What's the right thing to do here? [Reporting bootleggers at the movie theater]

Great Debates
41

You are entirely correct, but that has no bearing on whether or not I should report such a breach of contract.

In fact, I much of my work week dealing with contract disputes. When I head to a show, I am not paying to be bothered with the theatre’s difficulties in enforcing its contracts.

The theatre can have attendants check out the gallery occasionally to watch for annoying people and for people breaking contracts.

The film industry can investigate and prosecute mass piracy to whatever degree it wishes, and can also lobby for a percentage of blank tape sales proceeds to be returned to the industry as compensation for such wrongdoing.

To what degree might I wish to become involved in the industry’s contract problems? If I thought a person was copying for the purpose of mass distribution, I would report, just as I would report if I came across someone trashing the inside of a store or office. On the other hand, if I thought the person was filming just to see if it could be done, or for personal use, I would not bother to report any more than I would if I came across a person pissing on the stoop of a store or office.

It’s really just a question of degree. For me, the protection of the film industry’s contracts against copying for home use, when weighed against my own self-interest in not being annoyed when out for a show, is not important enough to make my radar.

As far as the probability of copying in the OP’s example being for the purpose of mass distribution, there are obbviously differences of opinion. I can only speak from my own observations.

42

Perhaps if theatres had attendants patrol more frequently, then the problems of both laser pointers and video pirates would be significantly reduced.

When I go to a movie, I pay for my pleasure. I do not pay to play attendant.

43

It’s a type of theft called conversion.

44

I don’t see how the intellectual property laws can help with this problem. I’d love to see more regional and international film reaching the market, as opposed to the Hollywood dominated pap which floods the market. But I don’t see how making it less profitable for the majors will necessarily help independents.

45

**

Yes it is profit being stolen. Intellectual property laws are suppose to ensure that people can profit from their ideas.

**

Artist aren’t being deprived of a living because of intellectual property rights. In fact I think most artist would be rather pissed off if someone stole their ideas and didn’t compensate them for it.

**

A lot of people like Spears, N’Sync, and the New Kids on the Block. If people didn’t like kind of stuff then it wouldn’t be popular.

**

Maybe. Or maybe you’d see even fewer artist able to make a living at their art. Why take the effort to write and publish a book if anyone can copy that book without paying me?

It isn’t a logical fallicy to think that viewing a bootlet = the copy distributing the film losing profit.

Marc

46

I’m not going to offer an opinion on whether or not intellectual property rights are valid protection; anybody who disagrees about something so fundamental isn’t going to be convinced by an argument on a message board.

I will offer some factual information about the bootlegging subject, in order to contextualize that part of the debate properly. It’s been bandied about above, but not particularly accurately.

Bootlegging by camcorder is a huge segment of the piracy market. Hollywood movies generally open in overseas markets anything from a month to a year after they premiere in the United States. Japan, for example, only recently saw Harry Potter go head to head with Lord of the Rings, months after their U.S. releases.

But the black market stalls in Malaysia, China, etc. will have countless copies of these same releases available the day of their U.S. premiere, and sometimes even before. (Sneak previews, held for local press, are usually open to the public if you know who to ask.) These camcorded versions are as crummy as you’d expect, with silhouetted heads, audible audience, washed-out colors, and so on, but if it’s the latest big blockbuster and it’s not slated to come out in Thailand for six months, the black marketers rack up huge sales.

The Motion Picture Association of America is of course an industry-sponsored lobbying and organizational group, so they’re hardly unbiased, but they estimate billions of dollars in losses in the Asian market. Scaling back to account for the industry’s self-serving fudging, it’s reasonable to believe that as many as three out of four copies of a given Hollywood movie sold in some markets – and we’re talking big (or potentially big) markets, like China – are illegally pirated. This is, of course, because the black marketers have instant penetration, and provide the supply for the demand. By the time the official release hits those shores, the demand has been largely satisfied.

(Why don’t international movie fans then replace their crummy bootlegged copy with a pristine official copy? Because often, the Hollywood products that are most heavily marketed overseas are the forgettable and stupid movies that don’t do so well over here, like Stallone’s Driven. Once the viewer actually gets a look at the movie, there’s no need to see it again. Churning out shit is, of course, Hollywood’s own fault, so feel free to debate whether they deserve sympathy on that level.)

(And why doesn’t the U.S. scream and yell to the Chinese government etc. about these abuses? It does. It’s just so ingrained and systemic that it resists efforts at correction. There are so many of these organizations with such widespread participation that stopping them would be akin to stopping graffiti.)

That guy with a camcorder may very well have been carrying a Fedex envelope with him, and could have been ready to drop the videotape in a shipping box nearby. That videotape arrives in Hong Kong or Vietnam or wherever within 24 hours, and 24 hours after that is being hawked from stalls in Jakarta, Dacca, Phnom Penh, Kuala Lumpur, etc., with an apparently professionally-printed box with the official movie poster art on the front. Seriously, these piracy rings have extremely large and well-organized operations.

Just wanted to correct the wholly mistaken impression that a guy camcording a movie couldn’t possibly be having that much impact on the industry. In reality, the impact is major.

Carry on.

47

There are some conditions under which I’d drop a dime on someone…but this isn’t one of them. This situation doesn’t reach the threshold of tangible harm or damage that I would personally apply in making the dime-dropping decision. The only other criteria for dime dropping I’d use would be tangible self interest. This situation doesn’t qualify on that level either.

48

I think you have to go by your personal code of ethics here. I’ll always report behavior that can be physically dangerous to others - I called the cops from my cell phone when I saw kids racing and playing ‘block the friend’s car’ on a busy highway during rush hour, and I’ve reported unattented bags at the airport. I would probably report a bootlegger for recording a good, low budget type film, but probably not for a Hollywood blockbuster. Not that I’m against Hollywood on principle, but that with all the overblown overpriced crap they spew out, I wouldn’t care all that much.

