[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
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.
Sorry, probably should have done that through PM.
[/QUOTE]
I PMd you…
For the record I commit greater ethics violations on a regular basis than the one in this thread. The only horse I have in this thread is anyone who genuinely believes they can say this behavior is ethical. It isn’t, no, I don’t give a shit and you probably shouldn’t either. But don’t call it ethical when it isn’t, even if it is just a trifling matter.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. So by this logic, the Greensboro sit-in, which helped integrate lunch counters, was, by your lights, “unethical” and constituted mere “trespassing.”
I think ethics are a bit more complicated than that.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The damage done & the help given are exactly the same. You can’t argue that your action is valiant on the one side, yet harmless on the other. The two consequences are proportionate.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
The damage done & the help given are exactly the same. You can’t argue that your action is valiant on the one side, yet harmless on the other. The two consequences are proportionate.
[/QUOTE]
Not the way I see it. To use my example again, the difference in scale between the grosses of a film like Iron Man vs. one like The Visitor are astronomical. The little amount the former is losing by my not paying for it isn’t really comparable to the gain by the latter. $20 means a lot more to someone who’s only got $1,000 in the bank than to someone who’s got $10 million.
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
The damage done & the help given are exactly the same. You can’t argue that your action is valiant on the one side, yet harmless on the other. The two consequences are proportionate.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, they may be equal, but they’re not equally proportionate. If you buy a ticket for The Visitor but go see Indiana Jones, the percentage of money the latter lost (relative to its overall gross) is exponentially smaller than the amount that the former gained, relative to its gross.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
Actually, they may be equal, but they’re not equally proportionate. If you buy a ticket for The Visitor but go see Indiana Jones, the percentage of money the latter lost (relative to its overall gross) is exponentially smaller than the amount that the former gained, relative to its gross.
[/QUOTE]
They are equally proportionate to each other in total dollars gained & lost, but not to the percentage of gross. Besides, most production companies make more than one film, so you have no idea how much it affects their bottom line.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
Not the way I see it. To use my example again, the difference in scale between the grosses of a film like Iron Man vs. one like The Visitor are astronomical. The little amount the former is losing by my not paying for it isn’t really comparable to the gain by the latter. $20 means a lot more to someone who’s only got $1,000 in the bank than to someone who’s got $10 million.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be saying that it is perfectly okay to steal items from Walmart, so that you may restock them at their Mom and Pop competitor. On top of that, you fail to take into consideration that the studio involved with Indiana Jones just released a total flop & spent a great deal more money in the making of both films than the independent producer did. You have no idea how valuable your money is going to be to either of them in the long run.
Hell, I have no problem with someone buying one ticket & using it to see another film. What makes absolutely no sense is trying to reconcile the decision by saying “I’m helping someone, but hurting no one”. Nonsense.
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
Very interesting, though, Bricker. Did you expect the OP would get this much action?
[/QUOTE]
Quite frankly, no. I thought there’d be one or two lone wolf voices defending the practice and someone would take me to task for offering a straw-man debate where no one is on ther other side. The fact that there’s a loud chorus defending the practice has been quite an eye-opener.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Yeah, but if his orange vendor is a bigoted asshole who donates a share of his profits to the KKK, maybe I don’t feel especially guilty about it.
[/QUOTE]
Then buy your oranges elsewhere, or go without. The KKK worked just as hard to grow or distribute those oranges and are entitled to the proceeds from any sale as if they were grown by orphaned animal rescue workers. Am I released from any responsibility for damages I cause in a hit-and-run accident if the person I hit is a jerk (not a criminal, just a jerk)?
[QUOTE=Labrador Deceiver]
Hell, I have no problem with someone buying one ticket & using it to see another film. What makes absolutely no sense is trying to reconcile the decision by saying “I’m helping someone, but hurting no one”. Nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the argument (excuse, rationalization, whatever) is that it’s hurting “no one”. It’s hurting someone who’s better able to absorb the loss, while the film that benefits is one that is more in need of financial support–and presumably, by getting more support, there will be more inclination to make similar (smaller, riskier, more independent, less hype-based) types of movies.
