That's a nice way of simply ignoring the truth which was implied in my comment: if people didn't need a phone in the pre-mobile era...they also don't really need a phone now - they only think they do.
You even mention the real "problem" in your comment: having to do without a mobile would be a "very inconvenient option".
Says it all, really.

But most (all?) venues have these restrictions...many simply don't act on them when it comes to smartphones.

So, on the one hand you are of the opinion that people's use of their mobiles in certain situations should be seen as socially unacceptable behaviour...but on the other hand we should just ignore that kind of behaviour?

That's like saying murdering people is really bad behaviour, and we should name and shame murderers for doing it, but we shouldn't try to keep them from killing in the first place.

Exaggerated comparison, you say? Of course...but the logic behind is the same.

You've never been frisked before concerts?
I start to have serious doubts that you ever attended a concert.

But I'm willing to give you this: the venues are responsible, too - because they don't restrict you from entering with a mobile in your pocket.
On the other hand: try to enter a venue (cinema, theater, concert hall, etc.) with a videocam.
See, whether they let you bring that specifically designated device for audio/videorecordings to the venue.
Talk about double standards, huh?

Exactly, but because the sound on the bootlegged video is shitty anyway - we should just accept it when assholes ruin our expensively paid live experience?
Got it.
And I disagree.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/RehDA.jpg ;)

The point was to show what a crap response the "people didn't use to need this" really is. We've been able to make it without the wast majority of the technology we use today. Our needs are changing.

Yes, and very inconvenient solutions are not good solutions.

I have don't have access to many ticket around me at the moments, but no, most venues I've been to have no "no smartphones allowed" rules.

Not everything that people shouldn't do needs to be forbidden or physically restricted. There are a ton of behaviour that we don't accept in society without such measures being taken. You should't cough straight into the face of another, yet there is no law against it. You shouldn't cut in queue, yet there is no law against it. If people break these convention they will be told off (assuming there is someone with a little backbone around). Thus they are enforced.

I've only really been frisked at festivals and sport events, and in neither case where they interested in cellphones, but rather weapons or flares or the likes. I've only been to a rather limited number of pop concerts dedicated to one act. Maybe it's more common there.

Yes, because a video cam doesn't have the same range of uses, as we've already discussed.

Pop concerts are the main situation where I find that it will be difficult to stop people from using their smartphones, as the constantly moving and very crowded nature of those events make it difficult to communicate, or enforce any kind of responsibility for ones actions. I know there are plenty of people who are getting away with acting like douches at such events, in all kinds of ways. My point wasn't that the audience experience doesn't matter, but rather that it's the main issue in such situations.

But yes, I've also got it, we disagree.

We also don't NEED cars/vehicles for personal use....we can just walk everywhere(YES, even for many miles. If our ancestors could do it so can we). We also don't NEED televisions/radio for news/etc...people did just fine with newspapers(and even town criers) at one point.

Basically what i'm trying to say is that we shouldn't ban/limit devices just because some might find them to be unnecessary/some might not have a use(emergencies/etc) for them.

Also, as others like pinecone have said: Some things(in this case holding up phones/etc in theaters/venues) that others find bad/distasteful can be shunned/discouraged/handled by society just fine without rules in place to prevent such. And fwiw i'd rather have that than a law telling me not to do something with some sort of threat(legal/otherwise) behind it to "comply or else get in trouble/don't partake in said event/etc".

Small correction: for some of us, their "perceived needs" are changing.
And for some of us, the more convenient solutions preferred by a few, aren't necessarily seen as the better solutions for all of us.
That may be, but most (all?) venues forbid taking photos and audio/videorecordings - as has already been stated.

And smartphones are able to do these things.

Apart from that (and I addressed that also already):
I put a part of the blame on the venues because:

1) they're not updating their ToS to include smartphones, and
2) they're not barring the entrance for people with smartphones.

Of course: the bringing of smartphones is not the real problem at hand - it's their usage that's the problem.

I mean: I bring my smartphone to the cinema, too - but I turn it off during the movie.
Poses no problem for anyone around me.
But don't get me started on those who don't turn theirs off.

Let's be honest - the whole thing is a societal problem - based on the ever growing lack of upbringing.
And that won't ever get better again, if we just let people act in the way they want, without any repercussions for them.
Again, you wouldn't need to "tell anybody off" (if you have the necessary "backbone"), if the ToS would be followed and/or properly enforced.

Also: the "there's no law against it"-bit must be a joke...because there are no distinct "laws against coughing in someone's face", everybody can do it?
What's with bodily harm? I could sue you for coughing deliberately in my face - especially if you're sick at that moment.
The outcome might be unsure - but I could do it.
You are aware of that?

And besides (and to return to the topic): there are laws at hand already, on which the ToS of concert venues, etc. are based upon.

It wouldn't make much sense to threaten someone to get "thrown out" of a venue, if there were no laws that allowed the owners of the venue doing that.

Edit: btw - what's with the problem of someone filming me at a concert without my consent and then uploading that film on YT?
Fun fact: I have a "right on my own picture"...that's a personal right. Enforceable by law.
You bet it is. But as I said already: unfortunately they let you bring your mobile.
Exactly. The mobile delivers the full practical extent of two to three other devices, which are strictly forbidden in a concert...so, following any logic, it should be forbidden, too.
Which is the reason why we should keep them from bringing their mobiles.
We kind of keep circling around this point, don't you think?
With "such situations" you mean the rock/pop concerts?
Yeah. There it is the main issue.
And there it matters. Because people paid hard earned money to have an undisturbed experience.
You said you aren't a concert goer - so it's easy for you to say "oh that's no biggy!"
But for those of us who enjoy(ed) going to concerts, it's definitely a huge PITA.
I agree with that statement. ;)

It wouldn't be necessary if the audiences had a minimum level of self-control, which they apparently don't. So the decision is up to the performer.

Yes, the quality is better, but not good enough to film in dark, with coloured lights and with zoom.

Plus, there's a thing called brain where all memories are stored. Everyone have this peculiar device. Seriously, how can you forget you've been to a concert and saw a celebrity?? How can anyone have time for this? What about watching the concert, dancing, enjoying what you paid for? If you do forget and have to record "to save as a memory", well, such people go to really rubbish concerts...

Good point, but don't forget those with memory affective disorders or basic memory problems....also, the brain can't remember every detail/as many details and preserve them in such a way as a recording can.