2) Someone who wants to record the show could easily do it even with these checks. I expect there's another motive.
3) Dave Chappelle has had some difficulty with audience interaction in the past, and this may be a way to keep the audience more focused on the material and performer, increasing their enjoyment of the show.
2. Raising the barrier of entry will disincentivize most people from doing it.
I've had close friends try to show me crappy recordings of live music shows on their mobile phone. No thank you, next time send an invite so I can see it live.
3. Audience interaction is probably a lot more difficult when every numbskull with a smartphone is simultaneously trying to record the show.
Short story, enjoy the damn show and stop trying to rebroadcast crap quality copies of the real thing.
I recently had the privilege of seeing Bill Burr live at a crappy little venue. The show was even better than I imagined, with tons of new material.
10/10 I'd pony up the cash to see him next time he's in town.
Moreover, by asking people to put their phone under a lock, the venue implies that they view every attendee as a thief. That sure as hell won't go down well with some and they will find a way to record and post to YouTube purely out of spite.
That might be, but it changes the game for security guards. You go from "17,000 people trying to film" to "a few dozen troublemakers trying to film", which is actually manageable.
Now it's 17,000 people you have to try and get your anti-cellphone device back from. Given that they have some sort of proximity sensor and powered lock, they can't afford to lose hundreds/thousands a night to people who forget to turn them in.
At scale (which is what you have very quickly, considering each shows brings huge numbers), those sensors get cheap enough that you just factor them in even at 0% return rates. They won't cost more than $20 each; put half the cost on tickets and half on losses and you're good. To operations the size of Chappelle's, good-quality leaked video is worth millions.
Besides, why would they lose so many? Like 3d glasses, the novelty goes away very quickly.
As the article says, Mumford & Sons and Hannibal Burress have already been using the system. It should be easy for you to show that people have leaked videos from shows where the pouches were used.
As a viewer of live shows, if this decreases my chance of having my view blocked by some asshole who has decided to view the whole show through a grainy 3x5in window instead of experiencing life, I'm all for it. When I go to this sort of thing, I try not to bring my phone anyway.
I went to a Prince concert a couple years ago that had a "no phones" policy announced ahead of time.
At first I thought, "bummer," and although I would love to have pics from that night, I think audience participation was much higher than it would've been if everyone had their phones out.
This pouch would've been great, because I had to leave my phone in the office a half mile away as I walked to the venue.
> At first I thought, "bummer," and although I would love to have pics from that night
Honestly, when I hear this, I think, "Why?" You want block the views of the people behind you and watch Prince on a 3x5in screen when he's physically right in front of you just so you have some grainy, poorly-lit photos of your own instead of looking at the professional photos of Prince that are available online? It harms the experience of other fans. It harms your own experience. It harms the performer's bottom line. There's literally no upside to this.
I usually only take one or two photos when I'm at a concert, specifically to put on Instagram to show my friends, "hey I'm at a Prince concert right now!" But the person just taking a video of the entire show? Agree, lame.
I do think most people place a higher value on photos they took themselves - that much is obvious.
People don't place a higher value on the photo than the experience.
They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience, typically so that they can remember it. Sure, you can look at a professional photograph of Times Square, but it's probably not going to help you remember the time when you were there. And you can't point to it and later and say, "hey grandkids, try to imagine me standing here but really young!"
It's bizarre to me that you don't understand this.
It's also strange that you think spending time taking a photo would cause you to somehow "miss" the experience - which, I guess would be true if the experience were a one-time only event that lasted a few seconds - but spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.
> They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience
You don't get to have both. You have to take time out of the experience to take a picture of it.
> typically so that they can remember it.
This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure.
If you want something to remind you of it: have T-shirts I bought at every concert I've ever been to, which have the benefit of supporting the band and not taking time from the show and the experiences of the people behind me. They're also something I'll actually look at on a regular basis, because there are few enough of them that I can realistically look through them all, and most of them are still in good enough condition that I wear them occasionally. I've recently switched to buying records at the concerts instead, which has an even more direct connection to the experience.
> spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.
How is buying a shirt or a record that thousands of other people own a "more direct connection" than a photo from my point of view or actually of me at the event?
It's not. You're just arguing to argue.
Unless you mean that it more directly supports the band, to which I say, why don't you just throw dollar bills onstage.
> This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure.
