
Japanese hotel room costs $1 a night, but you have to livestream your stay - herendin2
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/livestream-hotel-room-japan-intl-hnk/index.html
======
gorgoiler
If you consider this to be exploiting the consumer then this is a good example
for the textbooks of how, in a free market, there has to be some regulation to
prevent exploitation of those at the edges of society.

It’s exactly the same argument for laws against the most vulnerable types of
sex work, or selling body organs donated by the living. Without those laws,
those who are most desperate will be able to act in desperation, to someone
else’s benefit, with society doing nothing to stand in the way.

It’s probably time ad-tech was re calibrated on this spectrum before we _race
to the exploitative-bottom_ there as well, and build a shopping mall that we
don’t want on the open common land that we do.

~~~
nickpp
Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like out of existence will
not actually make them disappear, just push them underground, out of society's
eye and where the REAL exploitation takes place.

That's why adults actually working in those domains militate for legalization
and that's why totalitarian societies require so much surveillance just to
avoid collapse.

Because people WILL do the deals they need to do to survive or get ahead. Your
laws will just provide the reason to catch and incarcerate them afterwards.

See the marijuana legalization mess.

~~~
debrice
I think your argument would make more sense if the actor in the room was paid
a fair wage

~~~
Jamwinner
Define 'fair' in a way 65% would agree with. To me, 'fair' is what I
negotiate. In my view, when value and price are decoupled, things tend not to
go well. Keeping the things we value expensive, is exactly as it should be.
This view does not perclude a social 'safety net', it just takes the position
that wage laws should not be forced into imperfect duty as one.

------
thegeekpirate
Funny, I just watched "We Live in Public"
([https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498329/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498329/))
the other day, where Pseudo was giving people free _everything_
(room/food/drugs/shooting range/etc.), but their entire lives had to be
recorded (one hundred people were living in this place together).

Absolute insanity, and I just found an interview with the director as well,
Ondi Timoner
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSTLRgyt7pU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSTLRgyt7pU)).

~~~
walrus01
Jennycam.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley)

~~~
gaspoweredcat
ah the 90s were a strange time for the internet (if memory serves this popped
up in about 97-98)

------
antpls
People are saying it's like Facebook IRL, but it's not. Facebook used to let
you post your private life online as much as possible and hide to you all the
advertisement business.

This, in contrary, is very open about its business model and you are warned
upfront. It also means everyone on internet can make sure the management of
the hotel is done right.

You are guaranteed that the room has been cleaned and no one can steal your
things.

This is an example of how recording everything can lead to reducing risks for
both the host and the guests. (I'm not saying we should start recording
everything everytime)

~~~
afroboy
If i would ask to shut down the camera when doing private stuffs that would be
ok.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
The article specifically mentions that sex acts are prohibited if you take the
owner up on the offer. This is presumably to satisfy Japan's strict sex
censorship laws.

------
nayuki
Covered by a different news source a week earlier, offering different details
and photos: [https://soranews24.com/2019/11/13/japans-cheapest-hotel-
char...](https://soranews24.com/2019/11/13/japans-cheapest-hotel-charges-
just-130-yen-us1-20-for-a-room-with-a-huge-no-privacy-catch/)

------
subroutine
He should charge guests and extra $1 to livestream their stay (on top of the
regular price). Some people like to voyeur; others like to be on camera.
Charging to be seen makes it seem less creepy (than - "normal price $10... but
only $1 if people can watch you"), and engenders the idea of scarcity (for $1
you can be _featured_ on a popular livestream). I see wannabe 'influencers'
seeking out such an opportunity.

~~~
JDiculous
Perhaps if the channel got popular enough then that might make sense, but at
this stage I think that would be a terrible move. Charging extra to be
livestreamed changes the whole dynamic from "cheapest hotel ever, with one odd
condition" to "what kind of idiot pays extra money for a hotel room to be
livestreamed?"

$1 hotel is cool and something you want to share with your friends and stay in
for the experience. Having to pay extra money on top of the room fare for the
"privilege" of being livestreamed does not sound attractive and would probably
generate outrage (though to be fair, outrage is still attention). Also as a
viewer, I'd be less interested in watching people so desperate for attention
that they're willing to pay extra money to be livestreamed - I'd assume
they're one of those "wannabe influencers".

