Apple patent idea to prevent recording at concerts

Bob-Dubery

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/apple-patents-way-to-prevent-concert-piracy/?ref=technology

Riaan-Combrink

Interesting article.

I'm in two minds about this one. When we had the infamous piracy thread a few months ago, I took a strong stand against piracy and the 'because the technology exists you can't/shouldn't stop it' and 'they've been ripping us off for so long anyway that its justified' and 'everyone is doing it so you cant stop it' schools of thought. I did, however, post the proviso I strongly believe in - that the reason piracy is wrong is that it compromises the rights-holder's rights if done without his/her/its consent.

Now when it comes to music concerts it is a particularly interesting area because of the vibrant trade in concert bootlegs. 'Trade' is perhaps the wrong word because a lot of it is done by swapping or other forms of non-commercial exchange. More importantly, a lot of it is done with the explicit consent of the artist/band. Ryan Adams, eg, has built part of hs image, fanbase and mystique on the legendary concerts fans have recorded and posted online - in some cases straight from the desk for improved quality. Some of the online sites actually refuse to post a concert if the rights-holder has not consented. So I love those kinds of recordings, and I think many artists will start to see how this medium can add to/consolidate their fanbase, just as some artists release studio recordings free as mp3s these days. Of course, this is only possible if the artist/band also holds the publishing rights (which is not always the case). If not, a host of other issues come into play.

Of course its a double-edged sword. EVH (admittedly disputedly) playing out of key on 'Jump' comes to mind, as does the infamous pictures of the Black-Eyed Peas' Fergie apparently having wet her pants ( :-[) on stage. Being able to sell professional quality concert photographs is of course another revenue stream, and artists probably have a legitimate interest in trusting accredited photographers to not take unflattering shots (discretion as quid pro quo for accreditation), so the image aspect might have some different issues to recording.

Anyway, some initial thoughts.

singemonkey

This technique is a joke Bob. It just makes me go :?

Who will this stop? Idiots with cellphones getting appallingly grainy, jerking images, and roars of undefined noise.

Anyone who wants a proper recording can simply use an older device that doesn't have this - for example a zoom recorder with a stereo condensor mic, FFS. Why anyone would be worried about cell phone recordings is utterly beyond me. Freaking wax drum recorders from 1910 provide better quality. And as for the cameras... let's just say 14 megapixels in a cellphone are not the right kind of megapixels. Cell phone cameras are so kak, it's beyond belief that they're even a feature. Those little instamatics with the pump action that made teeny 8mm negatives were better than the very best cellphone cameras out there.

So the whole things seems a bit WTF.

Riaan-Combrink

singemonkey wrote Who will this stop? Idiots with cellphones getting appallingly grainy, jerking images, and roars of undefined noise.

I think this may be exactly who they want to stop. To prevent poor quality recordings circulating on Youtube that make them sound worse than they were on the night, or pix that make them look dodgy!

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote This technique is a joke Bob. It just makes me go :?

Who will this stop? Idiots with cellphones getting appallingly grainy, jerking images, and roars of undefined noise.

Yeah. The sort of people who insist on standing up and obscuring other folk's view so that they can share their experience on youtube. I'd like to see laser beams deployed in some way to cut them down - though that might get messy. I would take some satisfaction in seeing such inconsiderate goings on curtailed, but there's a chance that some of them will only realise they've recorded a whole bunch of nothing when they get home - or next time they check their youtube channel after uploading and see all the complaints.

What bothers me more is that they could deploy this technology at places of work to thwart whistle blowers. Though all you'd need to do is take along an old technology phone or camera.

Riaan-Combrink

How about this for a weird coincidence.

Just got berated by my wife for posting a cellphone photograph that I took of her guesting with one of the better known CT bands to Facebook because she doesn't like the way she looks on it! Weird. The prospect of no Sunday lunch won over protests of promotion, etc.

singemonkey

Haha. I was being a bit strong. It's the people that clog up youtube with this stuff that I object to. Cellphone cameras and recording definitely have their place. They're always with (except mine which got pickpocketed Friday night and I've just realised that that means all those little riffs and song ideas are gone for ever F&^K!).

Given that this system works on infra red, it will presumably be the work of noting to disable your phone's sensor, so I reckon both youtube and the whistleblowers would be fine.

G-Man

singemonkey wrote
Given that this system works on infra red, it will presumably be the work of noting to disable your phone's sensor, so I reckon both youtube and the whistleblowers would be fine.

Just put some duct-tape over the sensor I reckon. I'm sticking with my Nokia ?

Renesongs

Who will this stop? Idiots with cellphones getting appallingly grainy, jerking images, and roars of undefined noise.

Ahem - the videos on The Hellfire blues page were all done with a cellphone camera.

singemonkey

singemonkey wrote Haha. I was being a bit strong. It's the people that clog up youtube with this stuff that I object to. Cellphone cameras and recording definitely have their place.