How is it considered 'ok' to do the periscope thing at shows?

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

remember when downloading off the net was low quality? no one made a big fuss over it until that quality got close or the same as the actual product and people stopped PAYING. it's coming. you know it is.

Good point but I don't think there was that much of a gap between low-quality MP3s vs a CD. Being in the building for a live show and watching a shitty stream is a much bigger gap.

I keep seeing these live streams of PJ shows in my facebook feed this tour and sometimes I click on them and watch for like thirty seconds...but that's it. I can't imagine just sitting there and watching it. That said, for people that live in East Bumblefuck and could never attend a show, it's nice for them to be sorta involved in the experience. I live near Philly. I can see Pearl Jam every single year. Others aren't as fortunate. For them, I guess a live stream off a cell phone is better than nothing.

true, I was just trying to draw the closest possible parallel. I just saw a video of a new technology that some of the riches companies in the world are investing in. they showed a killer whale diving in the water, in the middle of a elementary school gym. totally 3D, as if you were there. it's crazy. imagine if you could do that with PJ in your living room! and have a live audio feed as well! no one would leave their homes!

Well, much like PJ nipped audience recordings in the butt by beginning to release all their shows in 2000. Maybe they'll begin official live streams. Even if the live stream is just whatever appears on the video monitors in the arenas. That'd be sweet.

HughFreakingDillon

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Ledbetterman10

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Well yeah I guess that's right. They "nipped" the selling of audience recordings...not the recordings themselves or the act of trading them.

pledgeagrievance

Disagree with OP. Periscope isn't costing the band one dollar. I couldn't make the show, or find a ticket, so the band gets $0 from me. I watched/listened on periscope, band gets $0 from me. Let's not suggest ruining a good thing.

HughFreakingDillon

pledgeagrievance said:

Disagree with OP. Periscope isn't costing the band one dollar. I couldn't make the show, or find a ticket, so the band gets $0 from me. I watched/listened on periscope, band gets $0 from me. Let's not suggest ruining a good thing.

I don't think he is. I think he's just asking a legitimate question.

hedonist

Jerry, finish shooting the movie for me.

Are you nuts? There's no way I'm holding that thing.

schapp

I believe it is a novelty we are taking advantage of now, but that there will be stricter controls as quality improves. Perhaps is not such a big deal for rock show (other than for the people sitting behind the "periscoper"); but I can picture restrictions for a PPV event, for example.

Not so long ago (perhaps 8 years) they were confiscating cameras at shows. I remember this happening to me at Prudential Center in Jersey a couple different times. Of course it's not feasible to take everybody's cell phones away, but I can foresee a strikes-and-out scenario for offenders that are obviously recording or broadcasting say, more than a couple of songs.

I believe that, as always, it depends in our specific situation at a time. Irony of this situation is that for the most part, we bash those recording songs or periscoping or "texting" when we attend a show (enjoy the show!), yet we follow live updates of setlists and when there is some special moment we want to see, we wish there is a recording somewhere so we can watch it.

pjalive21

HughFreakingDillon said:

everyone ripping the OP needs to calm down. I somewhat agree with the premise of his post. imagine what will happen in 5 years when you can periscope in HD video and audio quality. you will see a very different tone to these responses. and also from the mods. you didn't pay to see the show, so you shouldn't see the show. that makes sense in a black and white world. as others have said, however, as of right now, the feeds are pretty terrible most of the time, so it's not like you are going to have people staying home to watch on periscope instead of going to the show.

YET.

remember when downloading off the net was low quality? no one made a big fuss over it until that quality got close or the same as the actual product and people stopped PAYING. it's coming. you know it is.

completely agree with you here and I think you, like myself, get the gist of what the OP is questioning. I think it does walk a fine line with streaming live at a show and is similar to downloading music for free. I personally don't care unless someone is recording in front of me for the entire 3 hours. The band also hasn't taken a stance on it either so as long as they are allowing it I guess for Pearl Jam specifically it isn't a problem....yet

PJ_Soul

PJ has a rich history of encouraging people to share content like this. Remember the speech years and years back about how one person should b

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Yes, that was definitely their reasoning. They don't care if the content was shared - they just didn't like to see their fans getting ripped off. I assume their attitude is the same about the periscoping and the multicam shows on youtube. It's just that in these cases the content is free, so there is nothing for them to worry about. No one is getting ripped off with Periscope, even if the quality is basically shit (the multicam shows on youtube are much better). So no worries on their end here I assume. The only reason I can see them streaming shows themselves would be to make money from it themselves.

Zod

I'm not a big fan of copyright, so I really have no issues when fans find a new way to share music (assuming they haven't impeded the bands ability to make a good living).

My questions, is how does it not piss off the people behind the periscopers when someone spends the whole concert holding up their phone? I think that would bug me

PJ_Soul

Zod said:

I'm not a big fan of copyright, so I really have no issues when fans find a new way to share music (assuming they haven't impeded the bands ability to make a good living).

