Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Theater Chain Bans Google Glass

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the still-happy-to-charge-you-$8-for-popcorn-though dept.

Movies 376

mpicpp sends this report from Ars: A cinema chain announced Tuesday that it is now barring patrons from wearing Google Glass at its movie houses across the U.S. in a bid to clamp down on piracy. Alamo Drafthouse, which runs theaters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and soon in California, is among the first U.S. chains to ban Google's computerized eyewear. 'Google Glass is officially banned from @drafthouse auditoriums once lights dim for trailers,' the chain's chief executive, Tim League, tweeted. The decision comes as Google has made the eyewear readily available to the general public, and it follows a slew of incidents in which wearers of Google Glass have had brushes with the law.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206901)

Good. Fuck Glassholes.

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207293)

And the retards show up in record time!
Fuck YOU

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207513)

Fuck you

Glassholes deserve to get punched so hard that ugly piece of shit you are wearing gets permanently embedded in your empty skull.

Google glass is nature marking people out for natural selection.

Re:Good (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 4 months ago | (#47207353)

Who'd have thought that, between Google and theater chains, my
mind's with the former.

What do these Alamo airheads think -- we'll soon be inundated
with Glass pirated copies of the blockbusters on TPB?

This is about power, not piracy.

Re:Good (1)

Onuma (947856) | about 4 months ago | (#47207481)

Alamo shows very limited runs of niche films. It's not like this is a giant MPAA-related move, whatsoever. Just a relatively small chain trying to keep its business clean and without court appearances.

The anti-piracy thing is usually BS, but coming from this type of business I am less inclined to call them out on it.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207523)

I'm in agreement.

If they're banned in enough places, and enough people get their jaws cracked when they insist on wearing them in other places, then it will sink in: a lot of us DON'T FUCKING WANT some asshole recording us in public and putting it online with not even a chance to consent.

Battery Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206909)

Does it even matter? The battery wouldn't last the whole movie anyways.

Re:Battery Life (5, Interesting)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 4 months ago | (#47207179)

This kind of technology is obviously going to evolve, and have better battery life, not to mention, increased miniaturization.

It's going to get interesting once people (other than CIA operatives) start wearing camera+audio recorder technology that masquerades as stylish jewelry, or a baseball cap http://www.amazon.com/Baseball... [amazon.com] .

I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.

That doesn't mean that certain uses of it won't still legitimately be considered douchebaggery.

Re:Battery Life (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207355)

No, it just means we're going to have to build reliable detectors for such stuff.

Add a bit of regulation to make sure that it's illegal to attempt to circumvent detection, and we'd be some way toward recognizing the traditional right to privacy rather than the modern right to invade privacy.

Re:Battery Life (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#47207393)

No, it just means we're going to have to build reliable detectors for such stuff.

Or we can just make deception detectors that monitor people's brainwaves to determine if it seems like they are trying to do something they are not supposed to.

Re:Battery Life (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47207421)

I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.

You could never "Reliably" ban such stuff. I've NEVER seen theater staff inside a theater... ever... Whenever I go, I take a backpack filled with soda and food. You could take in a professional HD camera on a tripod in and if you sat in the back I doubt they'd even notice. Even if they did notice, all of those workers are making minimum wage. $20 and they'd suddenly forget all about you.

Re:Battery Life (2)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#47207455)

You've never been to Alamo Drafthouse. Each seat is serviced individually multiple times during the showing for their food/drink orders.

Re:Battery Life (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#47207495)

That sounds annoying.

Re:Battery Life (1)

taustin (171655) | about 4 months ago | (#47207501)

There's nothing new about recording devices that are disguised as something ordinary, like a pen, or a watch, or whatever. They've been around for decades, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than Glass.

The disincentive to using such devices is, and has always been, that they are often illegal, even criminal, as Glassholes are finding out.

Re:Battery Life (2, Insightful)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#47207343)

Knowing how Alamo Drafthouse operates, this is more about minimizing distractions for other moviegoers. This is a theatre that explicitly states "No talking, texting, or using your cell phone during the movie or we will KICK YOUR ASS OUT" prior to every screening.