~~~
subroutine
Maybe, maybe not, opinions vary

If staying in a cheap hotel was cool, why don't I ever hear people bragging
about the low budget roadside motel they stayed in? Travelers who randomly
___wander in_ __might submit to being livestreamed, if presented that option.
But people who __ _go there_ __, specifically, are doing so for the unique
experience of being livestreamed ", not for the experience of paying $1.
Again, just an opinion.

Also, which seems like it would generate more outrage...

(1) A hotel where people can pay to be livestreamed on youtube.

(2) A hotel for people who don't actually want to be filmed in the privacy of
their hotel room, but can't afford the room otherwise.

But you are right, it shouldn't cost extra. It should be a free experience
(with the option to have it promoted somehow - for a small fee ;)

~~~
JDiculous
People brag about getting bargains all the time. That's like one of the core
themes of the "digital nomad" community.

The (2) option you specified is not the case. And if people can only afford a
$1/night hotel room, then I think there are more productive places to direct
that outrage.

~~~
subroutine
> "if people can only afford a $1/night hotel room"

Yes, they exist. They are called poor people.

As it is, the business model seems partially based on there being (1) a group
of men on the internet who want to voyeur hotel rooms, and (2) working class
women who reluctantly consent to their hotel room being live-streamed for a
discounted rate. If it's not textbook, it certainly has some of the symptoms
of exploitation.

~~~
JDiculous
It's a hotel room, not a permanent residence. The responsibility for providing
affordable housing doesn't rest on the owner of a small guesthouse. Also this
is Japan, not a city like San Francisco with a homeless epidemic and tents on
the sidewalks.

> (1) a group of men on the internet who want to voyeur hotel rooms, and (2)
> working class women who reluctantly consent to their hotel room being live-
> streamed for a discounted rate.

Uh...what? Have you looked at the videos on their Youtube channel? You're
really stretching to find a reason to be outraged here.

------
thatswrong0
Depending on the terms, I would probably subject myself to it so I could drum
up interest in the art project I’m working on (as I would be working on it
live). This kind of seems like a win-win (assuming the hotel actually comes
out ahead somehow.. which doesn’t seem possible)

------
wyxuan
This isn't much unlike livestreaming on Twitch. It's a novelty and if you want
to do it you want. People livestream themselves doing weird stuff all the
time.

~~~
jacquesm
> It's a novelty

No it isn't. That stuff has been done since the mid 90's.

------
maest
The article ending makes me feel very icky for some reason:

> So, besides the opportunity to have thousands of strangers watch your REM
> cycle on the internet, what's the incentive to head to Fukuoka? Plenty -- so
> much that CNN Travel named Fukuoka one of its must-visit destinations for
> 2019. The pretty seaside city is known for its incredible food. In addition
> to local, freshly-caught seafood, Fukuoka is also the birthplace of the
> popular Ichiran chain, home of yummy pork tonkotsu ramen. Also, the
> acclaimed Fukuoka Art Museum reopened in early 2019 following three years of
> renovations.

------
jacquesm
That's pretty cheap of them. In Toronto there was a very large building where
gay people would stay rent free and get paid if they live-streamed their
lives. This was in '97.

------
heyalexej
Reminds me of Big Sister [1], a brothel where customers could use the women's
services for free, subsidized by paying Internet viewers, DVD sales & such.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Sister_(brothel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Sister_\(brothel\))

~~~
jaclaz
Yep, but there the business model is (was) clear, there is no doubt that there
is a (vast and lucrative) market for voyeurs and (streaming) porn, what is
missing here is the lack (I presume) of a market for people wanting to see
strangers sleep.

Maybe there is a subset of feticism about it, but are the numbers big enough?

