LHoD, I’m positive that there’s not a whole lotta light between our positions. Copyright (and other IP) arguments make me a bit crazy, as there’s always a contingent that automatically insists on (incorrectly) equating physical and intellectual property. And we do have a name for these things already: infringement, or possibly violation (be it patent, trademark, or copyright).
But again, IMO, the contract, such as it is in this case, really is only between me and the theater; I have no idea where I enter any direct, meaningful relationship with the film distributor. There is a matter of surrogacy here that I believe is being too quickly dismissed (or overlooked).
That’s not to say that the theater doesn’t care which movie I see. They might or they might not, depending on circumstances. Nor is it to say that there is no obligation to see the movie I said I’d see. But, IMO, the question of ethics here is wholly attributable to the lie being told.
Mmm, I suppose. My problem is that these words don’t adequately connote the odd loss that the producers of the art suffer. But you’re right, the words exist.
Of course the contract is only between you and the theater. If you note what you’re responding to, the word “therefore” was key to the second clause.
The problem is that the lie you tell is not a little white lie: it’s a lie that ends up affecting a third party. Yes, you’re not responsible for the movie theater’s agreement with the producer. However, your lie prevents them from fulfilling their agreement with the producer, which adds a further moral impact to it. If you want to remove that, then be honest with the theater, and at that point, they may freely choose whether to honor their own agreements. By not honoring yours with them, you prevent them from honoring theirs with the producer.
I’m not trying to be argumentative here, but it’s not clear to me what exactly you’re looking for then. Infringement carries a connotation of impropriety, doesn’t it? It’s exactly the fact that it lacks the easily digestible, overstated, and inappropriate impact of the term stealing that warrants its use. And it’s exactly why certain parties insist on not using it, opting for the term stealing instead.
And I agree with what you just wrote, as I don’t see a conflict with what I’m saying. Specifically: don’t tell the lie and there’s no ethical violation.
Copyright infringement is, typically, breach of contract. From what I can see it’s almost always done with the intent of avoiding having to make use of a legal but more expesive way to get the level of access to the content that you desire - so it’s often functionally equivalent to theft as a practical matter. But it’s really just breach of contract.
With the theatre example at hand, you’re doing the same thing, merely on somebody else’s behalf - you’re causing money to flow into coffers other than the ones that it was contractually obligated to go to. Functionally speaking this is really like stealing - actual money is being snatched from one studio’s palm and tucked into anothers’. Robin Hood-type stealing, yes (and in very small amounts per time), but stealing nonetheless, functionally speaking.
It’s really still just breach of contract, though.
I would say that, generally speaking, this is not true.
And, thus, really not like a breach of contract at all.
To expand:
(1) You are infringing on the movie studio’s copyright, but you are not breaching any contract with them.
(2) You are breaching a contract with the theatre, but you are not infringing on any copyright that they hold.
It’s two separate things.
Sometimes an act can be both a breach of contract and a copyright infringement, but that’s no different from a lot of torts. If you sign a contract then breaching that contract very well might also constitute a tort. That doesn’t mean that all torts are basically breaches of contracts.
That’s nice. I disagree with you - realizing that most breaches of contract nowadays seem to involve somebody going against a rental or purchase contract or violating explicit rules governing the bringing of recording devices into someplace. Sure, the majority of people who actually benefit from the copyright infringement are merely accessories to the crime, but they still sup at the table of sombody who did it.
Though I will correct myself and state that these breaches of contract are done in addition to the breakage of copyright law - a crime in its own right. (A crime that is often dependent on the terms of the contracts involved, of course.) If that’s what you meant, then we’re agreement.
You contradict yourself, sir - your expanded points explicity state that it is a breach of contract. (And thus, very much like one.) The fact that your breach of contract also causes money to shuffle around incorrectly doesn’t stop it from being a breach of contract, right?
And I’m not entirely sure it qualifies as stealing - despite the resultant effect looking very much like it. You could get the same effect by going to theater (paying for the show you saw) and then breaking into both their bank accounts directly and transferring the money - and in that case you definitely have stolen from them, and have definitely not infringed copyright, despite the results being the same. What crimes you’ve committed depends on what you actually do, not what the effects look like.
Are you concerned about the fact nobody (usually) has signed anything? I’d be surprised if the purchase of a ticket didn’t form a legally binding contract, stating the limits of the access it permitted.
Though if you like we can call it trespassing instead, on an area/time not authorized by your ticket purchace.