Re:Battery Life (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#47207403)

how does bootlegging the movie distract moviegoers?

Re:Battery Life (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#47207445)

With Google Glass in its current iteration you couldn't even bootleg the trailers.

This decision comes as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206911)

People with common sense make decisions.

Re:This decision comes as... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207029)

How is it common sense to ban an emerging technology before it's even in the marketplace? Someone wearing GG does not impact your movie viewing in any way, unless you're just an intolerant douche. And what about when the technology comes around to let deaf people see subtitles in their HUD while watching the movie? There are all sorts of positive, enabling possibilities for this tech, but because of people like you with their self-absorbed mentalities, some may never see the light of day. Don't be such a reactionary twat.

Re:This decision comes as... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207049)

Um excuse me, but society isn't just a playground for geeks to play their "emerging/advancing technologies at all costs" fantasies.

Re:This decision comes as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207065)

It sounds pretty much identical as a policy to "no cell phones during a movie".

Re: This decision comes as... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207123)

Theaters already have that service for deaf folks, dumbass. They put the subtitles on a screen behind the viewers, and you can wear reflective glasses that show both the subtitles and the screen, but no one else sees the subtitles. It's not in every theater, but there are theaters in most areas that have them - you may have to go to a specific showing, etc, but they exist. The reason they aren't universal is because thankfully, there isn't great demand.

I fully understand why a theater would not want someone wearing a video camera on their face during a movie. Duh. Video cameras are not allowed, this is a video camera pointed at the screen the entire film.

The real joke is, though, every time some law enforcement agency manages to get a law passed about them, or every time a company does something like this - because Google has already said that it is working with "leading" glasses manufacturers (both prescription and vanity/sunglasses) to incorporate them into normal frames. Apparently this is not far off, at all. So the folks spending too much money on these goofy things right now are the guinea pigs, and in a couple of years at most laws and rules will be virtually unenforcable because you won't be able to tell who is wearing one and who is not by sight alone.

At that point, I expect the theaters to go back to some of that digital watermarking/distortion thing that was talked about awhile back. Which will probably affect overall quality, too. Just so asshats can have a terrible version of a movie to share on the Internet. Desperate folks that need that - might as well at least wait for the ripped BD version than watch that cam crap where you hear everyone's farts and stupid comments. Not that I've ever seen one, of course...

Re:This decision comes as... (2)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 4 months ago | (#47207133)

I would guess the primary driver of this is not to ban annoying behavior but to prevent somebody from filming the screen to make and distribute cheap copies.

But I like your idea of subtitles via the glasses. Something that I have not thought off.

Re:This decision comes as... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#47207181)

Then they need to look at the employees. We did it up in the projection booth back in the VHS days. Only a morons would want a bootleg shot with what is basically a cameraphone on someone's head.

Re:This decision comes as... (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 4 months ago | (#47207457)

Only a morons would want a bootleg shot with what is basically a cameraphone on someone's head.

True. And I am always surprised by the number of morons and the amount of money they have. I would be surprised if one could get anything usable today. However, give it 5 years and I am sure the quality of GG, look a likes, or hacked glasses will be sufficent to the (camcorder level) task.

Re:This decision comes as... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47207533)

Who cares if they distribute the movies? Can you imagine how bad they would be? it's a camera, on someones head. It's going to move and shake. Look there is the screen.. and now there the popcorn bucket..and back to the screen, the a side glance to his dates cleavage, back to screen.

You could take one and put it on every compute in the world and it would not hurt sales at all.

Common Sense Bans Slashdot Beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206913)

Shut that garbage down! No more crap, Dice. We want it gone!
 
Boycott Dice!
Boycott ThinkGeek!
Boycott Beta!!!!!

Re:Common Sense Bans Slashdot Beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207273)

Boycott Medium!!!