"Hey, I would've taken photos of my wedding, but I don't expect to get the Alzheimer's, so screw it."
Oh, you're saying people place a higher value on photos than the 1% of the experience they trade to make them? Yeah, that makes total sense. They still have the other 99%. I don't see why you would call that absurd.
Probably for the same reason people take snapshots on vacation despite not being professional photographers with thousand dollar lenses. It's a direct connection to the place and the event, a memento. A professional photograph depersonalizes it.
> It's a direct connection to the place and the event, a momentum.
It's absolutely not direct connection. You're looking at the phone which is looking at the thing, not looking at the thing. It's more direct than a professional photograph, but it's less direct than looking at the thing.
Sure, but it's just a few seconds to preserve the memory of precisely where you were and what you saw. There's really no substitute for that and the cost to the experience is minimal.
And to elevate oneself socially based on select signalling of goods and services consumed, places visited and activities performed.
The photos will happily sit on a device, external storage or the printed page for occasional review but let's be honest here: it has less worth unless others see it. It's not the memory-trigger aspect that's so important but the feeling people get from knowing others are admiring what they're doing. The act is mostly for signalling.
Some people forget the era where you typically didn't have a camera everywhere you went, and when you did have a camera you were limited by the amount of film you had. I remember that time and have plenty of vivid memories from it thanks to carrying the best camera I've ever owned: my eyes.
the cost to the experience is minimal
For the people capturing the moment perhaps. In Versailles I was whacked in the head with a selfie stick by a pirouetting halfwit. People fumbling with their phones and selfie sticks aren't considerate of the people around them.
True but give them a smartphone or vanity-stick and they become weapons-grade nuisances. I wouldn't advocate banning those devices, I just wish people would be more considerate of others around them. The problem starts with the individual, and being considerate is something that can be learned.
I agree, its totally out of control. Kind of ridiculous when you go to a concert and the majority of people are watching the show on the screen of their phones rather than directly
Art Garfunkel has a similar no phones policy for his shows. It was honestly liberating to turn my phone off, and I enjoyed the show so much more while everyone else did the same.
I was just listening to an Episode of the Nerdist podcast featuring Aziz Ansari today and he talked about the issue of people taking pictures or filming his live material and leaking it to the public. He said he had no issue with people recording material that is already public, but that it really stinks when new material is leaked because it waters down the humor for future attendees of his shows. To combat this, at the beginning of his shows, he asks everyone to take out their phones/cameras and stands there while they take pictures of him. Then he nicely asks them to not use their phones/cameras during the rest of the show. Obviously this doesn't stop everyone but I think it's a pretty low-cost, high reward option.
a counter argument.. i went to a ucb monday night, aziz was on the ticket which is what prompted the memory, and i understand comedians do free shows, or favourite haunts, to work material
i once saw mitch hedberg do a 10$ show nearly from a notepad and made it part of the joke, taking notes on audience reaction then noting the reaction to the notes
at the ucb show there was a comedian i was unaware i was familiar with named josh fadem, he did a bit on werner herzog pitching a hidden camera show that i laughed over for three comedians after fadem's set
i wanted to remember the nuance of the bit and scoured the internet but was unable to find anything substantial, i did find this(o) early in development version of the joke but it pales in comparison to the complexity and construction of the one i saw him do live
i really wish someone had a phone on him that night
And then you think of the thousands upon thousands of years humans have experienced very special, nuanced moments without any way of reliving them. Sometimes you just have to appreciate experiencing it in the moment.
note i said i wish someone had a phone on him, selfishly relieving myself of the burden
i used to do an open mic circuit and the coolest thing i saw at a bar was an mc with a tech bent that upon agreement would pipe the mic through recording software as well as the pa and then automated a conversion and upload system where you, or any visitor, could go to the bar's website and download your set in high quality mp3
Why is it so important to share it? Often I find expressions of art wherein I find enjoyment in their nuances are almost unshareable, in that other people's reactions to it will almost invariably disappoint you (the "Check out this new song I heard!" problem).