I’m not arguing that it’s ethical–it’s not. But if you’re going to do it, I know there are some films I’d rather see helped more than others.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Interesting. So by this logic, the Greensboro sit-in, which helped integrate lunch counters, was, by your lights, “unethical” and constituted mere “trespassing.”
[/QUOTE]
Your example spoke- does not appear quite analogous to the scenario described by Martin Hyde as the Greensboro Woolworths could have chosen to serve the students but chose instead to refuse service.
What it keeps coming back to for me is that this is not stealing a loaf of bread when you’re hungry or diapers for your child. A movie is something you can easily do without- it’s not even remotely mandatory that you have it, plus money had nothing to do with the reason for the theft anyway.
I don’t feel at all sorry for Ben Stein or the writers/producers I’ll admit. OTOH, I wouldn’t feel sorry for Ben Stein and the movies writers/producers if they sat on a hot propane grill and burned their asses, but I don’t condone somebody pushing them backward onto a hot propane grill.
Another vote for “no skin off my nose if you steal it or if you don’t”, but do admit you stole.
The example is not similar, to the extent that the service contracted was not provided. That is, you paid for a ticket to Chicago and were not transported there. I can’t think of a way to preserve the analogy using an airline, though. Let’s see…we’ll say that you bought a ticket to Chicago, reserved seat 21B, but then you sat in seat 21A. Is that unethical? Or, without approval, you then sat in first class. Is that unethical (in and of itself; that is, you were not asked to return to seat 21B)?
As I mentioned to Bricker, the fruit consignment example is a much improved analogy. One that was not mine in its origination, I might add.
I’m glad that I’ve been participating in this thread, as it’s been elucidating. See, I agree that there is a matter of personal ethics involved here. But, as I said earlier, I see it as a matter of lying (i.e., one knowingly states a falsehood). And yes, it is a lie and may therefore be considered unethical.
What I don’t see is any rationalizing of not paying to see the film that I might watch. In fact, in the given circumstances, I most certainly did pay to see the film I watched – the theater gains $8 directly from my pocket.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
This article more or less summarizes film distribution (albeit in a somewhat oversimplified fashion). One way or another, you are taking money out of the pocket of the cinema; however, since the theater’s main profit comes from the sale of concessions, not film revenues, the loss is slight.
From a strict ethical standpoint, it’s wrong. The producers, distributors, and venue operators are showing films to make a profit, not as a public service. By paying for one film and watching a different one, you’re getting a product without paying for it. Even if the film was being distributed on a straight lease rather than profit-sharing (so the cinema doesn’t care), you are mucking up the viewing numbers by which success or failure (and ultimate decisions on post-cinema distribution) are made. It’s not as wrong as stealing from old ladies or mugging pizza deliverymen, but you’re taking something you haven’t paid for. You can rationalize it as “sticking it to The Man” or “not supporting <blank> cause” or whatever, but it’s at the same ethical level as shoplifting a magazine.
I’m not quite sure why you’d do this anyway in this particular case. It isn’t as if Ben Stein’s Expelled is going to present some revolutionary new argument for Intelligent Design that hasn’t been better explained in any of a number of literate if wrong-headed or intellectually dishonest books on the topic. The film–produced for and marketed to the faithful–is hardly going to delve into the nuances and questions of the issue, instead preferring–as nearly all advocacy video essays do–to go for memorable sound bites. If you are going to watch the film in a cinema venue, even critically, you owe it just as much to the producers to pay for it just as you would a book purchased from the bookstore.
Stranger
[/QUOTE]
As I understand it the theater’s share of the profits increase the longer the movie shows. So if you go and see a movie that has been running for longer than the one you are avoiding paying for, you can ostensibly give MORE money to the theater than you would have otherwise. But also, if you are unwilling to support Expelled with money, you want to deprive it of box office tallies as well.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
It’s not much better if you’re buying a PG-ticket so you can get into an R-rated film. I’ve found, anecdotally speaking, that the kind of kids who sneak into movies are also the kind who are also likely to be disruptive throughout the movie. Again, this usually ends up inconveniencing both the staff and the paying patrons.