Makes perfect sense. (0)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | about 4 months ago | (#47206931)

Alamo Drafthouse's policy seems to make perfect sense. They also have a very strict policy with regards to cell phones (and even better commercials ;-) ), so it would only make sense for them to extend the ban to other devices that distract from the viewing.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (3, Funny)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | about 4 months ago | (#47206947)

Hmm, previewing before posting makes sense; " and even better commercials [youtube.com] "

Re:Makes perfect sense. (2)

Keith111 (1862190) | about 4 months ago | (#47206971)

It's inflammatory to say they are "banned" rather than "not allowed to be used". Banned implies that you cannot enter the theater with them... but "once the lights dim" implies you are allowed in, just not allowed to use them.

Makes perfect sense. (2)

N1AK (864906) | about 4 months ago | (#47206997)

The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere. As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't. There's no risk of people recording films on it (it neither has the battery or camera quality) and anyone using it and distracting others can be dealt with the same as cellphone users. I know I, and expect the vast majority of users, would want it turned off to avoid having it interrupt our enjoyment of the film anyway.

Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207199)

Recording movies. They might as well carry a handycam into the theatre. What do you expect theatres to do, say, yes, sure, absolutely bring that recording device into the theatre? While they are at it, did you want the optimal seat reserved for you so you can pirate the best quality movie?

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207299)

I can't even remember the last time I downloaded a cam version of a movie.
The quality always sucks. Pirated versions are usually based either on DVD or blue ray versions, or some other source material.
Rarely ever do people watch cam versions.

This is Alamo Drafthouse - makes sense (0)

rsborg (111459) | about 4 months ago | (#47207377)

As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't.

Sure. Maybe AMC, Cinemark or Regal might not want to displease you as a discriminating minority, but people go to Alamo for an experience, and a trivial thing like changing out your Glass for other eyewear isn't likely to change your mind about Alamo.

Props to Alamo. Nothing sensational, just put away (and silence) the smartphone and take off the Glass when the lights go down.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47207435)

No worries, the theater industry will be long dead by then.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47207005)

Does google glass distract other people from viewing? Or is this just more paranoia about movie pirates masquerading as trendy tech-hate?

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207021)

It really doesn't matter. It's their private establishment; it's their rules.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47207051)

It does if they want my continued business.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 4 months ago | (#47207081)

It does if they want my continued business.

Obviously, they don't consider the glasshole demographic to be worth the effort to target. In a nutshell, they don't want your business.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (2, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47207149)

If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.

I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 4 months ago | (#47207319)

If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.

I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.

I don't think you understand the problem. They are not banning them for piracy. They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons. They have to look out for the interests of the majority of their customers.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

OhPlz (168413) | about 4 months ago | (#47207479)

They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons.

Their other patrons expect privacy in a public place? I bet the cinema has plenty of surveillance cameras already aiming at those patrons.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 4 months ago | (#47207555)

They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons.

Their other patrons expect privacy in a public place? I bet the cinema has plenty of surveillance cameras already aiming at those patrons.

They expect privacy in the sense that there would be nobody (other patrons) taking photos or video of them within the theatre.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207521)

then surely any cell phone use at all is completely banned, lights off or otherwise. wouldn't want a random photo being taken, invading someone's privacy...

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 4 months ago | (#47207539)

If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks

They are banning Glass, not geeks. You do realize you can be a geek and not wear Glass 24/7 don't you? And no it is not even remotely similar to gays and blacks so don't be an idiot.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207209)

Most are not, we have home theaters and dont have to deal with the icky poor people in movie theaters.

And yes I get 1st run movies in my home theater legally...

http://articles.latimes.com/20... [latimes.com]

I have one of these. and it's worth every penny to not go to the cootie infest poor people palaces.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207079)

That second thing.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (2)

rhv (3588421) | about 4 months ago | (#47207017)

Yah, makes perfect sense to extend a ban to devices that distract from the viewing...after all, this is a place where (as in the Austin location) waitresses are taking orders and delivering food and beer throughout the whole movie!

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 months ago | (#47207161)

There are several Austin locations, but they share that in common.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207069)

Alamo Drafthouse's policy seems to make perfect sense.

In what universe does banning Google Glass "in a bid to clamp down on piracy" make sense? That's about as logical as adding DRM to fight pir... oh, nvm. I guess the idiots who think DRM has an impact on piracy would think banning Google Glass would also have an impact.