There is a different joy in knowing you experienced something no one else will.
if you want to discuss the arbitrary importance i would posit i think it important to live in opposition to the conceit 'well, i got mine'
that may be in direct opposition to the wishes of the developer of the work, in this case chappelle, which i would default in respecting, while simultaneously arguing the choice
pauli(o) would agree the experience is unshareable
Robert Fripp reversed a longtime no recording policy on the latest King Crimson tour by scheduling time at the beginning, the intermission, and the final bow of every show when people can do this. On the first of the three nights they played in Toronto, someone took a picture during the opening of 21st Century Schizoid Man and the show was stopped, but not before Fripp apparently stood up and pointed out the guy who did it so everyone could see why the band abruptly stopped playing.
Anyone who spends a few minutes on Twitter these days can see how terrifying a public shaming can be, so I can see this practice being a strong motivator. I'm not sure it's better than Ansari's method, though.
Ah, starting an arms race, eh. A GoPro under your shirt (poking out between the buttons) would work fine if you aren't even trying, and there are plenty of more stealthy solutions that a visit to Amazon and $10 will get you.
My first thought was "I almost want to go to his show and leak the video". But then I realized, that's probably exactly what he wants. Free publicity for announcing this scheme. Free publicity when the video leaks. Free publicity when Twitter discusses it. Free publicity when he "gets mad". Free publicity as analysts analyze what it all means.
Brilliant. I haven't heard from Dave Chappelle in years, but here he is on the front page of a startup-oriented news site.
Also good marketing from that startup that makes the pouches.
> Ah, starting an arms race, eh. A GoPro under your shirt (poking out between the buttons) would work fine if you aren't even trying, and there are plenty of more stealthy solutions that a visit to Amazon and $10 will get you.
Eh, at least that doesn't block my view when I'm standing behind you.
But if it doesn't block RF people are still receiving incoming calls and texts with ridiculous ringtones, which has got to be annoying, even to professionals.
I doubt that's the rationale. No offense, but you sound like someone who only knew about him because of his show. He's been doing a lot of different things and I would say that arguably his career is doing better than ever.
I don't think that's the point. This is just a measure that's more effective than an announced reminder to turn cell phones off. Comedians just want to limit how many people have heard their jokes before. This device will certainly improve things.
I can see somebody's phone starts ringing or otherwise making a noise and they can't get to it to turn it off.
I play chess and phones are banned from events (they sometimes have metal detectors at the door of large tournaments). Which causes a problem if you don't have a nearby car or hotel room to leave them in. Although recently they have tweaked the rules to allow phones to be in your bag (turned off).
They explicitly ask you to make sure it's on silent before they put it in the bag and hand it back. Of course there could easily be mistakes, but there were not at last night's show.
I've thought about this problem before, and came to a different (though perhaps inferior) solution.
Why not broadcast the material via wifi directly to the audience's devices, and have audience listening with headphones? What if audience member doesn't own a device? There would be spare devices at box office that would be provided / rented. It would certainly change the ambiance of the performance since the acoustics of the venue wouldn't be heard, but it wouldn't prevent people from (for example) hearing the laughter of the crowd around them.
I think if the app was designed right, it could possibly stop people from recording. Not that it would technically be possible to prevent people from recording, but since you control the stream of data to the device you can embed "watermarks" in real time during the performance. So if someone did try to record it would be theoretically possible to trace back to precisely which user / device was responsible for leaking the performance.
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps it would be safe enough to allow the user to retain a copy (with watermarks included), accessible via the app they used to listen to the performance live.
I'm not dropping $60 to sit in a theater with a bunch of strangers, pay $10 for a Miller Lite so I can watch Dave Chapelle on my phone...
That said I'm not sure just how much of a point there is to this. I saw Chapelle a year or so back, and he was very agro about calling out people using phones (even to just check a text message) and having them tossed out. That really ruined the show, not the interruption itself but his jackass attitude. It's like media companies fighting new technology, adapt or die. Contrast this with Weird Al where he embraces phones and goes through the venue taking selfies.
Oh, not watch, but listen. That's not to say you couldn't push a video to each user's account as well, but I'm saying the only thing that would change about (at least in this case a comedian's performance) is you would hear the performer crystal clear and wouldn't have to worry about distractions nearby. The audio of the performance would be broadcast directly to your phone and heard through your headphones.
And why not, you could even add back the acoustic effects into the stream so people still feel like they're listening to the performance in a big hall (or wherever the venue might be).
