And if I were going to be adamant about my arguments, rather than just find this an interesting question for examination, I’d say that the movie theater needs to change their practices. Honestly, I don’t see an ethical conundrum on my part as it relates to counting viewers. (But again, I do see a question concerning the lying issue.) I mentioned a caveat emptor viewpoint above, and this is what I had in mind. For instance, a proprietor could set up turnstiles in the doorway of each particular viewing area to obtain a more accurate count of attendees.
Furthermore, as I see it, yes, my business relationship is exclusively with the theater. Whatever financial arrangement is made between the theater and the film distributor does not concern me. For all I care, the distributor is providing the film for free; I’ll still pay my $8 because that’s the what the theater is charging for their service to me, and thus what I am ethically obligated to pay.
Echoing your statement (to make the point, not to be a dick), saying otherwise doesn’t make it so.
But that’s a false variable. If you owe them money, you owe them money. If their agenda is so reprehensible, it should trump any idle curiosity you have about what they have to express in the film. If you want to know badly enough to see the film, then you shouldn’t defraud them of their proceeds. Nobody’s forcing you to see the movie.
First, dealing with a minor tangent: Speed Racer may have been a flop in the short term, but in the long term, it will wind up in the black. Studio bookkeeping has made a fine art of inflating costs and hiding profits. If you discount all the interdepartmental costs that are booked as expenses but don’t actually cost the parent corporation anything, and once you factor in all the foreign sales, merchandising, home-media streams, and everything else, Speed Racer will be profitable in no more than seven or eight years, tops.
Second, to the main point of the thread: the layout of the multiplex proves absolutely that the exhibitor doesn’t give a vibrating blue shit whether you go into the auditorium for which you bought the ticket. There’s the rare exception of the sellout blockbuster on opening weekend, which necessitates a drone posted at the door to check stubs. Otherwise, the physical layout is absolute proof of their disregard for anything that happens after you pass the turnstile. They make their money on concessions, full stop.
So, no, this practice doesn’t bother me in the least.
My curiosity may not be idle. I may feel I need to see the film to understand my opponent’s arguments and counter them.
I used an extreme example, but I’m sure a lot of people from opposite ends of the political spectrum feel that way about both An Inconvenient Truth and Expelled. They want to be able to respond intelligently to arguments raised in the film, but don’t want to contribute financially to the filmmaker’s cause.
Let’s say I walk into a diner. There’s a ketchup bottle on the table. I didn’t order it; it’s not listed on the menu. But it’s there for my usage. As I see it, I’m perfectly entitled to take the entire bottle home with me. Whatever expectation the restaurant has does not concern me. For all I care, it’s something the diner provides for free. I choose to see it as an amenity to my patronage.
This stance, however “unconventional” it may be, is still a more justifiable position than the one you’ve taken.
When you bought your ticket, you had to state a specific movie. Your receipt has that movie title on the stub. What you’re saying is that, despite both a verbal and written agreement that’s been transacted (an agreement that is the precondition to you entering the theater in the first place), your ethical obligation is such that you’re free to ignore both and do what you want once you’re on the premises.
My “assertion” may not make it so, but I have a preponderence of evidence, both explicit and contextual, on my side to support it. You have failed, thus far, to be able to say likewise. All you have is your “interpretation” of your relationship with the theater, even if that “interpretation” is at odds with some very real facts. (and since you’re so fond of deconstructing analogies, what do you think of the fruit consignment examples cited?)
Actually, this isn’t necessarily true. The layout is to maximize patronage and save on expenses in staffing (both on the floor and in the booth). This doesn’t mean theater-hopping is a point of indifference to the management. But they do have other financial considerations to consider that prevent them from more rigidly enforcing the policy of patrons going to the right theater (since to do so would be to use staff that they often can’t afford to spare). It would be a mistake to assume that they don’t care; but in the grand scheme of things, their responsibility to their own board-of-directors is more important than dotting every I and crossing every T when it comes to situations that are unlikely to pose problems from either a vendor or customer service perspective.
Yes, this is good. Ummm, “good” in the sense of a probing example. Without specifying any details, but assuming that all of those details work against me, I have to admit that it would be unethical. Much as it pains me to cede that ground.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s too difficult to come up with a scenario where the ethics become ambiguous (e.g., spoke-'s response to the scenario). The details matter, just as if one is settling a murder/manslaughter charge.
On preview, I see lots of further responses to address. Damn, I’m slow. And I have some other things to do, so I can’t respond right away. Very interesting, though, Bricker. Did you expect the OP would get this much action?
Update: I just joined up with this organization here (it costs $30 to become a member) and encourage others to do so. Thanks for the butt-kick reminder, Bricker, and now carry on with your arguments!
How’s this: I, personally, don’t give half a shit about this particular “written and verbal agreement”, and neither, I’d wager, do 80% of theater owners/managers. Is it technically dishonest? Yes. But to me, it’s the same level of dishonesty displayed when telling a loved one they look great even if they’ve recently gained a lot of weight. The damage done (in my example, at least, of seeing the big-budget movie and buying a ticket for the indie film) is negligible, and I’m helping out a filmmaker (or loved one) who needs it. I’m not an absolutist enough to feel I’ve challenged my integrity by making this decision, and I weep no tears for “defrauding” the major studios.