Re:Makes perfect sense. (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 4 months ago | (#47207263)

What makes perfect sense is to ban them wherever tobacco is banned, basically in any public building, certain parks, and my house. Not that the issues are the same...HMMM...or are they?

Before the flames start (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206945)

At Alamo draft house they will kick you out for talking to other people or using your cell phone after the lights dim. Their policy is the teenagers with laser pointers that walk to talk to their BFFs can go elsewhere. I like it.

Ultimately useless? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 4 months ago | (#47206953)

Interesting, but even if we assume that the standard problems with google glasses are ignored/remediated like the GG's battery life when recording*, head movements and such, I could simply wear a button-up shirt with a camera in the pocket. A lot easier to sit still that way and get a good recording. Or better yet set the camera up away from me under an arm rest or something.

Besides, wasn't it found that most camcorder recordings of movies was coming from projector operators?

*Couldn't you run a cable to a supplemental battery pack?

Re:Ultimately useless? (4, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#47207173)

Besides, wasn't it found that most camcorder recordings of movies was coming from projector operators?

You mean the "projectionists"? They don't have those anymore, I know because I used to be one. These days you get some usher who knows how to load the film into the projector (for those places still using film) and mash the button to start. If you are lucky they focus the film and adjust the volume when the feature starts, but usually they don't come back until it's time to thread the projector again. They don't have time to set up the camera and tape anything.

The only time you will see somebody who can splice film or knows how to clean the projector is on Thursday when the guy who knows how to get the new prints loaded onto the platters during the day and break down the prints you are sending back after the last show. I used to do this and for an eight screen theater it took from about 4PM to well into Friday morning (about 2 AM or later) to do this. It was pretty hard work because I always cleaned the projector when I threaded it, always focused and set sound levels for the start of the trailers, then came back and did it again when the feature started. It was LOTS of running. The rest of the week, some usher did the threading and button mashing and they never cleaned anything by the looks of what I found on Thursday. This was 20 years ago, so I'm betting things have only gotten worse, and based on the dirty prints and out of focus films I've suffered though as a paying customer, I think I'm right.

But the "screeners" you are talking about are usually done after the place closes on Thursday. For big films, we used to sometimes let the staff see it on Thursday night before it opened. Mainly for films that we where expecting would be sold out for days. This was a nice fringe benefit for the staff who where going to have to work pretty hard over the next few days, not to mention it let the projectionist to actually SEE the film from a theater seat an not the office chair in the booth. I'm sure there are some managers who don't mind making screeners, as they are not the brightest bunch of people and don't get paid much for the long hours they work.

Alama being sensationalist again... (-1, Flamebait)

metrix007 (200091) | about 4 months ago | (#47206955)

It's why I don't like this franchise. They have a ninche market in Austin, and I heard they are trying to expand to NYC (where they're petty nonsense won't fly).

Thing is, no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed to the lowest setting, or having Google Glass on their person if the use is not distracting or obtrusive.

This chain likes to ban anything with even the slightest possibility of distracting your movie, and appeals to only the pettiest moviegoers.

Moral of the story? Grow up, stop complaining about things that don't matter, and enjoy the movie.

*Obviously talking loud, having a bright screen for an extended period etc, are all different and legitimate things to complain about.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#47207027)

Some of us certainly do mind when inconsiderate jerks think they're being clever and "discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed". That's the thing: the franchise caters to people who actually want to watch the movie without kids/cellphoes/etc. From Wikipedia:

  "When we adopted our strict no talking policy back in 1997 we knew we were going to alienate some of our patrons," [founder] Tim League posted on the cinema's website. "That was the plan. If you can't change your behavior and be quiet (or unilluminated) during a movie, then we don't want you at our venue."