[/QUOTE]
Self-Selecting criteria. The kids most likely to get CAUGHT sneaking into movies, are also more likely to be disruptive.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
This is more like checking a book out of the library rather than buying it, because you want to know what the book says but you don’t want to support the author.
[/QUOTE]
No checking it out from the library rather than paying for it would be the equivalent of checking it out from the library rather than paying for it.
You could also netflix it.
The fact of the matter is that the movie’s box office take legitimizes the point of view in a way. Giving them that extra money allows them to show true believers that they are fighting the good fight.
However, one needs to see it to know the arguments it makes, so if one is going to debunk it, one needs to know what it is saying.
So the question really is one of a war between memes, and the ethics you apply in a utilitarian sense to that war. Is the unethical choice to defraud the producers outweighed by the damage done to society by implying consent to the movie’s message?
This isn’t simply a matter of intellectual property in a vacuum. Most people’s arguments could replace the movie with X, and argue it despite the movie. In this case the movie is real and has real consequences as to it’s impact on the world. So in the case of Diogenes et. al. They are making a tactical decision to disrupt what they see as being harmful to society. Thus in their view, benefitting society by being able to debunk the film. (The fact that they will largely preach to the choir, just like the movie, is beside the point.)
So the intended benefit must be weighed against the intended harm to really come to an honest conclusion.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
I don’t think the argument (excuse, rationalization, whatever) is that it’s hurting “no one”. It’s hurting someone who’s better able to absorb the loss, while the film that benefits is one that is more in need of financial support–and presumably, by getting more support, there will be more inclination to make similar (smaller, riskier, more independent, less hype-based) types of movies.
I’m not arguing that it’s ethical–it’s not. But if you’re going to do it, I know there are some films I’d rather see helped more than others.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll grant you that, and maintain my position that the logic is nonsense. The people arguing such are still trying to have it both ways, but they can’t.
ETA: I think we’re pretty much in agreement. My issue was more with the logic than the action itself.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
This article more or less summarizes film distribution (albeit in a somewhat oversimplified fashion). One way or another, you are taking money out of the pocket of the cinema; however, since the theater’s main profit comes from the sale of concessions, not film revenues, the loss is slight.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and I did an odd thing- I asked if I could do this (well, I had paid for one film and I wanted to see another after). I asked the manager, and he looked down at my godzilla sized soda and popcorn and said “You’re obviously a good customer and it’s a slow day. See three, for all I care”.
So, I woudl do this- go to some Indie type theatre and ask. Explain you want to wacth film A, but only to review it, to see if it really is that bad, and that you’d happily pay for Film B- not to mention a full trek to the concession stand. If the Mgr sez OK, then you no longer have any moral qualms.
Note: I’m combining responses to multiple posts.
All I can say is that you’re conflating “repercussions” with “responsibility”. While related to one another, they are not equivalent. And the difference is relevant to the question of ethical obligation. For instance, assume that I know for a fact that a certain horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby, but lie to you, tell you it won’t, and you therefore do not bet on the horse. A repercussion of my action is that you win nothing. If you bet on a different horse, you lost that money. I am not responsible for you placing that bet, however – I do not see any violation of ethics due to the fact that you lost money.
Yes, I would assert that I had paid for a ticket and therefore should be allowed to see a movie. If management asked me to move to a different room (to see the film that they thought I would see), yes, I would move. Note, however, that this is purely theoretical, as I do not go to the movies, nor would I ever spend money on (much less actually watch) this particular movie.
Obviously, “do what you want” is just a bit of an exaggeration. After all, it’s not like I’d feel free to set fire to the seats. But yes, I feel no ethical obligation to see the movie stated on my ticket, in a similar way that I would feel no ethical violation in using a pharmaceutical for off-label purposes or crossing the street on a “Do Not Walk” signal. These are not meant to be analogous, simply examples where I do not see any ethical concerns.
Again, however, there is an ethical question concerning lying, minor though it may be. If it’s not clear, I suppose that I’m arguing that the ethical issue that attaches has nothing to do with the once-removed loss of revenue, but solely with the (im)propriety of telling a falsehood.
It doesn’t seem like we’re going to reach an agreement on this, but are soon going to simply be repeating ourselves. Which is OK with me, as it’s of no practical import anyway.