Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Piracy Technology

Theater Chain Bans Google Glass 376

Posted by Soulskill
from the still-happy-to-charge-you-$8-for-popcorn-though dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Theater Chain Bans Google Glass

Comments Filter:
  • by Thruen (753567) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @05:24PM (#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.
  • by lgw (121541) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @05:29PM (#47207027) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @05:30PM (#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.

  • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @05:45PM (#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.

  • by bware (148533) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @05:48PM (#47207177) Homepage

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

    I mind.

  • Right... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Patent Lover (779809) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @05:54PM (#47207225)
    Yes, can't have people pirating 20 year old movies. (If you've been to a draft house you know what I mean).
  • by Xebikr (591462) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @06:10PM (#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:Battery Life (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Travis Mansbridge (830557) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @06:12PM (#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:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darinbob (1142669) on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @07:46PM (#47207949)

    No, this is about Alamo Drafthouse pleasing their customers. They get a big boost in attendance when they publicly crack down on stuff that people complain about. Such as when they kick out people for using phones during the movie. They know that banning Google Glass will make a lot of people happy, and will gain them some new customers, whether or not that ban actually improves the quality of the movie going experience.

    This is probably not anything new anyway, they already ban using mobile devices after the movie starts. So this is just a reiteration of the policy, with emphasis that it does indeed apply to new technology and no special dispensation is given to Glass.

  • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by meerling (1487879) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:04AM (#47209283)
    So, do you also kick out people wearing a tie, or using a phone you don't like?
    Maybe it's a t-shirt for a band you don't like because they play the 'wrong' music.

    Sounds more like the people that weren't wearing a headsup display accessory for their phone are ones being "glassholes".
  • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by meerling (1487879) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:29AM (#47209387)
    So, the glasses don't seem to be generating lights or noise that are annoying other people, and they were not being used to record anything, though if they were, the batteries would have run down so fast you'd have to have a whole bag of them to make it through the movie.
    One of those listed in the article was OFF and also the wearers PRESCRIPTION GLASSES HE NEEDED TO SEE WITH!!!

    Yeah, your torch wield mobs of conformity police are really doing of good job of proving yourself worse than that douche that talks on his phone everywhere.

    It's amazing how pissed so many people are getting over somebody else having a new and expensive accessory. What's even more amazing is the massive and undeserved overreactions that people are having that far out weigh anything that I've seen reported for actual "glassholes" doing. So far, most of the reports boil down to "somebody dared to actually wear googleglass, so people immediately started doing awful assholish things to them, all of which were unfair and several were illegal, isn't it awsome". I'm embarrassed that you technophobic luddites even found out how to get to the internet.

    Yeah, I know, now you're going to go screaming about how I'm an evil monster and threaten to burn me at the stake. You should really look at yourselves first, you've turned into a mindless mob screaming for blood and attacking the innocent. Metaphorically that is. Nobody has been killed yet, though there are reports of theft and assault, so I doubt it'll be much longer before your kind kills someone over a tech accessory. Maybe next you'll go after kids with tablet computers.

    I expect that in a few years, you will be able to get something equivalent to the googleglasses, but with much better battery life and a price more in the range of $150-$250. I'll want to get that, and load up a variety of apps to help deal with some issues of mine.
    My meds screw with my memory, so an intelligent scheduler and notes app is on the list. Popping up reminders in my vision works much better than me trying to remember to check my phone all the time, or the 10 million alarms that often aren't even heard over the noise.
    Another app will help with my face blindness. Yes, that's right, the dreaded facial recognition software. I want pics of the people I meet stored with their names and reminder notes so when someone starts talking to me, I can figure out who they are in a few seconds instead of agonizing over it for hours. Even if people know you have that issue, they tend to get upset when you can't remember who they are.
    Besides, it won't be that much of a change for me to wear them, as I need glasses to see pretty much anything in the first place. You know that big E at the top of the eye chart. Let's put it this way, the last time I saw that without glasses was in grade school. I've been banned from having glass lenses since I was in high school. Fortunately they have these fantastic optical polymers that are so much lighter and thinner than glass for lenses. Even so, a little bit of extra weight could be tolerated for the benefit.

    So again, you want to ignore something what it can be used for and instead be an even bigger pain than someone you suspect might act like an entitled douche?
    Well go get some rabies shots fido, because you're foaming at the mouth again.

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Working...