Moral of the story - regulate your behavior or go somewhere else.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | about 4 months ago | (#47207137)

If they have banned noisy eaters as well, I would consider relocating and offer my patronage for each movie they show that I wish to see.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | about 4 months ago | (#47207381)

I wish, though that is the exact opposite of what the theatres want. Notice that before every movie they play some ad that includes the sound of someone pouring a soft drink? You can hate that it works, but you know that your mouth just started watering. The smell of buttered popcorn and the sounds of people eating may drive away a few, but it's money in the bank from the rest of the cud-chewing masses. The people who aren't buying the concessions are a much lower profit margin anyways. Just look at what it costs to make your own popcorn at home.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (2)

Calavar (1587721) | about 4 months ago | (#47207033)

Why in the world would you want to check your email, etc. if you're in the middle of watching a movie? No, I completely agree with Alamo Drafthouse from this one. There are really no good reasons to want to use Google glass in the theater other than discreet piracy. And it's not like you're completely banned from bringing the glasses into the building. You just have to put them away before the movie starts, and if something urgent came up and you needed to use your glasses, you could step out into the lobby and take care of it there.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 4 months ago | (#47207307)

because social media and a slew of reality tv shows has convinced many, many people that they are special snow-flakes who need to be in constant contact with the outside world, and that everything they do, see, think, feel is somehow relevant to anyone.

Though part of this is just due to declining decorum and manners in general. Maybe I'm getting old, but people just seem far, far more self absorbed and inconsiderate than when I was a kid.

see also:
-selfies
-photos of meals at restaurants

If your need for connection to your bffs or whatever the fuck they're calling it these days are so dire that you can't do without facebook/text/email for 2 hours, stay out of the theater. Put the cell phone down. It won't kill you, promise.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207059)

Go fuck yourself you gadget whore. Not everyone wants your camera headgear in their face in public.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207303)

Go fuck yourself you egomaniac. Not everyone gives enough shits about you to get in your face filming you in public

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

bearinboots (743355) | about 4 months ago | (#47207071)

"their pretty nonsense" and "checking their phone" And yes, I do mind someone distracting me by "discretely" checking their phone. Because it's never "discrete". And Alamo is wildly popular here in Austin; not just with the petty movie-goers. Moral of the story: grow up and watch the movie.

Alama being sensationalist again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207095)

"discreetly"

Oh my god, you actually THINK that? Are you that self-absorbed and delusional? What's your standard for "nobody minds"--nobody has punched you in the face yet? Trust me, people do notice, and they do mind. Once the previews end, yes, that screen is absolutely noticeable.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1, Insightful)

bware (148533) | about 4 months ago | (#47207177)

Thing is, no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed to the lowest setting

I mind.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#47207189)

(where they're petty nonsense won't fly).

their.

on their person

their.

checking there phone

their.

You managed to spell "their" each of the ways it's possible to spell it (they're, there, their), getting it right the statistical one chance in three. So, were you just guessing each time, or did you really think you were supposed to be using a different word each time?

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 4 months ago | (#47207205)

around here that shit will get ice/soda dumped on you

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#47207217)

Do they ban children and the demographic that talks to the screen?

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207229)

This chain likes to ban anything with even the slightest possibility of distracting your movie, and appeals to moviegoers that want to watch a movie.

FTFY. But I can't fix your piss poor education or lack of consideration for others. There, their and they're are different words and mean different things. Google it. And yes, people mind when you flash your phone in theaters. Whatever your phone is doing doesn't matter. Put it away. If you really need to use it, leave the fucking theater until you've arranged your shit to the point where you can watch a movie for a couple hours.

Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 4 months ago | (#47207237)

if you are going to have rules about phone / device usage, they have to be black and white. you can't tell someone that they can use their phone, but not too long and how bright is too bright? everyone has an answer to that, and they are all different.

sort of like deciding not to set a speed limit and asking people not to go too fast.

Ban them everywhere! (4, Insightful)

Thruen (753567) | about 4 months ago | (#47206975)

But don't pretend it'll help prevent piracy. Does anyone really expect someone to hold their head perfectly still and never look away from the screen to pirate a film? Of course not. Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons, but pirating movies in theaters is hardly a concern for them. It's easier to drop your cell phone in a cup holder pointed at the screen, and less obvious to boot. Not that I think many people are doing that, I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.