EDIT: And I think the solution doesn't necessarily fight back against new technology. Rather I think this embraces new technology. Sure it does take steps to protect the content, but that's only because these days it's so easy for anyone with a phone to distribute live shows in pretty much real time if they want to. If comedy becomes a lost art and is no longer interesting to people as a form of entertainment then perhaps another form of entertainment will take its place. But if that doesn't happen I can't see how a popular form of entertainment can "adapt" into something that is "different than it used to be" in order to prevent piracy.
I already think artists have more or less warmed up to the idea that they need to incorporate more live shows into their regimen to make a living at it. But then all of a sudden it's easy to pirate that content as well. It certainly feels like a problem that needs to be addressed. Before long if recorded entertainment isn't making any money, and now live entertainment can't be expected to make any money, what's left besides looking in the classifieds for something else entirely?
What's the point of going to a live show if you're just going to watch/listen to it from a device.
Live a little, enjoy the moment. Put down your phone, the twittersphere will go on without you. Or stay home and make more room for those of us that show up for the performance rather than the social cred (ie bragging rights) of going to a show.
For the most part I would say I agree with you. I'd say if devices can enhance an experience it's more than likely a constructive use of technology. When devices remove you from the experience altogether I'd say it's a destructive use of technology. So what is lost in the above example? Simply the fact that audio is not echoing off of the walls in the venue. I can see why some people would find that to be a problem, but how sound is delivered to the audience's ears is not a huge difference IMO. Especially when that audience is just sitting at the show and is not expected to participate anyways.
But keep in mind that's not really the point. The thread has to do with ways to protect a comedian's content (especially live shows) from piracy. The point of the article was to show an example of how technology can be used to help protect a comedian's (or perhaps other performers') live shows.
Performers can spend their entire lives building up the skills they use to put on 5 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute, etc. shows. How else can a performer recoup that time invested if they can't expect to perform the routine many times and be paid each time? The issue with piracy of live shows is many (perhaps most) people will no longer be interested in paying to see a show they've already seen for free online. Or at the very least they'll be disappointed because they've seen exactly the same act before online for free.
It's not like the content is exclusive to live shows. Most famous comedians share plenty of their content via specials, talk shows, interviews, podcasts, etc.
In this case, 'protecting content' is a red herring.
The value of going to see a show live is transient experience of being there in person. Seeing the performer, immersing yourself in the energy of the crowd.
Spending the entire event trying to record it on a mobile phone is not only a completely selfish and self-absorbed act, it actively takes away from the experience of others. Not only by blocking/distracting others from the show but by failing to participate in the experience.
The energy of an entire room navel-gazing on their phones during a show doesn't come close to a room of people laughing, cheering, and having a great time.
I spend plenty of time watching YouTube videos of my favorite comedians. The smart ones like Bill Burr share a lot of their own content off-stage (ex "Bull Burr's tour of LA"). It's -- by no means -- a replacement for the real deal but it's good to 'whet the appetite'.
I can completely understand the extroverted nature of performers. Comedians especially, feed off the energy of the crowd. The very best have a lot of sensitivity to the moods/nature of their audience and will actively adjust their content/delivery to provide the best experience possible. Watch how they take on hecklers and make them part of the joke. Watch the look of terror in their faces when they recall times when they've bombed a show in the past.
A audience that doesn't actively participate is a terrible audience undeserving of a good show.
This is much better than phone jammers, which some venues tried about a decade ago. The FCC and telcos have been reasonably successful at stopping that.[1] Many (most?) cell phone sites now detect and report interference, so jammers get noticed quickly.[2]
The company that does this will probably lose a few percent of their cases per use, but, like 3D glasses, most people will return them at the drop-off bins.
It's not easy to get the pouches off. It's a pretty strong magnet - I'm assuming as strong as the retail stores use to avoid theft. I certainly couldn't pull it apart myself, though it comes off in a snap if you have the opposing magnet - of which they had plenty at the exit - which made getting our phones back far more efficient than I'd expected.
Oh, that's how it works. From the info on their web site, it looks like it's something that's controlled by some signal at the venue, and unlocks automatically when you leave the controlled area.[1] Yonder's site says "If at any point attendees need to use their phones, they simply step outside of the phone-free zone to unlock the case."
I was at the [fantastic] show last night. The team handling the Yondr pouches were friendly and efficient. It's weird to have your phone in your pocket without being able to use it. Akin to a dead battery, but bigger. I'd been concerned that it was going to take forever to leave the venue because we had to line up to get our phones out of the pouches, but they were also friendly and perfectly efficient on the way out. I'd say it didn't add any more time than getting a 21+ wristband on the way in, and even quicker while leaving.
