Cuz I seem to see one of these kind of stories every week:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004233/Apple-files-patent-block-iPhone-users-filming-live-events-smartphone.html#
QuoteThe days of filming a live concert or sporting event on your iPhone may soon be a distant memory.
Apple is developing software that will sense when a smartphone user is trying to record a live event, and then switch off the device's camera.
Anybody holding up their iPhone will find it triggers infra-red sensors installed at the venue.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2011, 01:22:30 PM
Cuz I seem to see one of these kind of stories every week:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004233/Apple-files-patent-block-iPhone-users-filming-live-events-smartphone.html#
QuoteThe days of filming a live concert or sporting event on your iPhone may soon be a distant memory.
Apple is developing software that will sense when a smartphone user is trying to record a live event, and then switch off the device's camera.
Anybody holding up their iPhone will find it triggers infra-red sensors installed at the venue.
Wouldn't anything you record be a live event?
Can they really do this? Do they actually have that kind of technology?
:lulz: I love how they are ultimately decreasing their marketability by pandering to the insane demands of copyright holders
GO FOR IT APPLE
The best part will be when the police start setting up these infra-red sensors to stop you from videoing them beating the shit out of people.
Personally I don't get the point of preventing people from recording live events.
As a musician, I'm more than happy if someone records us live on their camera, unless of course we fuck something up, and then, well damnit.
As someone who likes to listen to music, the sound quality and the angles of what people take on their phones and upload to youtube is always way below any official footage that you could just as easily find on youtube.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
The best part will be when the police start setting up these infra-red sensors to stop you from videoing them beating the shit out of people.
:x
They only filed a patent on this, though - I expect they file hundreds like these every year, just this one got somehow abused and went from the "hey look at this" post on tech blogs to "HOLY SHIT WTF" on various news media sites
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Personally I don't get the point of preventing people from recording live events.
As a musician, I'm more than happy if someone records us live on their camera, unless of course we fuck something up, and then, well damnit.
As someone who likes to listen to music, the sound quality and the angles of what people take on their phones and upload to youtube is always way below any official footage that you could just as easily find on youtube.
Just think about how many overly blurred photos of distant colorful blobs and painfully bad videos which the world will be spared.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 22, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Personally I don't get the point of preventing people from recording live events.
As a musician, I'm more than happy if someone records us live on their camera, unless of course we fuck something up, and then, well damnit.
As someone who likes to listen to music, the sound quality and the angles of what people take on their phones and upload to youtube is always way below any official footage that you could just as easily find on youtube.
Just think about how many overly blurred photos of distant colorful blobs and painfully bad videos which the world will be spared.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 03:19:02 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 22, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Personally I don't get the point of preventing people from recording live events.
As a musician, I'm more than happy if someone records us live on their camera, unless of course we fuck something up, and then, well damnit.
As someone who likes to listen to music, the sound quality and the angles of what people take on their phones and upload to youtube is always way below any official footage that you could just as easily find on youtube.
Just think about how many overly blurred photos of distant colorful blobs and painfully bad videos which the world will be spared.
:lulz:
It would stop the youtube uploads that make me want to kill someone.
I still do not see how it could differentiate between a live concert or a live street fight/race/stupidity stunt etc.
Quote from: Khara on June 22, 2011, 05:18:24 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 03:19:02 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 22, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Personally I don't get the point of preventing people from recording live events.
As a musician, I'm more than happy if someone records us live on their camera, unless of course we fuck something up, and then, well damnit.
As someone who likes to listen to music, the sound quality and the angles of what people take on their phones and upload to youtube is always way below any official footage that you could just as easily find on youtube.
Just think about how many overly blurred photos of distant colorful blobs and painfully bad videos which the world will be spared.
:lulz:
It would stop the youtube uploads that make me want to kill someone.
I still do not see how it could differentiate between a live concert or a live street fight/race/stupidity stunt etc.
They drive me nuts. Especially where concerts tend to get pretty loud, you gets this horrible crunching cacophony where you can barely discern what the song even is without looking at the title, and barely recognizable figures unless you look again at the title to see what band it is. And you always end up hearing that loud and off key asshole singing along who may or may not be me.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 05:23:19 PM
Quote from: Khara on June 22, 2011, 05:18:24 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 03:19:02 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 22, 2011, 02:58:23 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 22, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
Personally I don't get the point of preventing people from recording live events.
As a musician, I'm more than happy if someone records us live on their camera, unless of course we fuck something up, and then, well damnit.
As someone who likes to listen to music, the sound quality and the angles of what people take on their phones and upload to youtube is always way below any official footage that you could just as easily find on youtube.
Just think about how many overly blurred photos of distant colorful blobs and painfully bad videos which the world will be spared.