Re:Ban them everywhere! (1)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#47207067)

I think Ars is conflating two stories there. AMC is ejecting people for piracy-related reasons, which makes little sense and I'd be upset if it affected people, but fortunately it only affects glassholes so there's no downside to AMCs irrationality.

Separately, Alamo Drafthouse is banning them, and I doubt they care at all about the piracy thing - they ban talking and any sort of device use or distracting behavior flat out. People go there to watch the movie, if you want to play with your electronics instead, there are plenty of other places to go.

Re:Ban them everywhere! (1)

grnbrg (140964) | about 4 months ago | (#47207315)

Alamo Drafthouse is banning them, and I doubt they care at all about the piracy thing - they ban talking and any sort of device use or distracting behavior flat out. People go there to watch the movie, if you want to play with your electronics instead, there are plenty of other places to go.

And from what I've read, if they catch you using your electronics, they'll help you get started finding those other places by escorting you to the parking lot. :)

Re:Ban them everywhere! (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 4 months ago | (#47207097)

I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.

does not compute

Re:Ban them everywhere! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207169)

We need an amendment securing "Right to privacy" as a human right.

Re:Ban them everywhere! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207255)

Bet you complain pretty loud about the EU's 'Right to be forgotten' though, right?

Re:Ban them everywhere! (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 4 months ago | (#47207269)

Fun little story: back when I worked at a theatre, films came on several reels and the projectionist was in charge of assembling them into a complete movie (and splicing porn into that assembly, if you're Tyler Durden) Not sure how things work in today's digital age.

Once everything was assembled, you had to watch the movie through once, just to make sure none of the reels were damaged, assembled upside-down or anything. This usually took place around 2 or 3 in the morning, to have enough time to fix any problems, and be ready for the theatre to open with those new movies Friday morning. So if, hypothetically, someone wanted to get a halfway decent recording, they could setup a tripod during these test runs, while no patrons were in the seats

Hypothetically.

Slashdot technophobes (4, Insightful)

Xebikr (591462) | about 4 months ago | (#47207331)

Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons

Like...? Glass technophobes always remind me of the reaction to Kodak cameras in the 1880's [pbs.org] . A few choice quotes:

One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH."

The "Hartford Courant" sounded the alarm as well, declaring that "the sedate citizen can't indulge in any hilariousness without the risk of being caught in the act and having his photograph passed around among his Sunday School children."

I really don't get the vitriol. In 120 years people will laugh at the primitives from the early 2000's who reacted with shock and horror to Google glass. My biggest objection is that it's rude to glance at a notification when you're speaking to someone. But that's true of a phone, too.

Re:Slashdot technophobes (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 4 months ago | (#47207451)

But of course people in the 1880s had valid concerns, and in the last 120 years a lot of laws and social pressures have developed regulating the use of cameras. Without which, people would still find the use of cameras objectionable. Many of the issues haven't been entirely worked out - a couple week ago there was a story about how Germans needed to get rid of naughty photos of their exes if asked, and many people didn't seem to like the idea.

Re:Slashdot technophobes (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47207483)

But that's true of a phone, too.

Difference being that a polite users of a phone CAN pretty trivially avoid responding to the notification until a suitable pause in the conversation or until the conversation is over.

Wearing glass -- it literally flashes in front of your eyes. "Not looking at it" is a lot more effort.

Shocking (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#47207037)

I'm amazed that a head-mounted video camera has been banned from a venue that previously had a ban on video cameras. Same story with casinos.

I'm stunned at the tone deafness of these people (0, Troll)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 4 months ago | (#47207047)

These glassholes, for lack of a better term, walk around and act like they are shocked when others don't want a camera on them all of the time.

It is just like if someone walked around holding their phone/camcorder/camera in front of him all of the time and was pointing it everywhere he looked. No one wants that. These glassholes act as they have some sort of inalienable right and if someone complains then their civil liberties have been violated by a glassist.

Re:I'm stunned at the tone deafness of these peopl (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 4 months ago | (#47207231)

No we are shocked at the amazing lack of education people have when they act that way.
I personally have never had anything but a positive reaction and curiosity from people, I have NEVER had someone go all crazy and start screaming "STOP FILMING ME!" because it is insanely obvious when it is recording.

