 20 seconds clip to try to make your friends green with envy (if that's possible with the crappy quality) or to serve as a souvenir (only needs to be barely recognizable for that) or trying to make the worst replacement of a professional DVD production.
Best solution I've seen was a singer-songwriter. At the beginning he asked the audience to put phones away until the encore, during which the stage (and house) lighting would be set in a way that would allow for at least somewhat acceptable picture quality. Result: Audience (and artist) got an undisturbed show AND souvenir material.
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.
It goes in a neoprene pouch which you then hold on to, you don't part with anything.
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.
This day and age? Hell, the Grateful Dead did it for DECADES ... and yet, they always seemed to sell tickets to the next show.
Why, you can even go and download high bitrate MP3s of shows, often recorded directly from the sound board. Here ya go - only 11000 recordings... https://archive.org/details/Gr...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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.
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.