:lulz:
It would stop the youtube uploads that make me want to kill someone.
I still do not see how it could differentiate between a live concert or a live street fight/race/stupidity stunt etc.
They drive me nuts. Especially where concerts tend to get pretty loud, you gets this horrible crunching cacophony where you can barely discern what the song even is without looking at the title, and barely recognizable figures unless you look again at the title to see what band it is. And you always end up hearing that loud and off key asshole singing along who may or may not be me.
My personal favorite reason to hate concert uploads!!!
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
The best part will be when the police start setting up these infra-red sensors to stop you from videoing them beating the shit out of people.
Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of.
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
The best part will be when the police start setting up these infra-red sensors to stop you from videoing them beating the shit out of people.
Yep.
Just another reason to never buy an Apple product.
I posted this on FB and an iphone fanboy said
QuoteThat's the most misleading news item ever. They filed a patent for a system that can use IR lights to activate phone features. Someone speculated that it could be used to disable cameras at concerts and everyone ran with it without checking the facts.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 22, 2011, 06:18:36 PM
I posted this on FB and an iphone fanboy said
QuoteThat's the most misleading news item ever. They filed a patent for a system that can use IR lights to activate phone features. Someone speculated that it could be used to disable cameras at concerts and everyone ran with it without checking the facts.
I kind of feel like citation needed. For everything. Because the Daily Mail is not a credible source of information, and neither is an apple fanboy.
So here's the patent:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110128384%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110128384&RS=DN/20110128384
And here's the relevant bit of it:
Quote[0048] In some embodiments, infrared data can be received and an electronic device can modify a device operation based on the infrared data. For example, an electronic device can disable a function of the device based on received infrared data. In some embodiments, a transmitter can be located in areas where capturing pictures and videos is prohibited (e.g., a concert or a classified facility) and the transmitters can generate infrared signals with encoded data that includes commands temporarily disabling recording functions.
thanks igor! :awesome:
Oh, and this pic might or might not be in the image gallery associated with the patent:
(http://www.cnet.co.uk/i/c/blg/cat/mobiles/apple-patent-infrared-recording.jpg)
Ironically, I can't see the image gallery directly because I don't have Apple Quicktime. :lulz:
So, the FB iPhone fanboy claimed you didn't check the facts, didn't actually check the facts?
I love the interbutts.
:lol:
People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera. And as mentioned, bands generally don't mind people making videos or taping at shows, some of them look at it like free PR. They'd probably rather have a laz0r for the radio people who leak albums to those free download sites pre-release. :evil:
Apple FAIL.
Quote from: Igor on June 22, 2011, 06:47:40 PM
So here's the patent:
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110128384%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110128384&RS=DN/20110128384
And here's the relevant bit of it:
Quote[0048] In some embodiments, infrared data can be received and an electronic device can modify a device operation based on the infrared data. For example, an electronic device can disable a function of the device based on received infrared data. In some embodiments, a transmitter can be located in areas where capturing pictures and videos is prohibited (e.g., a concert or a classified facility) and the transmitters can generate infrared signals with encoded data that includes commands temporarily disabling recording functions.
Awesome, thanks!
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PM
:lol:
People will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera. And as mentioned, bands generally don't mind people making videos or taping at shows, some of them look at it like free PR. They'd probably rather have a laz0r for the radio people who leak albums to those free download sites pre-release. :evil:
Apple FAIL.
One thing to keep in mind about filing patents is that they are often filed just to lock them down. Whether Apple actually develops anything that turns off certain features is another matter.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just confiscate people's recording devices?
:?
As soon as you work security for a major musical event, you can answer that question all on your own.
*thinks a sec*
Yeah. Ok.
It would be simpler (and more profitable for the artists) to just have professional recordings of the concert be made, and sell it on the web.
screw that!
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Quote from: Jasper on June 22, 2011, 09:09:26 PM
*thinks a sec*
Yeah. Ok.
It would be simpler (and more profitable for the artists) to just have professional recordings of the concert be made, and sell it on the web.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 22, 2011, 09:21:19 PM
screw that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Jam_Official_Bootlegs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_TV#Psychic_TV_live
As a business model, it's feasible. I'd pay money for a decent recording over a shoddy cellphone one.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 22, 2011, 09:21:19 PM
screw that!
I'd pay a couple of bucks for a recording, rather than spend the entire concert holding one arm up in the air.
sure, and I too would prefer a professional recording to a shitty cell phone camera recording.
What bugs me is the presumptuous idea that somebody can privately own the capture and retransmission of an experience.
It's one thing to own a piece of information - like a song or a book - it's another thing entirely to say I can't record a memory of (say) my birthday - because it harms your ability to sell me your version of that experience.