The show was absolutely more enjoyable. I don't personally care if people check their phones and record live shows, but I absolutely despise when my view is obstructed by someone waving their device around trying to get a shot. I'm here to watch a relatively expensive live show, not watch other people record it.
As a potential downside, the opening comedian hadn't showed up, which left us sitting and watching / listening to the DJ for 2 hours before Dave Chapelle hit the stage. The DJ did an excellent job keeping the crowd entertained, but there were a few lulls where I would have loved to pop into HN or Reddit or something since it was literally idle time.
Sure, there was plenty of interaction, chatting, some dancing, and other fun with people around us. And maybe there was more than there would have been otherwise. But I still felt a bit like I was being punished. I know perfectly well how to balance being social with staring at a screen, and I'd rather not have that option taken from me. There were three times in that two hours that a quick google or calendar lookup would have enlightened rather than hindered the moment.
Who knows the consequence for someone who is "on-call"? I haven't been on call in a few years, but I'd hate to have to miss a great show because of it.
All in all, I'd say it was well implemented and an interesting exercise that might be a bit hard to swallow depending on the show, the venue, and our various communication needs. I was happy to do it for one of my all-time favorite comedians. It's not likely I would have participated for a smaller show.
Edit: sidebar - in the article it says...
Simply leave the designated zone (and head, say, to the lobby bar), and, as you move past several strategically placed stations, the pouches can now magically be unlocked.
We had to go to the tables at the exit (or to the downstairs bar outside of the venue) for them to release the locks with a big magnet akin to the anti-theft contraptions at retail clothing stores. Maybe they just used those because it's a much smaller venue, or maybe the "designated zone" isn't prime-time yet.
one in which comedians can breathe a little bit easier
knowing their bluest material won't wind up online
before last call
"bluest" has to be the best word to describe my feelings about this effort
walt whitman made a legacy from releasing 'blue' material, perhaps most notable in his second addition of leaves of grass which he affectionately called 'my blue book'(o)
it was the edition that he carried in his pocket to do edits and addendums
this fear of showing development is odd to me and seemingly harmful to future generations
mathematicians are often teased for it, being accused of hiding mountains of failures while presenting discoveries, seemingly conjured like magicians
expression is hard work(i), why would anyone additionally expel one's limited effort to make it appear easy?
i was only able to find a paid link: 1.99$ from amazon video even if you're a prime subscriber; season 1 episode 11, froot loops for dinner, follows a comedian working material like a comedian
Because the comedian will be testing out new jokes that will often push boundaries.
Say he tells a joke about race. If he gets a bad reaction from the small crowd then he just won't use the joke again or rework it. He moves onto the next joke in the set.
If somebody is recording the show then that offensive joke will get put onto youtube and the headlines will be "XYZ tells racist joke".
The point being. I don't see it as socially acceptable for audience members to ruin the experience for others because they feel entitled to record/distribute their viewing experience.
A lot of people act as though, 'if isn't posted on facebook/twitter/etc' it didn't happen. I personally think the opposite, I'd rather devote my energy to being present in the moment with the people around me. Endlessly sharing de-values the experience for me personally.
Maybe there's a compromise. Offer an option for people who attend events to promote their public personal. Create like a public/press box where they can do as they like without taking away from the experience of others.
66 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] thread2) Someone who wants to record the show could easily do it even with these checks. I expect there's another motive.
3) Dave Chappelle has had some difficulty with audience interaction in the past, and this may be a way to keep the audience more focused on the material and performer, increasing their enjoyment of the show.
I hope he's as funny as he used to be.
I've had close friends try to show me crappy recordings of live music shows on their mobile phone. No thank you, next time send an invite so I can see it live.
3. Audience interaction is probably a lot more difficult when every numbskull with a smartphone is simultaneously trying to record the show.
Short story, enjoy the damn show and stop trying to rebroadcast crap quality copies of the real thing.
I recently had the privilege of seeing Bill Burr live at a crappy little venue. The show was even better than I imagined, with tons of new material.
10/10 I'd pony up the cash to see him next time he's in town.
Moreover, by asking people to put their phone under a lock, the venue implies that they view every attendee as a thief. That sure as hell won't go down well with some and they will find a way to record and post to YouTube purely out of spite.
