For the most part I would say I agree with you.  I&#x27;d say if devices can enhance an experience it&#x27;s more than likely a constructive use of technology.  When devices remove you from the experience altogether I&#x27;d say it&#x27;s a destructive use of technology.  So what is lost in the above example?  Simply the fact that audio is not echoing off of the walls in the venue.  I can see why some people would find that to be a problem, but how sound is delivered to the audience&#x27;s ears is not a huge difference IMO.  Especially when that audience is just sitting at the show and is not expected to participate anyways.<p>But keep in mind that&#x27;s not really the point.  The thread has to do with ways to protect a comedian&#x27;s content (especially live shows) from piracy.  The point of the article was to show an example of how technology can be used to help protect a comedian&#x27;s (or perhaps other performers&#x27;) live shows.<p>Performers can spend their entire lives building up the skills they use to put on 5 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute, etc. shows.  How else can a performer recoup that time invested if they can&#x27;t expect to perform the routine many times and be paid each time?  The issue with piracy of live shows is many (perhaps most) people will no longer be interested in paying to see a show they&#x27;ve already seen for free online.  Or at the very least they&#x27;ll be disappointed because they&#x27;ve seen exactly the same act before online for free.