~~~
notahacker
tbh his ordinary, struggling budget hotel has given a handful of guests a
discount, and in return he's got worldwide press coverage. I suspect that's
the bit that matters more than the sustainability of the model.

~~~
jaclaz
Yep, but if he had an online shop, I would understand that, I simply (maybe it
is just me) cannot see how/why anyone (being in Fukuoka) would choose that
hotel over the competitors (paying the "full" rate I mean) so - maybe - he is
increasing the number of people willing to stay there (watched) for 1 $ per
night, i.e. something on which the hotel will loose money.

------
samstave
Do you have to be in the room for a certain number of hours and stay up until
a certain time of night.

Im sure me livestreaming what i fo in a hotel would be super boring. Reading
and then falling asleep to a documentary or podcast.

~~~
jacobwilliamroy
Some folks are so lonely, that watching some stranger watch tv can be a nice
distraction.

------
Animats
Anyone remember Jennicam?

------
Iv
I don't see the business plan there. $1 a night won't pay the rent. Not even
the costs that an owner has to pay. Looks like a stunt for something else.

~~~
freyr
He hopes to make money from the livestream, not from the people staying at the
hotel. It's right there in the article.

------
gaspoweredcat
im actually in japan now and my budget is running low but when you can snag a
guest house for like £5-6 a night its probably not worth being on the net, my
budget isnt that low

~~~
gt2
Mind saying where that is found?

------
msla
So... what are Japan's laws regarding child pornography?

If a family with a young kid stays, and the young kid ends up running around
naked, who goes to prison?

~~~
umanwizard
I don’t know about Japan, but FWIW, that would be perfectly legal in the US
and nobody would go to prison.

Simple nudity is not inherently sexual or pornographic.

------
benawad
All it takes is one person doing something against YouTube's terms of service
and his account will get banned.

------
saagarjha
I’m curious if he actually plans to make the money back through advertising…

~~~
JDiculous
Given that his hotel is now featured in a CNN article, I'd imagine it's
already paid off.

~~~
arkades
You can’t make up in volume what you’re losing in margins.

~~~
jfoster
That's correct, but not applicable to this case. You can't make up in volume
what you're losing in margins for the same product. In this case there are two
products:

1\. Hotel room (100Y, loss margin) x 1

2\. Live stream (whatever CPM he can get on YouTube) x many

It still seems like it would be a struggle to make this profitable though. How
many viewing hours would be needed per day? Most of the time it's going to be
an empty room or have the light off. The rest of the time probably not much of
interest is going on.

If he's savvy, he's not really intending to make it up with ads or perhaps
even keep this room deal. It's a promotion that takes the ryokan from "just
another place to stay" to at least having some notability. Not sure it
actually makes more people stay there, but perhaps it's worth a shot.

------
lobster45
I can see absolutely no problems with this business model /sarcasm

~~~
viraptor
Same but without sarcasm. If the deal is known and people are completely aware
of the terms... why not? As long as you can ensure nobody is streamed without
permission, I'm sure there's a number of people who are cool with it
(livestream channels like that existed decade(s?) ago). And on the other side,
there's going to be quite a few people interested in watching (big-brother-
style reality tv pretty much validated that). And you can be sure some people
staying there will try to push the "lewd act" boundary for fun, bringing in
more views.

Ultimately, this will be a better advertisement for that hotel than comparable
money can buy online.

~~~
jakelazaroff
You don’t have to extrapolate far to get into dystopian territory. “Get 50%
off your rent if you agree to be live-streamed all the time!”

This is also the business model that powers most of the web. “Let us spy on
you and get our service for free!” Then brands pop up offering privacy for a
price, and the result is that only rich people get to live their lives
unsurveilled.