Besides, why would they lose so many? Like 3d glasses, the novelty goes away very quickly.
At first I thought, "bummer," and although I would love to have pics from that night, I think audience participation was much higher than it would've been if everyone had their phones out.
This pouch would've been great, because I had to leave my phone in the office a half mile away as I walked to the venue.
Honestly, when I hear this, I think, "Why?" You want block the views of the people behind you and watch Prince on a 3x5in screen when he's physically right in front of you just so you have some grainy, poorly-lit photos of your own instead of looking at the professional photos of Prince that are available online? It harms the experience of other fans. It harms your own experience. It harms the performer's bottom line. There's literally no upside to this.
Practice some immediacy.
I do think most people place a higher value on photos they took themselves - that much is obvious.
That's true, but it seems absurd to me to place a higher value on a photo than the experience itself.
They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience, typically so that they can remember it. Sure, you can look at a professional photograph of Times Square, but it's probably not going to help you remember the time when you were there. And you can't point to it and later and say, "hey grandkids, try to imagine me standing here but really young!"
It's bizarre to me that you don't understand this.
It's also strange that you think spending time taking a photo would cause you to somehow "miss" the experience - which, I guess would be true if the experience were a one-time only event that lasted a few seconds - but spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.
You don't get to have both. You have to take time out of the experience to take a picture of it.
> typically so that they can remember it.
This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure.
If you want something to remind you of it: have T-shirts I bought at every concert I've ever been to, which have the benefit of supporting the band and not taking time from the show and the experiences of the people behind me. They're also something I'll actually look at on a regular basis, because there are few enough of them that I can realistically look through them all, and most of them are still in good enough condition that I wear them occasionally. I've recently switched to buying records at the concerts instead, which has an even more direct connection to the experience.
> spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.
Except those five minutes.
It's not. You're just arguing to argue.
Unless you mean that it more directly supports the band, to which I say, why don't you just throw dollar bills onstage.
> This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure.
"Hey, I would've taken photos of my wedding, but I don't expect to get the Alzheimer's, so screw it."
Whatever.
It's absolutely not direct connection. You're looking at the phone which is looking at the thing, not looking at the thing. It's more direct than a professional photograph, but it's less direct than looking at the thing.
> A professional photograph depersonalizes it.
Looking at it through a phone depersonalizes it.
And to elevate oneself socially based on select signalling of goods and services consumed, places visited and activities performed.
The photos will happily sit on a device, external storage or the printed page for occasional review but let's be honest here: it has less worth unless others see it. It's not the memory-trigger aspect that's so important but the feeling people get from knowing others are admiring what they're doing. The act is mostly for signalling.
Some people forget the era where you typically didn't have a camera everywhere you went, and when you did have a camera you were limited by the amount of film you had. I remember that time and have plenty of vivid memories from it thanks to carrying the best camera I've ever owned: my eyes.
the cost to the experience is minimal
For the people capturing the moment perhaps. In Versailles I was whacked in the head with a selfie stick by a pirouetting halfwit. People fumbling with their phones and selfie sticks aren't considerate of the people around them.
i once saw mitch hedberg do a 10$ show nearly from a notepad and made it part of the joke, taking notes on audience reaction then noting the reaction to the notes
at the ucb show there was a comedian i was unaware i was familiar with named josh fadem, he did a bit on werner herzog pitching a hidden camera show that i laughed over for three comedians after fadem's set
i wanted to remember the nuance of the bit and scoured the internet but was unable to find anything substantial, i did find this(o) early in development version of the joke but it pales in comparison to the complexity and construction of the one i saw him do live
i really wish someone had a phone on him that night
(o) https://www.rooftopcomedy.com/watch/WernerHerzogsRealityShow
i used to do an open mic circuit and the coolest thing i saw at a bar was an mc with a tech bent that upon agreement would pipe the mic through recording software as well as the pa and then automated a conversion and upload system where you, or any visitor, could go to the bar's website and download your set in high quality mp3
i'm very appreciative of the experience
i lament being unable to share it with you
There is a different joy in knowing you experienced something no one else will.
that may be in direct opposition to the wishes of the developer of the work, in this case chappelle, which i would default in respecting, while simultaneously arguing the choice
pauli(o) would agree the experience is unshareable
but the material certainly can be
allowing for more unique experiences to be had
(o) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
Anyone who spends a few minutes on Twitter these days can see how terrifying a public shaming can be, so I can see this practice being a strong motivator. I'm not sure it's better than Ansari's method, though.
