Google Glass Banned From Alamo Drafthouse

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Google Glass Banned From Alamo Drafthouse

glass

Famously strict theater chain says NO to Google's controversial tech toy

Google Glass has been the subject of controversy since the technology debuted, pitting the percieved rights of some to not be filmmed without consent against the percieved rights of others to walk around with a camera strapped to their face. Now, the Alamo Drafthouse movie theater chain has joined the list of private businesses that have decided to not allow the devices on their premises; though in this case for reasons relating to the potential use of Glass technology for movie piracy.

Often refered to only as "Glass," Google Glass is a wearable computer built around an Optical Head-Mounted Display technology. Though not yet widely adopted, institutions with existing bans on recording devices of any kind (like casinos) moved to ban Glass almost immediately. Seperate controversies concerning the use of Glass in spaces like restaurants, mass-transit and restrooms have followed, along with concerns over whether it would be legal to use in countries with especially strict anti-spying laws.

Founded in 1997 in Austin Texas (with more recent expansions throughout the state and now nationwide) by Tim and Karrie League, The Alamo Drafthouse theater chain is highly regarded by devoted film fans for its commitment to inventive programming, popular events like Fantastic Fest and Butt-Numb-A-Thon, trendsetting in-theater food/drink service and association with prominent web-based film journalists like Harry Knowles and Devin Faraci.

Its greatest claim to fame (and cinephiles' hearts), though, comes from its stringent in-theater etiquette policy: Talking, texting and phone use are banned outright, and violators can be removed from the premises - even if they happen to be Madonna. Children under the age of six and unaccompanied minors are also prohibited.

Drafthouse CEO Tim League stated that the ban has been under consideration for "over a year," and enforcement would be conducted on a case by case basis with regard to those using Glass as their primary eyewear. Google has not issued a statement regarding the ban at this time.

Source: Deadline

image

Permalink

I understand it, even if its a bit dated industry. You don't need a bulky camera anymore, you can record from your glasses.

Cinemas are already dying from on-demand and digital distribution, and those pirates aren't exactly helpful to an already dying industry by scooping up video for incredibly poor people with bad internet. Or things can get creepy with perverts using glass in the dark (you paid to be in a dark room with a sex offender with night vision goggles. Hope you feel good about that choice.), etc. Or they just record it and rewatch that if they are really, really stingy.

Still, kudos for banning toddlers. Can't tell you how many times a parent brings in a crying kid because they can't find someone to dump him with when theaters were still popular. Seriously, who brings a small child to see Silent Hill?

Eh, haven't been to a theater in years since about 2006 because the internet is awesome. Doesn't effect me. I wonder if the new generation finding theaters pointless messes with profit margins for studios. Or is not going to the theater in 8 years abnormal?

How have I never heard of this chain? They sound like saints! And, I have to say I agree with the ban. Unless you're using the Glass as eyewear (although, why would you?), I see no reason to have it on; especially if it turns you into a walking camera.

All I really got out of this article is the mad desire for a place like Alamo to exist here in Australia. Oh, to be able to go to a cinema and not have to listen to the wails of some shrieking child and their idiot mother's phone buzzing away with text messages every other minute.

I'd honestly go to the cinemas more often.

VanQ:
All I really got out of this article is the mad desire for a place like Alamo to exist here in Australia. Oh, to be able to go to a cinema and not have to listen to the wails of some shrieking child and their idiot mother's phone buzzing away with text messages every other minute.

I'd honestly go to the cinemas more often.

Right on brother , i cant stand the cinemas here they cost a mint and arent worth a echidna for the experience.

I understand their reasoning, but I can't really imagine many people doing a very good job of pirating a movie by wearing google glass. I mean, if you wanted it be of decent quality, you wouldn't be able to move your head. At all. For two hours. Just pure hell.

Your best bet would be getting a mannequin in your seat and putting the glasses on him, really.

