Hooligan chants silenced by delayed echoes

That's very scary.
It means that means and technology to manipulate a crowd are getting into a new level.
Don't get abuse by the fact that it could distrupt extreme right wing hooligans, it really means tat it can distrupt any crowds. The message is the media.

Another architecture of control designed to enforce certain behaviours on the public. As Kim says, 'they' may present it as being for controlling offensive crowds, but what it's really for is controlling any crowds who might say something that the organisers of the event don't want to hear.

Two other points to consider-

If a speaker system is used to broadcast back the crowd’s chanting (which may be offensive), then:

a) It’s illegally publicly re-broadcasting copyright material without the consent of crowd members
b) It’s illegally publicly broadcasting offensive material.

just like tv pasted in laughter...nothing that new: reminds me of the star trek episode where the roman empire never ended.

Dan, as to your point a) I bet the ticket says that by purchasing it you agree to license your rights to the venue owners for the duration of the event.

I personally find this scarry. It is a control mechanism, they want us to consume, but never question. In an age where we'll be unable even to chant, how do we defy? How do we ensure our freedoms?

No crowd copyrights their chants... That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

I have to agree with Drew, copyrighted chants??? are you insane? As for publicly broadcasting offensive material, its an echo, not some guy saying it. Its basically taking the crowd and giving them a reverse microphone to shut them up. I for one would love this.

maybe someone needs to make cell phone software that vibrates to the beat so it's easier to chant when you can't rely on your ears... teach those mind control b*stards that we'll find a way.

While I think this technology would be initially distruptive, I think that people would find creative ways to subvert it. Imagine if this was taken outside of a football stadium, how would you protest? Rather than a vocal protest, a group may elect for a silent protest. Picture a large group of people with signs, just standing around. Walking. Pacing. Blocking traffic, but not making any noise at all. The message would be the same, only the method would change.

That, and I figure the techonology would only be used until someone got pissed off enough to generate a feedback loop. Echo can be a very...very... bad thing.

I find it offensive that you are using a picture featuring a West Ham flag to illustrate this story

Since when is it illegal to broadcast offensive material? And copyrights for crowd chants? Are you kidding?

It's not even close to manipulating crowds. It doesn't force you to do anything, it just forces you not to do something.
Point A is already taken care off, you're waiving any rights as a performer from the moment you enter the stadium, or I'd ask royalties every time a camera films a crowd I'm in during any event.
I can see where point B will pose a significant threat to the system in the US. If a crowd chants anything offensive will be deemed acceptable, but if the "officials" do so, it will be considered scandalous and unforgiveable.
Though I do find the experiment pretty disturbing.

What about the players in the stadium. if they have to amplify a sound with a delay that would probably have to be at the same or higher lvl than the crowd, it'll create more noise for the jocks. Try playing two songs at the same time and don't tell me that it'd won't screw you up.

i honestly don't remember the last time I chanted in a crowd, and I doubt i'll ever do it in my lifetime, there are better more effective ways of making yourself be heard, that don't involve spewing my mouth off with some clever chant that only makes the people who make the real decision shake their heads and label u an extremist.

OK, as Brian says, they would probably make you sign a waiver... I was kind of posing an extreme case... but - to Drew & John - in the UK, at least, everything 'creative' that an individual expresses is automatically his/her copyright, with no need to do anything 'active' to register it. Just because you do it in public doesn't mean you automatically have no rights over it, otherwise it would be legal to bootleg concerts.

Yeah, the control issue is more important. Who decides whether or not the chanting is offensive?

They could use noise cancelation, but it would be near-impossible to recognize offensive choirs ánd cancel these out fast enough.

With noise cancelation, the same noise is broadcasted in negative soundwaves, at the same vollume as the source so that they cancel each other out.

Sure enough, someone in the USA is filing a pattent based on this very idea. To bad.

You can't create a feedback loop with echo from the audience. Only the sound board operator could produce a signal loud enought to feedback. crowds don't get copyrights bonehead. silent protests at the World Cup would do nothing. Who cares about what goes on outside of the stadium.

As long as they don't stop me from chanting "Da-da-da-da RANGERS SUCK!" at Devils home games, I have no problems with this device.

Seriously, though, the major issue with this technology was already addressed in the article: if a crowd actively senses that its chants are being disrupted, they may become violent. And then, whoops, might have been a better idea to just let them yell stuff!

Noise cancellation only works on sound sources that are predictable and repeating, such as mechanical noise from a fan. Crowd noise is just about as unpredictable as it gets.
I enjoyed the joke about the waiver on the ticket.

I just thought of something. What if the people from punk'd used that on a celebrity in a concert. That celebrity would be unable to sing coherantly!