My first thought was "I almost want to go to his show and leak the video". But then I realized, that's probably exactly what he wants. Free publicity for announcing this scheme. Free publicity when the video leaks. Free publicity when Twitter discusses it. Free publicity when he "gets mad". Free publicity as analysts analyze what it all means.
Brilliant. I haven't heard from Dave Chappelle in years, but here he is on the front page of a startup-oriented news site.
Also good marketing from that startup that makes the pouches.
Eh, at least that doesn't block my view when I'm standing behind you.
Even if video leaks, he's at least ensured he has a 100% engaged audience not chatting or checking Instagram or commenting on HN or whatever.
I play chess and phones are banned from events (they sometimes have metal detectors at the door of large tournaments). Which causes a problem if you don't have a nearby car or hotel room to leave them in. Although recently they have tweaked the rules to allow phones to be in your bag (turned off).
Why not broadcast the material via wifi directly to the audience's devices, and have audience listening with headphones? What if audience member doesn't own a device? There would be spare devices at box office that would be provided / rented. It would certainly change the ambiance of the performance since the acoustics of the venue wouldn't be heard, but it wouldn't prevent people from (for example) hearing the laughter of the crowd around them.
I think if the app was designed right, it could possibly stop people from recording. Not that it would technically be possible to prevent people from recording, but since you control the stream of data to the device you can embed "watermarks" in real time during the performance. So if someone did try to record it would be theoretically possible to trace back to precisely which user / device was responsible for leaking the performance.
EDIT: On second thought, perhaps it would be safe enough to allow the user to retain a copy (with watermarks included), accessible via the app they used to listen to the performance live.
That said I'm not sure just how much of a point there is to this. I saw Chapelle a year or so back, and he was very agro about calling out people using phones (even to just check a text message) and having them tossed out. That really ruined the show, not the interruption itself but his jackass attitude. It's like media companies fighting new technology, adapt or die. Contrast this with Weird Al where he embraces phones and goes through the venue taking selfies.
And why not, you could even add back the acoustic effects into the stream so people still feel like they're listening to the performance in a big hall (or wherever the venue might be).
EDIT: And I think the solution doesn't necessarily fight back against new technology. Rather I think this embraces new technology. Sure it does take steps to protect the content, but that's only because these days it's so easy for anyone with a phone to distribute live shows in pretty much real time if they want to. If comedy becomes a lost art and is no longer interesting to people as a form of entertainment then perhaps another form of entertainment will take its place. But if that doesn't happen I can't see how a popular form of entertainment can "adapt" into something that is "different than it used to be" in order to prevent piracy.
I already think artists have more or less warmed up to the idea that they need to incorporate more live shows into their regimen to make a living at it. But then all of a sudden it's easy to pirate that content as well. It certainly feels like a problem that needs to be addressed. Before long if recorded entertainment isn't making any money, and now live entertainment can't be expected to make any money, what's left besides looking in the classifieds for something else entirely?
What's the point of going to a live show if you're just going to watch/listen to it from a device.
Live a little, enjoy the moment. Put down your phone, the twittersphere will go on without you. Or stay home and make more room for those of us that show up for the performance rather than the social cred (ie bragging rights) of going to a show.
But keep in mind that's not really the point. The thread has to do with ways to protect a comedian's content (especially live shows) from piracy. The point of the article was to show an example of how technology can be used to help protect a comedian's (or perhaps other performers') live shows.
Performers can spend their entire lives building up the skills they use to put on 5 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute, etc. shows. How else can a performer recoup that time invested if they can't expect to perform the routine many times and be paid each time? The issue with piracy of live shows is many (perhaps most) people will no longer be interested in paying to see a show they've already seen for free online. Or at the very least they'll be disappointed because they've seen exactly the same act before online for free.
In this case, 'protecting content' is a red herring.
The value of going to see a show live is transient experience of being there in person. Seeing the performer, immersing yourself in the energy of the crowd.
Spending the entire event trying to record it on a mobile phone is not only a completely selfish and self-absorbed act, it actively takes away from the experience of others. Not only by blocking/distracting others from the show but by failing to participate in the experience.
