Buying a ticket for one movie, deliberately seeing another - how wrong?

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Baldwin

It doesn’t matter that you’ve paid the theatre. If you go into a movie for which you haven’t bought a ticket, it is the producer of that movie that you’re stiffing (by “producer”, in this context, I mean all the people who normally would get a slice of ticket sales). That’s who you’re stealing from.

Of course it matters that the theater was paid. Not conclusively, for this scenario and in your opinion, but it does matter.

ISTM that you’re being some combination of dismissive, disingenuous, dogmatic, and/or dickish, particularly as you avoid addressing the proposed scenario. Consider again: someone pays for a movie, is offended/upset by something they see on the screen, walks out, and asks either to be seated at a different movie or to be reimbursed.

For the sake of clarity, and to tilt the situation slightly in my favor, let’s posit the following: (1) the person walked out during the previews (that is, before the movie actually started), (2) the person then asked to be seated at a different movie, and (3) the theater owner agreed but did not adjust the ticket records.

Is there a breach of ethics here? If there is, what is it and to whom does it attach? It’s clear to me that there is, but I’m wondering how you view this. And, furthermore, how you work out the ethical calculus.

1000 bonus points if you also outline how changes to the posited facts affect your ethical determination(s).

[begbert2]

@Priceguy

As always in these threads I think everyone is making it too complicated, dragging in rights and contracts and whatnot. I’m a pure consequentalist. What actually happens in the real world due to me hypothetically seeing Expelled while paying for another movie, provided neither movie sells out? The theater breaks even, Expelled makes nothing, the other movie makes a little, Expelled gets no ticket sale statistic, the other movie gets one. That is it. Since all of these things are things I consider either neutral or good, the net effect is good.

Another scenario: I like the look of your car. I don’t care anything about you. So I club you in the head with a brick, take your car keys, and drive away laughing. You die of the injury. Since all of these things are things I consider either neutral or good, the net effect is good.

Sounds like an “ethical = selfish” assignment to me.

[Siam_Sam]

@Priceguy

Not here, unless I’m wildly unobservant.

They have everywhere I’ve seen, including here in Thailand. I was once told that’s where cinemas make their money anyway, that the ticket sales go to the studios. One reviewer pointed out that cinemas bid to show their films, guaranteeing a certain minimum amount, and often must do so up to a year in advance knowing precious little about it, and if it turns out to be a flop, the cinema still has to pay the promised amount. Ever since then, I’ve not minded the high snack prices. And I can’t imagine watching a movie without popcorn (unless it’s the second movie for the day, and we’ve been sated during the first one).

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Voyager

Screw the movies, the demographic question is more interesting.

Well, thanks! Considering how much mileage I’ve gotten from the ticket question, perhaps this’ll keep me entertained throughout the entire week!

There are a couple of factors which I think must be considered. First, are you paying a full and fair prices for the product not counting the demographic information? If you get a discount for filling it out, then I think you are ethically obligated to be truthful.

The way I had it in my head (both to maintain the analogy and match my actual experience), no, no discount, although I agree about the contingent obligation.

Is there an opt out box?

Let’s say “no”; the information was required to complete the transaction. To put it in terms that have been bandied about in this thread, I believe it would be a “contractual obligation”. I assume it’s “implicit”, though I clearly have different values and definitions than others. If there were a check-box item saying “You swear all information entered is true”, I assume it would be “explicit” and even more (ethically) binding.

Even then, however, I’d still lie on the form. I am so going to hell.

I know a bit about data mining, and competent tools look for outliers and will throw out your answer, so it won’t affect what company B is getting.

Which is analogous, in my mind, to a call for establishing a more accurate mechanism/procedure for a better count of movie viewers.

Would the answer about the correctness of switching theaters change if you are swapping with someone?

This isn’t my view, but a guess about how others have to analyze it: the only way I think it might be ethical is if there was a prearranged agreement between the swappers. But even then, that’s a “consequentialist ethics”, which has been very much derided (at least, in the related thread). So, yes, for consistency’s sake, even that is unethical.

My view: both people are paying for their tickets, the transaction is a done-deal for both, no ethical violations (except for the lying, which remains unethical to me even if there is no monetary consequence for anyone involved).

But then, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, right?

[Dunderman]

@begbert2

Another scenario: I like the look of your car. I don’t care anything about you. So I club you in the head with a brick, take your car keys, and drive away laughing. You die of the injury. Since all of these things are things I consider either neutral or good, the net effect is good.

