Here’s another example:
Let’s say I lived right next to a drive in movie theater, and I am a skilled lip reader. I watch the movies that are displayed, from my bedroom window, without paying for them.
Is that theft? What have I taken, other than light photons?
It’s not the same as taking money from the cash register, but in most states, this behavior falls under “theft of services” statutes, so referring to this as theft is not off the mark. It’s making use of something – the movie and the space in the theater – to which he is not entitled, and depriving the theater owner of what he’d be normally given – money – in return for that which is used.
At the very least, it’s cheating the system. It’s also a big, hearty f-you to everyone who has paid to see the movie and paid for food from the concession stand. That rationalization is just garbage on its face.
My cousin used to do this with her kids. An arrest and a $500 fine cured her of thinking that it was all right to do. It really should never have taken that much, but people with this kind of a sense of entitlement usually need very big clues that their behavior is not acceptable in a civil society. I predict similar results for the OP’s friend.
If you’re not going to pay for the service, you’re supposed to stay the hell home. StarvingButStrong’s friend is still making use of the movie theatre premises, sitting in their cushy seats, putting his arm on the armrest, and using their bathrooms.
Wouldn’t most (all?) theft be ruled out by that argument, Blalron? If you are motivated to steal something, paying for it is no object. Let’s say I steal a car because I can’t afford one. If I couldn’t have gotten it for free, I still wouldn’t have paid for it.
The guy is cheap and cheezy and if he’s so in need of an afternoon of air conditioning, he can walk around a mall or go to a library for free. If he doesn’t think it’s wrong, why does he have to sneak?
If you’re not going to pay for the service, you’re supposed to stay the hell home. StarvingButStrong’s friend is still making use of the movie theatre premises, sitting in their cushy seats, putting his arm on the armrest, and using their bathrooms.
Wouldn’t most (all?) theft be ruled out by that argument, Blalron? If you are motivated to steal something, paying for it is no object. Let’s say I steal a car because I can’t afford one. Even if I couldn’t have gotten it for free, I wouldn’t have paid for it.
I fully agree that StarvingButStrong’s friend had no right to be there. But I can’t agree that he has actually taken anything away from the theater owner.
There we go! Now we are into the realm of actual stealing. If I use their bathroom without paying any money, I am causing them to run up their water bill. They have incurred an additional expense because of me that I have not compensated them for.
We go from mere trespassing to theft at that point.
Well, if you’re going to be that literal, we can presume that his presence in the theater is also theft because each body in each screening room puts off some amount of heat which will need to be offset with that much more air conditioning, which will of course mean that the theater’s electric bill will be that much higher.
We have reached agreement then. 
No, it’s theft and copyright infringement.
You’d be charged with breaking and entering.
I could understand the position that theft must involve property (although I don’t agree with it) , but how does including services involve an assumption that the person would have paid if they couldn’t get it for free ? Maybe he wouldn’t have paid if he couldn’t steal it- but he also wouldn’t have received the service. Nobody is saying that the offender stole the admission charge- what he stole was the service itself.
One of my litmus test of something like this is if everyone did this. Let say, I and 100 of my out of work and scummy friends go to a movie and we all go to one movie as paying customers and then move to another theater and watch another movie. We could force people who paid to sit in seats they don’t want to sit in and be squeezed in. The paying patrons would have less than perfect conditions and would get less out of the show and would suffer from the non-paid crowd.
It would be theft and immoral. If everyone did this, theaters would have to pay more to get more help etc. Go to the mall and people watch.
(almost) the same argument could be made for me deciding I’d like to ride for free on the train - I mean, it’s going to the destination regardless of whether I buy a ticket and board it, so why should I have to pay? (OK, my body weight probably makes some tiny difference to the fuel consumption, but I rteally suspect that this would be immeasurably small.)
Surely this is incorrect; if the movie was sold out, he’d either:
-Not be able to find a seat, having entered just after the performance started, or
-Take a seat, only to be turfed out when the rightful ticket-holder of the seat arrives.
How would the act of his entering and ‘claiming a seat’ render it unsaleable by the box office?