The energy of an entire room navel-gazing on their phones during a show doesn't come close to a room of people laughing, cheering, and having a great time.
I spend plenty of time watching YouTube videos of my favorite comedians. The smart ones like Bill Burr share a lot of their own content off-stage (ex "Bull Burr's tour of LA"). It's -- by no means -- a replacement for the real deal but it's good to 'whet the appetite'.
I can completely understand the extroverted nature of performers. Comedians especially, feed off the energy of the crowd. The very best have a lot of sensitivity to the moods/nature of their audience and will actively adjust their content/delivery to provide the best experience possible. Watch how they take on hecklers and make them part of the joke. Watch the look of terror in their faces when they recall times when they've bombed a show in the past.
A audience that doesn't actively participate is a terrible audience undeserving of a good show.
The company that does this will probably lose a few percent of their cases per use, but, like 3D glasses, most people will return them at the drop-off bins.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps... [2] http://www.tbo.com/news/business/fcc-seffner-man-was-using-c...
[1] http://overyondr.com/
The show was absolutely more enjoyable. I don't personally care if people check their phones and record live shows, but I absolutely despise when my view is obstructed by someone waving their device around trying to get a shot. I'm here to watch a relatively expensive live show, not watch other people record it.
As a potential downside, the opening comedian hadn't showed up, which left us sitting and watching / listening to the DJ for 2 hours before Dave Chapelle hit the stage. The DJ did an excellent job keeping the crowd entertained, but there were a few lulls where I would have loved to pop into HN or Reddit or something since it was literally idle time.
Sure, there was plenty of interaction, chatting, some dancing, and other fun with people around us. And maybe there was more than there would have been otherwise. But I still felt a bit like I was being punished. I know perfectly well how to balance being social with staring at a screen, and I'd rather not have that option taken from me. There were three times in that two hours that a quick google or calendar lookup would have enlightened rather than hindered the moment.
Who knows the consequence for someone who is "on-call"? I haven't been on call in a few years, but I'd hate to have to miss a great show because of it.
All in all, I'd say it was well implemented and an interesting exercise that might be a bit hard to swallow depending on the show, the venue, and our various communication needs. I was happy to do it for one of my all-time favorite comedians. It's not likely I would have participated for a smaller show.
Edit: sidebar - in the article it says...
We had to go to the tables at the exit (or to the downstairs bar outside of the venue) for them to release the locks with a big magnet akin to the anti-theft contraptions at retail clothing stores. Maybe they just used those because it's a much smaller venue, or maybe the "designated zone" isn't prime-time yet.walt whitman made a legacy from releasing 'blue' material, perhaps most notable in his second addition of leaves of grass which he affectionately called 'my blue book'(o)
it was the edition that he carried in his pocket to do edits and addendums
this fear of showing development is odd to me and seemingly harmful to future generations
mathematicians are often teased for it, being accused of hiding mountains of failures while presenting discoveries, seemingly conjured like magicians
expression is hard work(i), why would anyone additionally expel one's limited effort to make it appear easy?
(o) http://www.whitmanarchive.org/published/1860-Blue_book/image...
i was only able to find a paid link: 1.99$ from amazon video even if you're a prime subscriber; season 1 episode 11, froot loops for dinner, follows a comedian working material like a comedian
(i) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004CJNQVA/ref=atv_feed_cat...
http://comedians.about.com/od/glossary/g/bluehumor.htm
my ignorance revealed my bias
still, why hide your material even if it's blue? it's still your material
..or is the argument we need to protect the children?
Say he tells a joke about race. If he gets a bad reaction from the small crowd then he just won't use the joke again or rework it. He moves onto the next joke in the set.
If somebody is recording the show then that offensive joke will get put onto youtube and the headlines will be "XYZ tells racist joke".
Just because you can doesn't mean you should...
The point being. I don't see it as socially acceptable for audience members to ruin the experience for others because they feel entitled to record/distribute their viewing experience.
A lot of people act as though, 'if isn't posted on facebook/twitter/etc' it didn't happen. I personally think the opposite, I'd rather devote my energy to being present in the moment with the people around me. Endlessly sharing de-values the experience for me personally.
Maybe there's a compromise. Offer an option for people who attend events to promote their public personal. Create like a public/press box where they can do as they like without taking away from the experience of others.