This isn't the same thing as bootlegging a movie in a theater. A concert is more than just a transmission of content from performer to audience. How much of this group experience is privately owned? Where is the border between private content and shared public experience? Is it the exchange of money? I think it's unreasonable to say that once I've paid you, I lose my right to record my experience, especially when so much of the concert experience is not the music.
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
That's what licensing fees are good for.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2011, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
That's what licensing fees are good for.
Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:13:23 PM
Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.
Not if they passed a law requiring those features. You know, maybe like a law that's already been drafted, and is just waiting for the patent to come through before it comes out of some fat staffer's upper left drawer, and get's added as a rider to whatever feel-good, anti-nun-beating legislation that's up this week.
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
Apple doesn't own the idea, only that very specific iteration of it.
There's nothing to stop other developers from coding it in different computer languages with similar hardware, assuming the interest in it is high enough for a team to get funding for R & D.
I imagine that this is an extremely attractive function for the proprietary and political reasons you guys have pointed out earlier in the thread, so the funding should be no problem.
And it's not like they aren't going to pass the cost along, ensuring that you pay for your own sodomizing.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 22, 2011, 10:24:05 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
Apple doesn't own the idea, only that very specific iteration of it.
There's nothing to stop other developers from coding it in different computer languages with similar hardware, assuming the interest in it is high enough for a team to get funding for R & D.
I imagine that this is an extremely attractive function for the proprietary and political reasons you guys have pointed out earlier in the thread, so the funding should be no problem.
Right, but having a multitude of different signalling devices using different protocols... yeah never mind, it's self-explanatory enough that I don't see any point in typing it all out. The only way it could all work out feasibly is with a combination of a licensing scheme and legislation, which seems not completely implausible.
Cram- i see your point in not owning the experience. Owning a recording of an experience is another thing entirely. It costs money to get something professionally recorded and its reasonable to make money back on that recording and profit from the recording. That said i would probably have them or most of them for free as a matter of promotion. If im getting up there and i record a really awesome concert its to my advantage to show people what theyre missing out on by not buying a ticket. Just my two cents.
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2011, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
That's what licensing fees are good for.
Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.
I was thinking the same thing. Here's how Apple could conceivably get people to want it:
Some live venues already ban cell phones that can record video, but if you have a phone with the Crippler™ only you get to bring your phone into the venue, much to the envy of other people.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 23, 2011, 12:00:15 AM
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:13:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2011, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Pastor Miskatonic Zappathruster on June 22, 2011, 09:23:35 PM
Quote from: AnnaMaeBollocks on June 22, 2011, 07:16:39 PMPeople will just use another phone anyway, or an actual camera.
I anticipate lobbying to require this feature on all smartphones and video cameras.
Uh, they can't, because Apple owns the patent on it.
That's what licensing fees are good for.
Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.
I was thinking the same thing. Here's how Apple could conceivably get people to want it:
Some live venues already ban cell phones that can record video, but if you have a phone with the Crippler™ only you get to bring your phone into the venue, much to the envy of other people.
:lulz:
Or CyberPolio
Eh, it is just a patent. Apple gets an idea and they instantly try to protect it, so its extremely likely that this won't come to fruition at all. They just like to stifle innovation and such by patenting the hell out of any and all concepts. Though, it is extremely brazen on their part. Once you buy the iPhone it should be yours, but no. The devices are locked down to such an absurd extent, and the only way you can circumvent their digital tyranny is by hacking the damnable things. And they actually tried to make that illegal! Thankfully they failed. But the fact that people are fine with this makes me terrified for the future of computers and the internet itself. I really, really don't like how the average consumer is fine about getting fucked in the ass for the sake of simplicity and ease of use.
...welcome to America.
The biggest modern indicator that freedom is just a word to be bandied about for political gain and a realtime commodity to be fought for was when 9/11 caused the airline industries to treat all passengers like possible terrorists. And people fell in line, and continue to do so. Because safety trumps freedom.
That's how it's "sold." So the marketing here will be similar--scare tactics, ooh-ah factors, sex, something will be a hook so folks are sold on paying more for doing less.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 22, 2011, 10:03:19 PM
sure, and I too would prefer a professional recording to a shitty cell phone camera recording.
What bugs me is the presumptuous idea that somebody can privately own the capture and retransmission of an experience.
It's one thing to own a piece of information - like a song or a book - it's another thing entirely to say I can't record a memory of (say) my birthday - because it harms your ability to sell me your version of that experience.
This isn't the same thing as bootlegging a movie in a theater. A concert is more than just a transmission of content from performer to audience. How much of this group experience is privately owned? Where is the border between private content and shared public experience? Is it the exchange of money? I think it's unreasonable to say that once I've paid you, I lose my right to record my experience, especially when so much of the concert experience is not the music.