My questions, is how does it not piss off the people behind the periscopers when someone spends the whole concert holding up their phone? I think that would bug me

That would bug me too. I would actually ask them to stop it. If they refused, I'd probably go as far as to ask security to talk to them about it. I have nothing against these people per se, but I definitely have something against having a fucking screen in front of my face for an entire concert. That is not what I paid for and I don't think it's anyone's right to hold something up and block my view.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

PJ has a rich history of encouraging people to share content like this. Remember the speech years and years back about how one person should b

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Yes, that was definitely their reasoning. They don't care if the content was shared - they just didn't like to see their fans getting ripped off. I assume their attitude is the same about the periscoping and the multicam shows on youtube. It's just that in these cases the content is free, so there is nothing for them to worry about. No one is getting ripped off with Periscope, even if the quality is basically shit (the multicam shows on youtube are much better). So no worries on their end here I assume. The only reason I can see them streaming shows themselves would be to make money from it themselves.

the top part of your post got cut off. what were you saying here?

DarthMaeglin

One thing I don't understand is, forget the band's views, most venues have some sort of no recording policy in place, so why aren't security putting a stop to this (along with all the YouTube videos, for that matter)? Maybe something along the lines of a 3 strikes rule, as previously suggested?

Going to my first show in years, I checked the ACC and found the have a "no recording" policy, so I'm leaving my audio recorder at home, lol.

I get why people want to watch these feeds and videos, personally I don't but I do get the arguments on both sides.

HughFreakingDillon

I watched a Headstones periscope once for a bit, but the audio was so bad I could barely take it. it was sort of neat seeing a concert going on right in front of you without being there. but the novelty didn't last long.

High Fidelity 2000

Lifted said:

I thought this was gonna be a thread ripping periscopers, which i find silly. Who the hell would want to waste a great show recording for strangers at home? But you took a different angle and I am baffled by whatever point you are trying to make. I love being able to watch periscope.

Yes. I love watching them but I don't know how I'd feel if the guy in front of me was holding his phone up the whole concert unless he turns the screen all the way down which I think a lot of scopers do. To complain about it stealing royalties or whatever... uh this is not where I thought this thread was going to go!

Amongst the Ani

I love that this is happening as it will revolutionize how we listen/consume music yet again. Sport teams are already going through this. When HD came along it made watching the game from home at times better than being there. Your fridge with beer is right there and the food choices are customized for you since you bought the food. Watching PJ elsewhere than the arena will never be the same as you miss the energy from the band and crowd. But it will give the option though for people to see more shows they can't afford airfare and such to. Sports figured it out and have packages to watch games and they amped up commercials on local TV to offset the loss of revenue. PJ and other bands will have to do the same when technology gets good enough that it becomes an issue. This is a good thing to me.

RKCNDY

PJ_Soul said:

PJ has a rich history of encouraging people to share content like this. Remember the speech years and years back about how one person should b

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Yes, that was definitely their reasoning. They don't care if the content was shared - they just didn't like to see their fans getting ripped off. I assume their attitude is the same about the periscoping and the multicam shows on youtube. It's just that in these cases the content is free, so there is nothing for them to worry about. No one is getting ripped off with Periscope, even if the quality is basically shit (the multicam shows on youtube are much better). So no worries on their end here I assume. The only reason I can see them streaming shows themselves would be to make money from it themselves.

unless of course you are talking about posters and stickers...

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJ has a rich history of encouraging people to share content like this. Remember the speech years and years back about how one person should b

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Yes, that was definitely their reasoning. They don't care if the content was shared - they just didn't like to see their fans getting ripped off. I assume their attitude is the same about the periscoping and the multicam shows on youtube. It's just that in these cases the content is free, so there is nothing for them to worry about. No one is getting ripped off with Periscope, even if the quality is basically shit (the multicam shows on youtube are much better). So no worries on their end here I assume. The only reason I can see them streaming shows themselves would be to make money from it themselves.

the top part of your post got cut off. what were you saying here?

I didn't mean for that to post, but I was going to say that Eddie once made some speech on stage about how one person in the crowd should buy a CD (of whatever their latest album was at the time - an early one) and then make 10,000 copies of it for everyone else.

PJ_Soul

RKCNDY said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJ has a rich history of encouraging people to share content like this. Remember the speech years and years back about how one person should b

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't think they really "nipped it in the bud". the way they tell it, they didn't care that the fans were recording the shows, they just wanted them to have good quality sounding boots and not have the fans being ripped off having to buy a $50 boot. And I'm sure the revenue didn't hurt their cause.

Yes, that was definitely their reasoning. They don't care if the content was shared - they just didn't like to see their fans getting ripped off. I assume their attitude is the same about the periscoping and the multicam shows on youtube. It's just that in these cases the content is free, so there is nothing for them to worry about. No one is getting ripped off with Periscope, even if the quality is basically shit (the multicam shows on youtube are much better). So no worries on their end here I assume. The only reason I can see them streaming shows themselves would be to make money from it themselves.

unless of course you are talking about posters and stickers...

Haha, yeah of course! And records too!

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

I watched a Headstones periscope once for a bit, but the audio was so bad I could barely take it. it was sort of neat seeing a concert going on right in front of you without being there. but the novelty didn't last long.

