this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
176 points (98.9% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

70368 readers
118 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

We heartily recommend visiting the free port of freemediaheckyeah (aka FMHY) while you sail the high seas, for all the freshest links the ocean has to offer.

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 84 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of course it would be piracy that gets them banned rather than the whole being a pervert bit.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

One of my former classmates got locked up for trying it on with an underage girl in a cinema. I'm not saying Showcase is a hive of villainy, but for sure it's exactly the sort of place where you need to be particularly vigilant against predators.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 week ago

Frankly, ban them full stop. I haven't consented for any part of my appearance being captured on them, just as many others haven't. Consent is explicit, not implicit.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I read "privacy fears" which would make sense but since this is about big media companies, of course it's piracy fears.

Fuck privacy, who govrs a fuck about that?

[–] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago

Until I read your comment I also thought it said privacy lmao, of course that was too hopeful

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago

dear highly upheld UK Courts, you must have misspelt "privacy".

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 12 points 1 week ago

Ah yes, because before smart glasses nobody was releasing camcorder rips

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Well yeah profit is at stake

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Trade body says local chains would have to balance concerns with potential benefits of AI-enabled technology

I went into the article so you didn´t have to:

The glasses can help viewers with bespoke subtitles, for example, providing support for people with visual impairment or hearing loss.

I mean, anyone with money to shell out for pervert glasses is going to have better options to address visual impairment and hearing loss, but subtitles are kind of an interesting and valid use case.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You don't need cameras to generate subtitles.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

True, but the display is there to show the subtitles, and it's much better than looking down at a phone and distracting other audience members.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

you can have a smart glass without camera make subtitles

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the display is much more expensive than the camera so if there is any utility in there being a camer there is no reason to not have it

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

oh lol. there's a lot of reason. It's called privacy. we shouldn't stop there though, we need to get "laws" on that list too.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Around here, cinemas provide official captions. No need to have an AI screw it up by mangling names or misattributing dialogue.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How do you read them? On the screen? I'd find that annoying.

I was looking to see how that transcription feature worked, but since tech journalism is mostly marketing, I couldn´t find it discussed, but I'm guessing it kind of sucks, between latency, errors, and constant retroactive updates to the conversation.

Ideally the theater would be broadcasting the subtitles synced to the movie, because good subtitles are edited for space and timing, so a real-time AI transcription is always going to be a worse experience even if it is technically perfect.

I've also been thinking what a tremendous WASTE it is to have individual users transcribing media audio, when it could be easily provided at the source by the creator who does it exactly ONCE.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's a mirror on a stick that you set up at your seat. It reflects the captions on a screen at the back of the theater.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Oh, cool. Found this with some other options:

https://circletranslations.com/blog/what-closed-captioning-movie-theatres-how-it-works

So it seems there really is no good reason to bring these glasses in to the theater unless you've made them your only pair of prescription glasses.