Re:I'm stunned at the tone deafness of these peopl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207395)

I have NEVER had someone go all crazy and start screaming "STOP FILMING ME!" because it is insanely obvious when it is recording.

We are more polite then that, but that doesn't mean we don't deeply resent being filmed.

Re:I'm stunned at the tone deafness of these peopl (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 4 months ago | (#47207465)

No we are shocked at the amazing lack of education people have when they act that way.
I personally have never had anything but a positive reaction and curiosity from people, I have NEVER had someone go all crazy and start screaming "STOP FILMING ME!" because it is insanely obvious when it is recording.

It's funny how people cite a lack of education when someone calls them out for doing something they don't like.

Re:I'm stunned at the tone deafness of these peopl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207431)

These glassholes, for lack of a better term, walk around and act like they are shocked when others don't want a camera on them all of the time.

It is just like if someone walked around holding their phone/camcorder/camera in front of him all of the time and was pointing it everywhere he looked. No one wants that. These glassholes act as they have some sort of inalienable right and if someone complains then their civil liberties have been violated by a glassist.

A battery big enough to record continuously on a Glass or a cellphone all day long and upload data to the cloud would weigh 5-10 pounds and require a cable to the device. That's not even mentioning the hit on the user's data plan.

So people being outraged at something that literally cannot happen, thereby demonstrating their profound technical ignorance and inability to do basic math ('mathholes', perhaps?) to the world.

(Disclaimer: I do not own a Glass, nor do I intend to. I merely am tired people bloviating on /. about it.)

Re:I'm stunned at the tone deafness of these peopl (1)

taustin (171655) | about 4 months ago | (#47207547)

How sensitive is Glass to IR light? I'm beginning to think there's a market for jewelry or clothing that is studded with high intensity IR LEDs that are invisible to the human eye. Certainly, movie theaters should be putting them all over the place.

di3k (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207055)

fun to Be again. states thatk there

Google glass scrambles your brain and DNA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207075)

Wearing an electronic device that emits radiation and frequency waves around one's brain for prolonged periods of time can cause cancer and DNA damage, worse than a cell phone. Don't use this technology for the sake of your own health.

Re:Google glass scrambles your brain and DNA (1, Funny)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 4 months ago | (#47207359)

Well, weigh that against the new age of self selected abstinence that Glass will usher in for it's wearers. And for that -- Google should be commended.

remember all the guys who wore bluetooth headsets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207083)

Same dicks.
This has got to be google trying to drum up interest. Only misfits wear google glass and only misfits worry about people that wear google glass. LOSERS.

Re:remember all the guys who wore bluetooth headse (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 4 months ago | (#47207379)

How's the sand tasting down there?

Millions of slashdotters' heads explode (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about 4 months ago | (#47207101)

Caught between my hatred for MPAA and my hatred for Google Glass... arghhh... don't..know..what..to..do..... SPLAT

Right... (1, Insightful)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 4 months ago | (#47207225)

Yes, can't have people pirating 20 year old movies. (If you've been to a draft house you know what I mean).

Battery life (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | about 4 months ago | (#47207295)

Its like society at large has no fucking clue that google glass only has 45 minutes of battery life...

piracy? really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207327)

Because when I download movies, I want a screener filmed by a tiny camera with a tiny battery, mounted to someone's head!

And be gone, Luddites! Less FUD, More HUD!

FROST PIST! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207441)

BSD'S acclaimed every chanc3 I got some of you have things in

haha (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#47207489)

yeah, a shaky loud recording from inside a theater hurts tickets...not.

Stock price? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47207515)

Let's face it, the manager that makes this decision is not just stupid, they are clearly deliberately trying to run the company into the ground in the long term. The company is on a path that, with improving technology, will quickly become "we discriminate against the partially sighted" and then develop to "we show movies, but no-one is allowed to watch them". I'm pretty sure they'll go out of business before becoming something you'd read about in the Hitchhiker's Guide.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?