Well it's just that MUCH better quality recordings of the whole show tend to appear on youtube anyway. I'd rather watch one of those multicam shows than a periscope feed. The periscope feeds are really only for those who want to be online and gush over the setlist on social media as it happens (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Who I Am

My Oculus Rift experience of MSG 1 was life altering !!!

PJ_Soul

Who I Am said:

My Oculus Rift experience of MSG 1 was life altering !!!

Okay, well THAT'S cool. Do you mean that you got a 360 video of it???? How'd you manage that?! I have Gear VR, and would love to try this! I've not found any 360 vids of PJ yet.... just 2D. Please let me know where this is available!

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I watched a Headstones periscope once for a bit, but the audio was so bad I could barely take it. it was sort of neat seeing a concert going on right in front of you without being there. but the novelty didn't last long.

Well it's just that MUCH better quality recordings of the whole show tend to appear on youtube anyway.

for PJ, yes, headstones, no.

DeLukin

I know nothing about Periscope - do the people doing the Periscoping make money (or can it be monetized like "likes" on youTube)? If it's all in good fun and out of a spirit of sharing something good with folks with similar interests I don't see the harm. Unless it negatively affects other's ability to enjoy the show. Then we're talking #EvenBro levels of douchey-ness.

HughFreakingDillon

DeLukin said:

I know nothing about Periscope - do the people doing the Periscoping make money (or can it be monetized like "likes" on youTube)? If it's all in good fun and out of a spirit of sharing something good with folks with similar interests I don't see the harm. Unless it negatively affects other's ability to enjoy the show. Then we're talking #EvenBro levels of douchey-ness.

I don't believe there's any monetary attachment to it.....yet.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I watched a Headstones periscope once for a bit, but the audio was so bad I could barely take it. it was sort of neat seeing a concert going on right in front of you without being there. but the novelty didn't last long.

Well it's just that MUCH better quality recordings of the whole show tend to appear on youtube anyway.

for PJ, yes, headstones, no.

Yeah, I wouldn't know about any other band besides the few that sometimes stream their shows professionally. Just talking PJ here.

The Stugots

OP has a valid point, and its one that I think we'll see being addressed more often in the future. Dave Chappelle tackled the issue in a unique way during his recent Chicago residency. Hard to do on a larger scale like an arena today, but I expect to see this tech growing in many performance areas.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/dave-chappelle-partners-with-phone-sock-startup-yondr-to-stop-recordings/

PJ_Soul

The Stugots said:

OP has a valid point, and its one that I think we'll see being addressed more often in the future. Dave Chappelle tackled the issue in a unique way during his recent Chicago residency. Hard to do on a larger scale like an arena today, but I expect to see this tech growing in many performance areas.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/dave-chappelle-partners-with-phone-sock-startup-yondr-to-stop-recordings/

Yeah, it definitely a valid point in the wider sense. I'm sure this is a real concern for many. It's just that PJ in particular should mind unless they have radically changed their thinking over the years on this.
But anyway, generally, there really is no way around it. There is no way for the venues or artists to stop people from carrying their phones. The only thing that could do, and SHOULD do, if they're concerned, is make an announcement about it before the show starts. Jack White did this, and it worked very well. Someone just came out and told everyone to keep their phones put away, out of respect for the artist and the other concert-goers, and that they had a professional photographer who would be posting many photos online immediately after the show, and everyone in the crowd was welcome to them, waiving copyrights. During the whole show following that announcement/request, I think I saw maybe 3 phones in the whole GA crowd. I don't know why more artists don't do this. It wouldn't stop things completely, but it sure would help a lot.

RKCNDY

PJ_Soul said:

The Stugots said:

OP has a valid point, and its one that I think we'll see being addressed more often in the future. Dave Chappelle tackled the issue in a unique way during his recent Chicago residency. Hard to do on a larger scale like an arena today, but I expect to see this tech growing in many performance areas.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/dave-chappelle-partners-with-phone-sock-startup-yondr-to-stop-recordings/

Yeah, it definitely a valid point in the wider sense. I'm sure this is a real concern for many. It's just that PJ in particular should mind unless they have radically changed their thinking over the years on this.
But anyway, generally, there really is no way around it. There is no way for the venues or artists to stop people from carrying their phones. The only thing that could do, and SHOULD do, if they're concerned, is make an announcement about it before the show starts. Jack White did this, and it worked very well. Someone just came out and told everyone to keep their phones put away, out of respect for the artist and the other concert-goers, and that they had a professional photographer who would be posting many photos online immediately after the show, and everyone in the crowd was welcome to them, waiving copyrights. During the whole show following that announcement/request, I think I saw maybe 3 phones in the whole GA crowd. I don't know why more artists don't do this. It would stop things completely, but it sure would help a lot.

that's cool they do that, I take pics and try to use my real camera, I have taken some 'would be' great pics, but there always is someone that holds their phone up right before the pic is taken.
I do like how Mike is very photo friendly and poses for pics during shows.

dudeman

Fuck a bunch of Periscope.

I feel like it's tantamount to copyright infringement, theft and general fuckery.

If the quality sucks, why would anyone spend any time watching?

Is it the:"Well, it's better than nothing" mentality?