I gotta say, this sounds like the heaven of Movie theaters. I wish something like that existed over here, aside from chain-theaters, I've only seen one that is a standalone thing while also not being of the "we so artsy" types.

I can understand the sentiment for banning Glass, but I do home that Alamo consider reversing this decision in the future. While the technology isn't widely available in the consumer space yet, the ability to replace one's prescription glasses with a G.Glass augmentation will make it difficult for people to "leave Glass at home" when it's their only mode of vision.

Likewise, their cell phone policy makes sense since a phone can be deactivated for the duration of a movie. (either by turning it off, or silencing it) Glass is likewise linked to one's phone and so any major changes to a user's phone will also reflect to Glasses' functionality. (Turning off one's phone makes Glass unusable for most tasks.)

While it is too early to say if Glass will become a mainstream tech, banning it outright is only going to push the issues of "patrons with wearable computers" to be decided at a later date as this will only affect the early adopters and prevent any real-world testing of "How do we live in a world of wearables?".

I've been going to Alamo Drafthouse for over 10 years. It's a fantastic chain. Their attention to detail is amazing and their policies ensure your movie is never ruined. It's one of the only places I'll see a movie that's not my home.

On a related note, their rule on children varies from location to location. For instance, the one near me is strictly 18+. No kids unless there's a movie that specifies children can come see (usually during the daytime).

I'm not shocked they have this ban on Google Glass considering they'll toss you out on your ass just for lighting up your cell phone. They're serious about their customers following basic levels of courtesy and putting away all technology during a movie. Maybe some restaurants should follow this example to encourage people to talk to each other without keyboards more.

King Whurdler:
How have I never heard of this chain? They sound like saints!

They are.
We have numerous Alamo Drafthouses in Houston.

The only complaint I have is that they used to have EXCELLENT food, and some kind of recent management bullshit fucked that up.
They may have fixed it since then. Been a while since I checked.

Fat_Hippo:
/snip

Your best bet would be getting a mannequin in your seat and putting the glasses on him, really.

That mental image had me in stitches.
OT: Fair enough, Can't think of a reason why they should be allowed.

I've joked about it in the past, but seriously, Escapist: get your shit together. These are basic spelling and grammar errors. MovieBob should run a spellcheck of his own, and the editors here should double-check something before publishing it. I enjoy the content, but it is frankly pathetic to see this happening over and over again.

MovieBob:
Google Glass has been the subject of controversy since the technology debuted, pitting the percieved rights of some to not be filmmed without consent against the percieved rights of others to walk around with a camera strapped to their face.

The words are spelled "perceived" and "filmed".

Often refered to only as "Glass,"

Should be spelled "referred".

Seperate controversies concerning the use of Glass

Should be "Separate".

Its greatest claim to fame (and cinephiles hearts), though, comes from its stringent in-theater ettiquet policy

"Etiquette" and "cinephiles' hearts".

I was so excited when I moved down here to Austin and could eat a full meal at a theater. But then it only got better when the Movie House and Eatery opened on 620. You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.

Ultratwinkie:
I understand it, even if its a bit dated industry. You don't need a bulky camera anymore, you can record from your glasses.

Cinemas are already dying from on-demand and digital distribution, and those pirates aren't exactly helpful to an already dying industry by scooping up video for incredibly poor people with bad internet. Or things can get creepy with perverts using glass in the dark (you paid to be in a dark room with a sex offender with night vision goggles. Hope you feel good about that choice.), etc. Or they just record it and rewatch that if they are really, really stingy.

Still, kudos for banning toddlers. Can't tell you how many times a parent brings in a crying kid because they can't find someone to dump him with when theaters were still popular. Seriously, who brings a small child to see Silent Hill?

Eh, haven't been to a theater in years since about 2006 because the internet is awesome. Doesn't effect me. I wonder if the new generation finding theaters pointless messes with profit margins for studios. Or is not going to the theater in 8 years abnormal?