Just for the record; both of my posts abopve could be read in such a way as to indicate that I am in favour of this behaviour; I’m not.
How is he going to be identified as the guy without a ticket in a non-reserved seating theater? The ushers going to line everybody up and ask to see stubs? I don’t think so. I think the last guy in is screwed. He gets his money back and the theater is out the $$$.
A couple things, from a former mega-plex manager:
(1) Sold out shows are never really “Sold Out”. We always put a buffer in the system, accounting for a percentage of the seats to be empty. Invariably, you’ll always find a few empty seats. Problem is, if you sold every single seat, you’d get a certain percentage of people returning for their money back. That percentage is the figure we use as a buffer.
Why are people returning for their money back? Because, they haven’t found a seat they want. They’d rather leave the movie than not sit together, sit too close to the screen, sit in the rear of the balcony, sit in a broken seat, etc. Managers hate giving people’s money back, not because we want to keep their money (most of it goes to the studio on admissions), but because it makes balancing the books potentially more difficult at the end of each night.
But yes, I would still argue that anyone sneaking into a sold out show, is potentially displacing someone by taking a good seat, forcing a paying patron to sit in a seat so bad, they might choose to leave the movie altogether.
(2)
There is one statistic more important than any other in the exhibition industry. That stat is the per head. That figure is the average concession sale for each paid admission into the theater.
So, if you really wanted to make the argument for which tactic benefits the theater most in the concession sales component, sneaking in is the answer. Let’s compare three movies seen by two patrons each, one the Sneaker who only paid for one movie (and snuck into the other two), and the Payer, who paid for all three. Let’s also say that the Payer bought more in each of the three trips to the concession stand each subject made:
MOVIE A: Sneaker spends $3, Payer spends $4
MOVIE B: Sneaker spends $3, Payer spends $5
MOVIE C: Sneaker spends $2, Payer spends $3
Now, even though the Payer has spent $3 more than the Sneaker, his per head is still only $4, because he paid three separate admissions. However, the Sneaker’s per head is $8, because only one of his three admissions was actually accounted for at the box office.
Why do you think theaters love to host sneak previews (sponsored by radio stations, etc.)? After all, they don’t get any admission money and they could be making money at the B.O. The answer is because that (in addition to a nominal rental fee for the screen), a sneak preview counts as a big Zero in attendance, which means that every item that audience buys at the concession stand spikes the per head. Like I said, the home office looks at that stat more than any other–and anything you can do to massage or finesse that figure to your advantage is a big deal.
So, yes, sneaking into a second (or third) movie and buying additional concession items does help the theater, from that particular viewpoint.
Which of course, doesn’t make it any less illegal or unethical.
Bzzzt. Try again. The owner has not been deprived of the use of a good, thus no theft has occured, under any definition. Claiming otherwise is an astonishing display of intellectual dishonesty. It may be illegal, and it may be morally wrong, but it’s not theft, pure and simple. Besides, something can’t be subject to both theft AND copyright violation. If you can steal it, it’s a good. If you can violate a copyright on it, it’s intellectual property. They’re mutually exclusive.
ArchiveGuy, that was fascinating, and I’m so glad to hear from someone in a position to speak authoritatively.
I was very surprised at what you said, then realized my mystake: I was thinking of the owner of the theater as an independent businessman where the total income matters. You are looking at the theater staff as employees of a larger corp, right? And this $/head statistic is the one the corp has chosen to use in judging the management of that location’s staff.
I doubt that my coworker – and, please, everybody, stop referring to him as my ‘friend.’ This guy is a slimy little twister, always conniving and chiseling for any advantage, always ready to give 73 cents worth of effort for every dollar he is paid.
Sorry, got off track. I doubt my coworker is the only one who makes a practice of double-dipping this way. Do you have your ushers on the look out for these characters? Do you prosecute them? What punishment do they draw?
Co-worker clearly knows no shame over his actions, but maybe he can be scared into behaving better.
Per FairyChatMom, I think the fact that an adult man considers this to be a desirable use of his free time is a far sadder situation than the petty theft involved.