Additionally, you could make the point that the audience is in some sense part of the performance. Without a huge cheering crowd, a performance would not be the same. So maybe it's also the crowd's right to record their part of it.
This sounds like something that could be bypassed with a piece of duct tape.
I don't know much about iPhones, though. Is the IR sensor necessary for the camera to work?
I think most phone cameras can pick up IR, intentionally or not.
I've heard the ducttape suggestion in other discussions on this topic and they said it's the same camera/lens/receptor as the thing that takes the picture, that also picks up the IR. So it won't do much good :)
And yeah try it out, take your remote control (IR), go to the bathroom with lights out and shoot a picture of your remote pointed at the mirror (while pressing a button, of course). The remote IR LED looks just like a regular white LED. It also works in a not dark room BTW, but it's more fun if you don't actually see anything and you got a mirror to play with.
((Weird that the IR light is white, though. I'd expected it to be red. There's probably internal correction for that, otherwise a sunny outdoor scene would be flooded with red. Plus the lower (redder) frequency bands of light usually contain the most "interesting" contrast, so it makes sense to mix it through the luma channel. (try it out, take a nice outdoor photograph, split it into its RGB channels as three greyscale images, stretch the values so they are all equally bright and still the red channel will usually contain the most "vivid" details).))
My understanding is that most modern CCDs (charged-coupled devices) pick up all the visible spectrum and IR, and most cameras fix this problem by using an IR filter. Each pixel in the CCD is filtered individually to block all light except red green or blue. I guess these filters don't block IR, which means an equal amount of light is picked up by the red, blue and green sensors equally, which is why it appears white.
An IR filter in place of the duct tape might work.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2011, 10:16:36 PM
Quote from: Your Mom on June 22, 2011, 10:13:23 PM
Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.
Not if they passed a law requiring those features. You know, maybe like a law that's already been drafted, and is just waiting for the patent to come through before it comes out of some fat staffer's upper left drawer, and get's added as a rider to whatever feel-good, anti-nun-beating legislation that's up this week.
People would still have their old cell phones and cameras.
Ok, so they wouldn't allow them in, in a lot of cases. But a lot of bands don't have a problem with tapers. I mean the industry is fucked anyway as far as the old model of record sales = fat royalties, people make their money touring now and I can't see them keeping old cameras out.
So yeah, probably legislation.
I don't mind paying for a decent boot. It's their music, and I'm not buying it for crowd shots. Just don't want to be legislated into the shit.
If it does happen, I think people will come up with countermeasures. Always have.
Right now Google is building a virtual version of you
As time goes on you continually integrate your life with computers. By doing this you're unwittingly giving information about yourself to a collective set of machinery that is as we speak building a psych profile of your favorite places to go, and who you may be interested in on Facebook. Google is increasingly improving it's ability to know your choices before you even go about them. You see? Google not only knows what your choices are, but where you're going, who're you're talking to and eventually how you will choose in a particular circumstance per sey. If something knows the decisions you make in a certain set of circumstances then it can possibly affect your decision. In short what it will become is an inverse decision engine which will affect your destiny.
Right now Google is building a virtual version of you from the outside-in. At the "onset" - a simple psyhc profile of you and how you choose in certain given situations. If Google can accurately predict how you decided in a given situation it can present you with a preferable set of circumstances and thereby influence how you choose and decide. Google not only knows who you like on Facebook, what your favorite ice cream is, but It know's where you're going, where you've been and is using it's virtual version of you to attempt to guess at your decision trees.. The greater this virtual version of you "is" the better it can present you with said decisions so that it is able to accurately foretell your reaction sequences within a partial margin of a certain percentage. If a computer knows how you will choose it can (can) affect your actual destiny in effect.
So, you think at some point Google will be done, having built the perfectly identical virtual world with an identical virtual version of me, and then big G can go about its own business violating its own damn virtual simulated privacy?
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 12, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
So, you think at some point Google will be done, having built the perfectly identical virtual world with an identical virtual version of me, and then big G can go about its own business violating its own damn virtual simulated privacy?
Since you didn't quote me I'm gonna go ahead and assume you were addressing somebody
else's virtual utopian nightmare scenario..
Should've added a smiley there, I thought it was an amusing idea :)
Bah-People are going to find ways around this kind of stuff anyway. I think these companies create these 'protective' measures to ensure their profit margins. This creates hype and attention to said companies.
What gets me is that we (as a people) have allowed ourselves to be so reliant on these devises that when they pull this kind of shit (turning off a device, that you paid for, remotely-which on basic principal is absurd) there is little to nothing you can do to stop it or completely change what you have become reliant on.
Blah-so then I say a cliche-we have made the bed we sleep in. Or something like that.
Disclaimer-Maph's been drinking tonight.