I think you've nailed it. I haven't been to the movies in ages. I have more than enough stuff to watch with netflix, youtube, hulu, and amazon there is no reason to go to the movies. Especially since I can have a huge tv, much better food, and don't have to pay 5 bucks for a small drink. I can also pause the movie if I need to use the restroom and I don't even need to have pants on! Cinemas are dated.

Rylot:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.

Isn't that called you house? :)

Ragnar47183:

Rylot:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.

Isn't that called you house? :)

If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.

Rylot:

Ragnar47183:

Rylot:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.

Isn't that called you house? :)

If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.

Big screens arent to expensive anymore. I have a girlfriend that makes food for me. They make a lot of noise but I think they are worth it. You should go pick on up. :p.

Ragnar47183:

Rylot:

Ragnar47183:

Isn't that called you house? :)

If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.

Big screens arent to expensive anymore. I have a girlfriend that makes food for me. They make a lot of noise but I think they are worth it. You should go pick on up. :p.

Yeah, I'd like a bigger tv but the whole poor thing... I'm also pretty good at cooking so I wind up doing all of it while in a relationship. And I just got out of a three year relationship thing, so no thanks! If only I could get my dog to cook.

Rylot:

Ragnar47183:

Rylot:

If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.

Big screens arent to expensive anymore. I have a girlfriend that makes food for me. They make a lot of noise but I think they are worth it. You should go pick on up. :p.

Yeah, I'd like a bigger tv but the whole poor thing... I'm also pretty good at cooking so I wind up doing all of it while in a relationship. And I just got out of a three year relationship thing, so no thanks! If only I could get my dog to cook.

I'd love it if my dogs did anything other than sleep and get hair everywhere. Wish they could at least fetch me drinks. lol.

Calderon0311:
I can understand the sentiment for banning Glass, but I do home that Alamo consider reversing this decision in the future. While the technology isn't widely available in the consumer space yet, the ability to replace one's prescription glasses with a G.Glass augmentation will make it difficult for people to "leave Glass at home" when it's their only mode of vision.

It seems to me that having prescription Google Glass is a terrible idea, especially if they are ones only eye wear. Here are some reasons:

1. Theft

If someone robs a person with prescription GGlass, they will not only be out of pocket but blind.

2. Privacy

I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.

3. This Cinema problem

For the reasons above.

4. Style

They don't look that great.

Individual theaters banning camera-equipped devices is pointless, because as long as one person anywhere in the world is able to snag a copy of a movie and put it online, it won't matter how many billions of people weren't. And doesn't said copy usually come from a leak of the actual print, not some douche with a camcorder? If this were a decision mandated by the MPAA that all theaters had to follow, I could understand it.

Calderon0311:
I can understand the sentiment for banning Glass, but I do home that Alamo consider reversing this decision in the future. While the technology isn't widely available in the consumer space yet, the ability to replace one's prescription glasses with a G.Glass augmentation will make it difficult for people to "leave Glass at home" when it's their only mode of vision.

If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.

Steve the Pocket:

If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.

Wouldn't taking a pair of glasses that expensive to record stuff from a theater be considered a textbook definition of 'doing it wrong'?

OT: Well, since a business has the right to refuse service for reasons that it considers viable, and there's already an extreme amount of "Turn off your cellphone, dammit!", this seems to be fairly-reasonable a request.

OT: Well the only part about this story that's surprising is that it took them this long to finish their considerations.

Flames66:
I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.