Well, that’s you. I don’t consider killing an innocent to be neutral or good.

[Mangetout]

I don’t think this is even possible where I live, because:
–They check your tickets on the way into the individual screen
–The movies all have staggered start times, so you can’t watch the first five minutes of the film you paid for (waiting for the attendant to disappear), then skip into the other screen - you’ll have missed more than the first five minutes of that one, or it won’t have started (in which case there’ll be a person checking tickets)
–They also check the tickets at the gate leading to all the screens - you can’t wander through there unless your screen is about to open.

But even if it was, I don’t think I’d want to do it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If my purpose is a protest against the wrongness of the thing, I can’t personally see the sense in committing another deliberate (if small) ethical wrong against it.

Anyway, I don’t have to experience something to be able to criticise it - for example: I’ve never drilled a hole in my face, but I’m pretty damn sure it would be a bad idea.

If I do need to see something of which I disapprove, in order to discuss or debate it, then I consider paying the fair price for it to be a ‘necessary evil’.

[wevets]

Thanks for creating this thread, Bricker I had put nowhere near this much thought into it before I did it, and - yeah - I was wrong.

I despise the makers of the movie, but it was certainly unethical of me to deprive them of their money and give it to other producers. I don’t claim any moral high ground - I was doing what I thought best, but without a heck of a lot of thought.

I think I’ll buy a ticket online (it’s not playing in my area anymore) and donate 10x the ticket price to the NCSE - http://www.natcenscied.org/ that way I can have my recreational outrage and eat cake as well.

Goodness knows we need it with what’s going on in Louisiana right now.
Thanks to all.

[Monty]

@The Tao's Revenge

Who’s services? You paid the movie theater to be there.

By there, you mean the particular screening room in which the movie you paid for is being screened, don’t you? You did not pay to be in another screening room.

[begbert2]

@Priceguy

Well, that’s you. I don’t consider killing an innocent to be neutral or good.

What if I don’t hurt you, and I just steal your car?

And of course I don’t personally consider hurting people moral either (under most circumstances, anyway). The point was to point out that you’re defining morals pretty personally, subjectively, and selfishly. Killing someone to take their car is bad - because you personally hold the opinion it’s bad to kill innocents. By this argument it would be moral for a racist or a bigot or the like to kill people they don’t like, just because they don’t mind doing it personally. When morality is “anything you would choose to do, given that you wouldn’t choose to do things that you personally find objectionable”, then I don’t think it means much of anything at all.

[Miller]

@Priceguy

Tangent: if, as is claimed in this thread and I have zero trouble believing, movie theaters make their money from concessions and not from ticket sales, what about me? On the rare occasion that I go to the cinema, I never ever buy any snacks or drinks in there. If I bring anything at all, I buy it elsewhere. Am I engaging in unethical behaviour since, if everyone acted like I do, the theater would go broke?

Around here, at least, most theaters do not allow you to bring in outside food. They don’t generally have posted signs, but if they see you walking in with a McDonalds bag, they’ll ask you to throw it away before they let you in. I’d say bringing in outside food is about on par with the topic of this thread, ethically speaking. Which is to say, technically wrong, but so minor I can’t believe anyone actually gives a shit.

[Monty]

@Monty

By there, you mean the particular screening room in which the movie you paid for is being screened, don’t you? You did not pay to be in another screening room.

As it so happens, I went to a movie downtown this past Saturday evening. Not only was the name of the movie on the ticket, so were:

[ul][li]Show time[/li][li]Screening room[/li][li]Seat assignment[/ul][/li]
It seems rather clear to me that the contract between the theater management and me stipulates that particular movie at a particular time and in a particular seat.

[Bosstone]

@Miller

'd say bringing in outside food is about on par with the topic of this thread, ethically speaking. Which is to say, technically wrong, but so minor I can’t believe anyone actually gives a shit.

I only toss my food because the cute girl taking the tickets pouts if I try to push it.

[Dunderman]

@Miller

Around here, at least, most theaters do not allow you to bring in outside food. They don’t generally have posted signs, but if they see you walking in with a McDonalds bag, they’ll ask you to throw it away before they let you in. I’d say bringing in outside food is about on par with the topic of this thread, ethically speaking. Which is to say, technically wrong, but so minor I can’t believe anyone actually gives a shit.

Too much focus on the bringing outside food thing. If I bring anything at all, I buy it elsewhere, but usually I just don’t have anything.