ETA: As for the ketchup example, I suppose if enough people stole whole ketchup bottles, that particular diner could stop offering them, or bring ketchup packets with the meal. Businesses are pretty good at finding ways around theft when they want to, I’ve found.
This excuse could be use justify anything, then–if you don’t like Arnold’s politics, or disagree with Michael Moore’s perspective, or are opposed to product placement, or feel that a certain film is not being responsible with its carbon footprint.
If you feel such a noble (self-appointed) responsibility to better inform yourself about the “opposition”, then the least you could do is do the opposition the courtesy of renumerating them for their efforts as the business contract you entered demands. I think SoaT was absolutely correct in that people who use this excuse are typically acting from a position of self-righteousness; you know what the other side is going to say, so you already know they don’t deserve your money. And if you already know they don’t deserve your money, than it’s not real intellectual inquiry, is it?
You’ll get no argument from me. I have no dog in this hunt (I’ve worked for both theaters and studios, as well as frequent movies constantly of my own accord); I just took issue with the assertion that it was devoid of ethical implications, rather than that the implications were both relatively insignificant and, for most, easily digestible (both of which I admitted early on).
Whoop! The only real difference between this analogy and the theater situation is that the fruit-seller is hurt more. But I’d argue it’s not a matter of type, just a matter of degree.
But again, WHY is it ethical to borrow books from the library? I know that libraries are an ancient and accepted institution, but when you borrow a book from a library instead of purchasing it, you’ve deprived the creators of that book of a sale. You’ve used their intellectual property without compensating them, just like I do when I dig newspapers out of the recycling bins right next to the boxes that charge 50 cents.
The only thing that makes the library option seem moral is that libraries have been around for a long time, and book publishers can’t expect to prevent libraries from purchasing their books. And practically, there’s not much publishers could do to prevent people from sharing books, even if they could get laws passed making it illegal practically there’s no way to stop it.
So it seems to me that it is the theater’s obligation to make sure that patrons who purchase a ticket for one movie don’t go to another. If the theater takes no action to enforce this, why should the patron care? The patron didn’t sign a contract with the movie studios, the theater did. You could argue that you have an implied agreement to only see the movie you paid to see, but why doesn’t that apply to books in the library? Why doesn’t that apply to lending your friends your Transformers DVD for the weekend?
You say tomoto, I say tomato (just don’t eat them!).
Underwriting suggests an implicit support or agreement. If you’re worried about that association, then don’t go see the movie at all and then your conscience will really be clear!
This is not among the rights of the owner of a copyright in a work. They have the right to collect money from the creation and sale of a copy of the work. They don’t have the right to prevent transfer of that copy, once sold. If the library made copies of the book without paying and then lent it out, that deprives them of a right. The “first sale rule” is a pretty solid rule of law – just this week the Supreme Court slapped down a patent owner who tried to get around it through license contracts. Once you sell an article of goods, you don’t have the right to control what’s done with it.
What’s the ethical difference between seeing Expelled in a theater but paying to see Stop Loss, and borrowing an **Expelled ** DVD from the library, or from a friend? In all three cases the creators of the movie get nothing.
Very cool! Maybe we could get together for a drink sometime. I’m in Jack London Square. I work in San Francisco, though, so I’m usually home late on weekdays.
Your feelings concerning the orange vendor (or Ben Stein) are irrelevant from an ethical standpoint. In fact, trying to factor them in is a guaranteed way to move down the path towards unethical decision making.
People who do what is being described in the OP are stealing, period. They are also trespassing (or some very similar offense) because they are going into a business’s restricted area without the required ticket to enter that area.
Now, in the case of a movie theater, it’s analogous to buying a ticket for a train ride from A to B that costs $80 and then riding a train from C to D that costs $80 in a situation where both trains are empty. The movie theater isn’t being directly harmed, but at the same time–they have set up a business model where you buy tickets that entitle you to enter one of their specific theaters. Violating that agreement is unethical (although unless the movies are packed it matters very little to most.)
If you don’t like someone’s product, that doesn’t excuse unethical actions towards that person. The whole point of ethics is you don’t get to justify the means with the ends, in my opinion. The act has to be analyzed on its own merits. In this case, you’re stealing, period (not specifically the poster I am quoting, as he has indicated he’s not seen the movie and doesn’t intend to see it.)
There’s an old urban legend that 10% of KFC’s profits go to the Ku Klux Klan–if that was actually true, that still wouldn’t justify stealing from KFC. The theft is still unethical, period. It also wouldn’t justify going into a KFC and sitting down in every available seat and not buying anything (thus depriving KFC of a place for its paying customers to sit down); that’d be trespassing.
The only ethical way to behave in this situation is to wait for the DVD, wait for a friend to buy the DVD, and then borrow it–if you really want to see the movie but don’t want to give any money to the producers. It’d also of course, be ethical to voice your disapproval by simply not using the product (this would be the correct action in the case of the bigoted orange vendor as well.)
The only real difference between this analogy and the theater situation is that the fruit-seller is hurt more. But I’d argue it’s not a matter of type, just a matter of degree.