Can someone please politely explain why people are so worked up about this? Every time you walk into a business you're being recorded without permission - I at least never told Walmart it was OK to record me, but they don't seem to want to turn off the security cameras when I go shopping. Beyond that, think about the types of people who would photograph you with a camera, be it GGlass or a phone. Random people photographing you is slim to nonexistent because, generally, people only record others who are significant to them. That means those who will photograph you can be divided into two groups: the creeps/stalkers and friends. First off the creeps/perverts/stalkers will record you for their own sick, twisted pleasure - which, if my college psych classes taught me anything, tend to be kept private - so if one of these guys uses a camera to record you you and the rest of the world will most likely never know. Secondly relatives, friends, or relatives of friends who are capturing a moment they think should be remembered because it's funny, heartwarming, inspiring, etc. care about what you think. So they'll respect your wishes and edit/delete it if you told them to.

Flames66:

1. Theft

as opposed to regular glasses being unstealable?

2. Privacy

I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.

this is wrong and you should feel bad. it is NOT privacy infringement to take a photo of you. in fact, we do this every single time we look at you, with our eyes, and save it in our memory. taking photos is nothing but a way to remember better and i have every right to take a photo of everything i see. and if your going to hit me for it prepare to meet me in front of a judge.

3. This Cinema problem

So i take it they fixed the multitude of problems of it being in any way better than a hnadheld camera? erm, no they didnt, the point here is moot. if anyone is going to go so far out of thier way to record something with GG, they bloody well deserve to have the recording.

4. Style

here we can agree, the design looks horrible.

Steve the Pocket:
And doesn't said copy usually come from a leak of the actual print, not some douche with a camcorder? If this were a decision mandated by the MPAA that all theaters had to follow, I could understand it.
If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.

bad camera footage that noone but the most impatient downloads come from cameras in theaters. often you do get a theater print which nowadays often come in BR discs because apparently image quality does not matter for theaters anymore either.
i also laugh at 50 dollar specs. good luck finding quality specs for that price.

kael013:
OT: Well the only part about this story that's surprising is that it took them this long to finish their considerations.

Flames66:
I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.

Can someone please politely explain why people are so worked up about this? Every time you walk into a business you're being recorded without permission - I at least never told Walmart it was OK to record me, but they don't seem to want to turn off the security cameras when I go shopping.

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason. I do not particularly like being photographed by surveillance cameras in businesses and prefer to shop in places that don't have them, but have accepted that it happens. I am also involved in movements to reduce the number of publicly funded surveillance cameras.

Strazdas:

Flames66:

1. Theft

as opposed to regular glasses being unstealable?

My previous post already answers this.

2. Privacy

I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.

this is wrong and you should feel bad. it is NOT privacy infringement to take a photo of you. in fact, we do this every single time we look at you, with our eyes, and save it in our memory. taking photos is nothing but a way to remember better and i have every right to take a photo of everything i see. and if your going to hit me for it prepare to meet me in front of a judge.

That is why I considered it and decided against it. I have decided that a better response is to disown anyone I know who wears GGlass for anything other than specific uses. Also, it is privacy infringement if I decide I do not want my photograph taken, for any reason.

3. This Cinema problem

So i take it they fixed the multitude of problems of it being in any way better than a hnadheld camera? erm, no they didnt, the point here is moot. if anyone is going to go so far out of thier way to record something with GG, they bloody well deserve to have the recording.

Not according to the people running this particular cinema chain.

Steve the Pocket:
And doesn't said copy usually come from a leak of the actual print, not some douche with a camcorder? If this were a decision mandated by the MPAA that all theaters had to follow, I could understand it.
If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.

bad camera footage that noone but the most impatient downloads come from cameras in theaters. often you do get a theater print which nowadays often come in BR discs because apparently image quality does not matter for theaters anymore either.
i also laugh at 50 dollar specs. good luck finding quality specs for that price.

You can buy a pair of glasses for 1 in at least 3 shops near here.

Flames66:

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason.

Its not. it does not matter what you want.

My previous post already answers this.

No it didnt.