This hotel example seems harmless because it’s mostly a gimmick, but we need
to stop this train in its tracks. Privacy should be a human right.

~~~
csydas
I'm mixed on this because while I 100% agree with you, I also don't really
think that it will take off beyond a few novelty places where the Hotel +
rooms are specifically designed to accommodate an entertaining stream. Think
specific amenities meant to encourage silliness, items in the room for
entertainment value that a regular hotel wouldn't use, product placement, and
so on.

The number of non-tech people who still bother with a strip of tape over their
laptop's webcam is encouraging enough for me to believe that likely a hotel
experience like this really will never grow beyond a curiosity for a select
group of people who wouldn't mind such an experience, and I think that our
paranoia over physical privacy likely will keep this pretty constrained.

~~~
viraptor
Even more - there's bound to be someone testing the boundaries. This is one
example.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley)
was another one. Someone has to either express/define or demonstrate what's
extreme for the rest to have an opinion on what's ok.

It will be an issue if this idea becomes a norm. But it's normal that it's an
extreme novelty.

------
daruton
Why people are so interested in follow our private life?

~~~
thrownaway954
Cause some people feel that if they can pick apart someone else's life, it
makes their own look less pathetic. It's like guy weighting 300lbs calling the
350lber fat. All these people want to do is watch until they can find
something to shame the other person. Society is better off without any of
these people. Unfortunately 99% who probably agree with my statement watch
reality TV which is no different than what this hotel is doing.

------
mwilcox
So it's facebook

------
tus88
Hmmm.

------
redis_mlc
> you have to livestream your stay

Oh, just like airbnb, except you pay $25+/nite and you're not told you're
being livestreamed.

~~~
Razengan
Was there an Airbnb case like that?

~~~
fold_right
Yeah:

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/europe/ireland-airbnb-
hidden-...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05/europe/ireland-airbnb-hidden-
camera-scli-intl/index.html)

~~~
yoz-y
I am puzzled, why did not they call the police?

~~~
DanBC
Hidden cameras in AirBnBs are horrible.

But what crime in Irish law do you think has been broken?

~~~
dtech
I don't know about Ireland, but in most placed in Europe you can not film
people without their knowledge unless it's a public place.

~~~
DanBC
But is that in criminal or civil law?

EDIT: If someone wants to link some laws that's be useful.

For the downvoters: I am clearly NOT saying it's okay to hide cameras in an
AirBnB. But it's probably not a criminal offence. The police have no power
here. I'm NOT saying it's lawful -- the AirBnB owners are probably violating
Irish data protection laws. But again those are not enforced by the police. In
the UK it's not a criminal offence unless it meets the definition in the
sexual offences act 2003, and putting cameras in the living room but not the
bedroom probably gives the owners enough deniability to avoid prosecution.
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67)

~~~
Sharlin
Criminal, obviously.

~~~
DanBC
No, absolutely not "obviously". It's not a criminal offence in the UK to film
people without their knowledge. It breaks data protection law (civil); there
are regulations (RIPA) for public authorities but these do not apply to
members of the public ; and there is criminal law that covers covert recording
if done for sexual gratification, but those may not apply if the cameras have
not been placed in toilets or bedrooms.

Can you link any of these laws please? Especially for Ireland. I can't find
anything for Ireland that would make this a criminal offence.

Again, I'm not defending it. I think it's an awful thing to do. But "why
didn't they call the police?" is answered by "maybe they did and the police
told them it's not a police matter".

~~~
Sharlin
Okay, not obviously and I should have elaborated. In my country, Finland,
watching or recording people without consent, in situations where they have a
reasonable expectation of privacy, is a crime punishable by a fine or up to a
one-year prison sentence. This includes homes, hotel rooms, changing or
fitting rooms, toilets, and similar locations, but also ”upskirt” style
photography in public places.

------
droithomme
_> So far, four guests have taken him up on the offer_

So, it's not exactly a popular option.

------
zyang
Facebook, IRL.

------
noobermin
Tbh I'm surprised an American didn't think of it first. I guess Big Brother
was the first and now they're just letting every join Big Brother.

~~~
gdy
Big Brother is originally Dutch.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Dutch_TV_series...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_\(Dutch_TV_series\))

~~~
r00fus
Big Brother is originally from 1984 (the book)

~~~
gdy
No, Big Brother the TV show isn't.