[Cartooniverse]

@Miller

Around here, at least, most theaters do not allow you to bring in outside food. They don’t generally have posted signs, but if they see you walking in with a McDonalds bag, they’ll ask you to throw it away before they let you in. I’d say bringing in outside food is about on par with the topic of this thread, ethically speaking. Which is to say, technically wrong, but so minor I can’t believe anyone actually gives a shit.

You are not allowed to bring foods into the theatres here in NY. At least the ones I patronize. What about NOT buying food? As pointed out, concessions make up a huge percentage of movie theater income. Am I not fulfilling my part of the bargain if I buy a ticket and sit and watch that movie but purchase nothing at all ?

[Acsenray]

@Cartooniverse

You are not allowed to bring foods into the theatres here in NY. At least the ones I patronize. What about NOT buying food? As pointed out, concessions make up a huge percentage of movie theater income. Am I not fulfilling my part of the bargain if I buy a ticket and sit and watch that movie but purchase nothing at all ?

Theoretically, a theatre could require you to agree to spend a certain amount of money on food (“two drink minimum”), but they don’t. All they ask is that you not bring in outside food. That’s the bargain – if you’re going to eat, you buy it here.

However, if everyone stopped buying food, as I mentioned earlier, sooner or later they would do something about it, like triple or quadruple the price of tickets.

[Bosstone]

Some places are doing the smart thing by offering higher-quality food. I don’t care for popcorn all that much during a movie, but a mini-pizza will get my attention. It’s more work on the concession folks, ultimately, but it’s easier for me to stomach spending $5 on a pizza than $3 on popcorn.

[Siam_Sam]

The wife and I simply cannot do without our movie popcorn, but we can’t see the appeal for other foods. They’re messy, and you can’t eat them and concentrate on the movie at the same time.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Digital Stimulus

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.

A suggestion: if your arrangement is just to pay them money to see a movie, next time, refuse to tell them what movie you want to see. Explain that you’re of age to see any movie in the theater, and they can give you any ticket they want, but that you won’t feel obligated to see that particular movie. This appears to be your understanding of the contract. If they agree to this understanding of the contract, then you’re behaving in a completely ethical fashion.

If you fail to explain your intentions to them out of a belief that they’ll deny you entry to the theater if they know what you intend to do, then you’re behaving dishonestly. You may certainly claim that the blow for justice that you’re striking makes your dishonesty admirable–but you’re still behaving dishonestly. Absent any proof that you’re Making the World Safe for Democracy or whatever, that’s unethical.

I think I’m something of a pansy: I get knotted up with guilt if I partake of some snack that a friend/family member sneaks into the theater, as if I’m some sort of evil collaborator. I’d never consider bait-and-switch tactics with the tix.

(Does this strike anyone else as a distant cousin of the “I don’t tip because my obligation is only to the restaurant, not the waiter” point of view? In both cases, I think that there’s a significant lie of omission happening by the offender that makes the action unethical.)

Daniel

[Digital_Stimulus]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

If you fail to explain your intentions to them out of a belief that they’ll deny you entry to the theater if they know what you intend to do, then you’re behaving dishonestly. You may certainly claim that the blow for justice that you’re striking makes your dishonesty admirable–but you’re still behaving dishonestly. Absent any proof that you’re Making the World Safe for Democracy or whatever, that’s unethical.

Two things, briefly. I have stipulated multiple times that:

(1) Lying (under almost any condition) is/would be dishonest and therefore unethical. It’s the charge of “stealing” with which I have an issue.

(2) Circumstances matter when judging the ethics of a situation. “Making the World Safe for Democracy” might indeed be a condition that would excuse lying, but without details about the particular scenario, I couldn’t say. It’s the notion of absoute ethical standards with which I have an issue.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Digital Stimulus

Two things, briefly. I have stipulated multiple times that:

(1) Lying (under almost any condition) is/would be dishonest and therefore unethical. It’s the charge of “stealing” with which I have an issue.

Fair enough. I tend to think that using someone’s copyrighted material without following contract is somewhere between lying and stealing, and needs a new name: calling it stealing is disanalogous to stealing material goods, but it’s still unethical.

And of course ethics are situational, and yes, you’ve said that. My objection was to the idea that the movie theater doesn’t care about what movie you’re going to go see, or that your contract is only with them and therefore you’re under no obligation to see a particular movie.

Daniel