That is why I considered it and decided against it. I have decided that a better response is to disown anyone I know who wears GGlass for anything other than specific uses. Also, it is privacy infringement if I decide I do not want my photograph taken, for any reason.

you, of course, have a right to be silly. And it is not privacy infringement, no matter how much you wished it was. It would only be privacy infringement if it happened in your private territory (for example in your house). And even then, if the photos taken would be showing you commiting a crime or even public disturbance - they would no longer be privacy infringement according to law.

Not according to the people running this particular cinema chain.

Just like you, they also have a right to be silly.

You can buy a pair of glasses for 1 in at least 3 shops near here.

Do tell me in what shop i can buy quality glasses for 1. im sure all those people spending hundreds on glasses would love this!

I'm not surprised by this move, but only because it's in keeping with their classy policies that ensure a great experience for all. For those who haven't been to an Alamo Drafthouse, you really should go if you have the chance!

Meh, I had no intention of getting Google Glass anyway, and Drafthouse is too awesome for me to really care about this.

King Whurdler:
How have I never heard of this chain? They sound like saints! And, I have to say I agree with the ban. Unless you're using the Glass as eyewear (although, why would you?), I see no reason to have it on; especially if it turns you into a walking camera.

They're pretty cool. I'm lucky enough to live near one and it's always my preferred option, even with the slightly more expensive tickets and slightly less workable movie times... but they're not a very big chain. I think they have about thirty theaters nationwide. Most of them located in Texas.

Strazdas:

Flames66:

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason.

Its not. it does not matter what you want.

Yes it does, or at least it should. My body is my property and as such any part of it, including images of it, belong to me.

My previous post already answers this.

No it didnt.

Ok, I see what is missing. I'm trying to say that someone with expensive technology strapped to their face is more likely to be robbed than someone with a pair of cheap glasses.

That is why I considered it and decided against it. I have decided that a better response is to disown anyone I know who wears GGlass for anything other than specific uses. Also, it is privacy infringement if I decide I do not want my photograph taken, for any reason.

you, of course, have a right to be silly. And it is not privacy infringement, no matter how much you wished it was. It would only be privacy infringement if it happened in your private territory (for example in your house). And even then, if the photos taken would be showing you commiting a crime or even public disturbance - they would no longer be privacy infringement according to law.

I'm not speaking legally here, I'm speaking morally, according to my moral code/compass. I believe it is wrong to take pictures of someone without their permission. Under certain circumstances I also consider it to be a direct attack.

Let's imagine for a moment that I am a famous celebrity. A paparazzi photographer approaches me and sticks a camera in my face. I would immediately stick my fist in his face because he has just attacked me by deliberately invading my space and taking a picture without my permission.

Not according to the people running this particular cinema chain.

Just like you, they also have a right to be silly.

I don't see anything silly about it. They are both defending their business and enforcing good cinema etiquette.

You can buy a pair of glasses for 1 in at least 3 shops near here.

Do tell me in what shop i can buy quality glasses for 1.

Poundland, Poundworld, 99p shop and others.

im sure all those people spending hundreds on glasses would love this!

Then why don't they shop around themselves? I can understand people with silly eyes having to spend more money on lenses but, for basic prescriptions, I can see no reason to ever spend more than 10 on a pair of glasses.

Flames66:

Yes it does, or at least it should. My body is my property and as such any part of it, including images of it, belong to me.

no it doesn't and no it shoun't. the world does not revolve around your wishes. images of your body is not part of your body, therefore not your property. they do not belong to you.

Ok, I see what is missing. I'm trying to say that someone with expensive technology strapped to their face is more likely to be robbed than someone with a pair of cheap glasses.

Ok, thats a fair point. lets stop carrying watches and phones while were at it.

I'm not speaking legally here, I'm speaking morally, according to my moral code/compass. I believe it is wrong to take pictures of someone without their permission. Under certain circumstances I also consider it to be a direct attack.

Let's imagine for a moment that I am a famous celebrity. A paparazzi photographer approaches me and sticks a camera in my face. I would immediately stick my fist in his face because he has just attacked me by deliberately invading my space and taking a picture without my permission.

