Why root and jailbreak? The whole premise is based upon IR light being received and interpreted by the phone. IR filters are easy to come by, get an IR filter, stuck it to your phone, problem solved.
Consider another use for this idea: it would allow governments to prevent all those photos/videos of rights violations that we've been seeing a lot of lately.
It would mean I can stand behind people at a concert or other live event and actually be able to see the act rather than 3000 phone screens lighting up the arena
This could be a use for the technology as well, rather than disabling the camera, automatically disable the screen if the camera is being used AND the IR is detected.
And also, without people holding it up in front of me.
It's not just a problem with gigs. Here in London we have a thing called Secret Cinema, who organize showings of classic films in unlikely locations. It used to be cool. Nowadays it's full of people who are only there so they can Tweet about being there, they aren't engaged in the experience at all, it feels like being in a room full of zombies, and not in a good way. If people have forgotten how to live in the moment, they need to be reminded.
I understand you completely, but this is an apple patent, so it's likely that this feature will only be available for iPhones. And again, who the fk is apple to tell me I can't take photos if I want to.
It's the iPhone who is preventing you, because Apple made it possible, so here's the scenario :
"Organizer : Hey apple, block this guy from taking videos of my event"
Apple : Oh no problem, he'll just see dead fish instead ROFL"
If the organizer does not want you to take videos, you should still be able to, but if you do or don't, it should be your decision not apple's. So who is telling you what to not film?
He wants to see the event, not the phones (recording the same video). His interests conflict with other visitors' interests - to have a recording, so they could re-watch and refresh the memories later, or share video with friends.
Obvious solution (for event organisers) would be to hire a professional cameraman recording the event and broadcasting the video stream over WiFi to everyone who attends the event, so they could have a copy (they would, anyway).
Visit the event, see the QR code on the wall (or ticket), download an app, put a phone in your pocket and get a nice recording - it's this simple. If the pricing's right, and restrictions (okay, organisers want to squeeze some money so there probably would be some sort of DRM) are fairly lax - attenders won't take their phones in air, event organisers will get additional income, problem solved. If the pricing's wrong or DRM is over-restrictive, attenders would take the recording with their phones.
(If someone's worried that the streamed video will complete with DVDs/Blu-Rays - it could be of lower quality, but the quality must be competitive with self-made typical-cameraphone recordings.)
> A new Apple patent will put an end to recording events
Patent does not put an end to anything. First it must be implemented, second, even if implemented this will only work at these events where technology is actually put to use.
And patenting something does not imply company really wants to do that.
I guess some stuff got patented exactly just to stop others from doing something.
No, no, no. I thought we'd killed this at reddit and assumed it wouldn't be reposted here. It's just a patent. This happened last week or earlier and has already been discussed here. :/
Some weeks ago world's famous best living drummer Jack Jack Dejohnette gave a performance in my city which i also attended. Somewhere along the second song, he suddenly stopped and wanted from audience to stop recording/filming by saying: " Please respect the artist and their work".
There are some use cases for this, but like in every new feature of technology its open to misuse. My vote is against adding that kind of feature because artists already earning most of their money from concert attendees not losing from non-attendees.
Or may be Apple made an app store type control system for Event/concert organizers. For example an organizer can apply for a specific venue/time/place for switching off all ios devices (via icloud) and Apple do the job for them.
Nope, this way, your photo app would be dependent on the internet, wich is a really stupid idea Apple would never do. In other words, what if I switched off the internet from my iPhone before the organizer applies for the "event store", do you think my photo app will tell me : "Oops no internet connection, you can't take photos, we don't know if this place has applied or not for the block"
More worrisome, it could be used to block political speech and the recording of embarrassing or retaliatory actions taken by regimes around the world. I really hope Apple is merely filing a defensive patent here.
26 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 70.5 ms ] threadWhat, $1+ ? Honestly the only people that lose out from you taking a shitty mobile recording of a concert are those who are standing behind you.
But yeah, DRM on your camera? Awful precedent and a great reason to root/jailbreak if ever there was one.
It would mean I can stand behind people at a concert or other live event and actually be able to see the act rather than 3000 phone screens lighting up the arena
It's not just a problem with gigs. Here in London we have a thing called Secret Cinema, who organize showings of classic films in unlikely locations. It used to be cool. Nowadays it's full of people who are only there so they can Tweet about being there, they aren't engaged in the experience at all, it feels like being in a room full of zombies, and not in a good way. If people have forgotten how to live in the moment, they need to be reminded.
If the organizer does not want you to take videos, you should still be able to, but if you do or don't, it should be your decision not apple's. So who is telling you what to not film?
Obvious solution (for event organisers) would be to hire a professional cameraman recording the event and broadcasting the video stream over WiFi to everyone who attends the event, so they could have a copy (they would, anyway).
Visit the event, see the QR code on the wall (or ticket), download an app, put a phone in your pocket and get a nice recording - it's this simple. If the pricing's right, and restrictions (okay, organisers want to squeeze some money so there probably would be some sort of DRM) are fairly lax - attenders won't take their phones in air, event organisers will get additional income, problem solved. If the pricing's wrong or DRM is over-restrictive, attenders would take the recording with their phones.
(If someone's worried that the streamed video will complete with DVDs/Blu-Rays - it could be of lower quality, but the quality must be competitive with self-made typical-cameraphone recordings.)
Patent does not put an end to anything. First it must be implemented, second, even if implemented this will only work at these events where technology is actually put to use.
And patenting something does not imply company really wants to do that. I guess some stuff got patented exactly just to stop others from doing something.
There are some use cases for this, but like in every new feature of technology its open to misuse. My vote is against adding that kind of feature because artists already earning most of their money from concert attendees not losing from non-attendees.
Or may be Apple made an app store type control system for Event/concert organizers. For example an organizer can apply for a specific venue/time/place for switching off all ios devices (via icloud) and Apple do the job for them.
It doesn't mean they're implementing it. Hell, they could be suing people who try to do this and making it less likely to be used by others.
It could be just a random defensive patent.