5 ms·

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 aud

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.

67726e 11y ago
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.
- datashovel 11y ago
  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?
EvanPlaice 11y ago
Wat? 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.
- datashovel 11y ago
  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.
  - EvanPlaice 11y ago
    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.

67726e 11y ago

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.

datashovel 11y ago
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?

EvanPlaice 11y ago

Wat? 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.

datashovel 11y ago
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.
- EvanPlaice 11y ago
  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.