You can have that moral compass, GabeN knows i have a few myself, that does not however allow you to punch somone, which is actually illegal. you may believe it to be wrong, but majority does not, and since there is no logical arguments against it there is no reason to ban it. I can consdier your post a direct attack, does not make it so.

If you were a famous celebrity and hit a paparazzi you would become even more famous, but not the kind of fame you would love i think. likely would see him in court quite a lot as well when he would be making you pay up for the crime you commited.

Poundland, Poundworld, 99p shop and others.

never heard of those so dont know how true it is. anyone whos been in one here can confurm?

Then why don't they shop around themselves? I can understand people with silly eyes having to spend more money on lenses but, for basic prescriptions, I can see no reason to ever spend more than 10 on a pair of glasses.

i guess you dont know what quality is then.

VanQ:
All I really got out of this article is the mad desire for a place like Alamo to exist here in Australia. Oh, to be able to go to a cinema and not have to listen to the wails of some shrieking child and their idiot mother's phone buzzing away with text messages every other minute.

I think you need to go see films with an older rating mate. Sure there are noisy bastards but they can usually be made to shut up if publicly shamed (stand up and announce they are ruining the film for everyone).

Strazdas:

Flames66:
Then why don't they shop around themselves? I can understand people with silly eyes having to spend more money on lenses but, for basic prescriptions, I can see no reason to ever spend more than 10 on a pair of glasses.

i guess you dont know what quality is then.

My definition of quality is; Sturdy and durable, looks nice and is reasonably priced. Many of the glasses available in the shops I listed meet all those requirements.

Strazdas:

Flames66:

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason.

Its not. it does not matter what you want.

This is a crossed line here. Shoving cameras in people's faces without their permission is rude, anti-social, and extremely creepy. The fact that not only static photos, but videos can be recorded and almost seamlessly uploaded makes the concept even creepier.

We are living in a surveillance state, online and off, yet people who adore their GGlass want to become voluntary participants in it. With a smartphone, at the very least it's conspicuous to hold the phone up and snap a photo or take some video. With Glass, I'm not entirely sure how to tell whether I'm being recorded and/or uploaded to YouTube. This isn't the sort of world I'd like to live it. It seems more like a dystopian sci-fi horror story to me. And I'm not even going to touch the field day the NSA will have with voluntary roving security cameras strapped to peoples' faces.

Your only concern seems to be "I'm not technically breaking the law, so I'm going to be as much of a douche as I want". Are you seriously that obtuse? Is this how you interact with other human beings? Are you so devoid of common courtesy, manners, and basic ethics that the wishes of people around you has ZERO impact on how you decide to behave around them?

Personally, I look forward to the creation and spread of technologies designed to jam or disrupt Glass. I've already seem some Privacy Glasses created by a Japanese researcher designed to scramble facial recognition algorithms, and I'm hoping more technology comes out soon.

Strazdas:

Flames66:

Yes it does, or at least it should. My body is my property and as such any part of it, including images of it, belong to me.

no it doesn't and no it shoun't. the world does not revolve around your wishes. images of your body is not part of your body, therefore not your property. they do not belong to you.

I've trademarked my face and any images of my face are owned by my company. I've had to do this because of folks like you, and I will vigorously defend my right to privacy even though I'm not that bothered about nobodies like you taking images of me without my consent (not that bothered by intelligence agencies doing it either - I'm a nobody myself.) Corporations like google though aim to profit from knowing everything about me, yet I get nothing from them knowing all that... and I'm not having that, not now, not never. Anyone using glass is just an unpaid corporate drone who while happily violating my right to privacy it makes me wonder just who or what else they are happy to violate just because it suits them.

drednoahl:
Corporations like google though aim to profit from knowing everything about me, yet I get nothing from them knowing all that

Well, technically you get to use the services they provide without cost. It's arseholish but that's their business model.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here