Just read Cervaise’s post and he touched on that aspect of typical Hollywood fare that makes me ambivalent. You really have to choose your ethical battles - if you reported every unethical, or inappropriate action you’d be on the phone or in a manager’s office 24x7.

49

Yes, the person could be part of a well organized piracy ring, and yes, piracy in Asia is on a massive scale. Or the person could simply have been a geek out with a new cam, shooting everything in sight, and later trying to convince his family to watch his cinematographic offerings, much to their annoyance. There just isn’t enough information in the OP to say one way or the other. But let’s assume for the moment that it was part of an Asian piracy ring.

The industry could also start looking at how it might meet the Asian market’s demand. Perhaps releasing films and videos immediately might be one way of significantly reducing piracy while at the same time significantly increasing profits from the Asian market. The easiest way to stop contraband is to make a product legally available at an affordable price.

Not releasing films for extended periods, then complaining about lost profits due to the ensuing piracy, and then expecting paying filmgoers to interrupt their viewing to take on the role of theatre attendants in the front line in stopping piracy, seems a little silly to me.

If the industry is not willing to go to the effort to get its product to international markets as quickly as possible so as to satisfy these markets and reduce video piracy, and if theatres are not willing to provide attendants to deal with annoying people and video pirates, then I see no reason why I as a customer should go to any particular effort to try to protect their intellectual property rights for them.

As far movies being so crummy that people do not want to pay to see them after the have seen a low quality pirated version, the solution is obvious: make better movies. If I have been ripped off by paying good money to watch a movie which turns out to be junk, then there is all the more reason why I would not be particularly interested in going out of my way to help out the industry.

I’m not suggesting that any of these things justify piracy. What I am saying is that despite the obvious illlegality, the matter is not so one-sided as to convince me to get my fat ass up out of my paid-for seat and go do something on behalf of the industry’s contract problems.

50

Muffin let me get this straight - you’re suggesting that it’s the movie studios’ fault that the bootleg tape industry in the Far East is such a problem?

gee.

They’ve made a business decision that it’s more profitable for them to release films in a certain order - opening in the US, then on to Europe and then the lesser markets. I’d guess that it’s 'cause they earn less money in those other markets, people go to the theater less, and of course, the fact that the damn movie is made in English w/o subtitles sure, the studios should wait until they’ve made the films ‘workable’ for the entire world before releasing it to their major audience.

And, of course, your other thing about ‘we can’t know that the person’s bootlegging’, it’s also the most likely scenario. If they aren’t bootlegging, they’re still doing something that’s illegal, even if it’s just for personal enjoyment later on.

Your issue (it was you, wasn’t it?) about you being there to enjoy the movie vs. being there to ‘police the joint’ isn’t an answer to the question in the OP, which is specifically asking for the moral/ethical issue. I’m not paid to be a police or fire fighter either, but ya know, if I see a fire or see a crime/accident, I"m likely to call on those whose job it is. Just as if I’m in a theater and see some one in these circumstances, I’d call on those whose job it is to bust them.

51

sure it’s their fault. They created the market situation that allows piracy to propagate. They could change the situation if they wanted it, but they’d rather try to have their cake, eat it, and get paid to sh*t it out too.

52

I didn’t specify that yes, I saw your disclaimer that you’re not suggesting that the studio’s deserve getting the bootleg problem.

but, I disagree that you ‘aren’t’. You’re pointing out all the rationals that the pirates use to justify their theft. Justifications do not make an action correct, moral or legal. And, when you trot out those justifications with the hint that ‘well, if the studio wouldn’t do all of this, then they wouldn’t have the problem’ well, yes, you are, in fact blaming the victim.

We’re not talking about a government immorally kidnapping and killing it’s citizens so the citizens have no choice but to revolt. We’re talking about a business who’ve decided that they can make the most money by releasing movies in a certain order. We’ve no moral authority to tell them to do it differently, the people in Malaysia have no moral or ethical reason why they should get to see a particular movie in May vs. October. (we’re again talking about movies, not life saving pharmacuticals).

The bootleggers are committing illegal acts which cause actual harm to numbers of people. the rest is posturing, justifications and an unwillingness to get involved. You may, in fact (as we all do) decide that it’s ‘not worth your time’ to call for the usher in this circumstance. however, this does not mean that your position is the morally justifiable one. It may be a practical piece of advice. but the OP asked about ‘what should be done’, not ‘what’s the easiest non threatening not acutely bad thing to do’.

53

I am aghast (cried Casper, who was promptly carted off to speech therapy).

The OP is asking for moral advice, and it appears that there is none to be had. There seem to be quite a few of you who think that stealing is bad as a general thing, but petty theft is more morally defensible than grand larceny. Criminal law makes a distinction between stealing a kid’s lunch money left unguarded for a moment and stealing his father’s car, but morally there is no difference. The character flaw that permitted the one is exactly the same as that which permitted the other.

Nobody’s perfect, including me. But let’s not justify wrongdoing because maybe we think the one wronged is big and can take it. The attitude that says it’s okay to chip a little off a corporation’s profits is the reason insurance (and everything else) costs as much as it does. If there were no people out there with camcorders stealing a peek, maybe it wouldn’t cost eight bucks to see a movie (or is it more now…I haven’t been in a while).

A number of you seem to think stealing is okay, given the proper venue. You know who you are. Or, sadly, maybe you don’t.
“Hello, I must be going.” --GM

54

Just a note about intellectual property.

The purpose of intellectual property laws is to provide economic protection for the creator of the product for a specific period of time, so as to encourage the creation of such products for the benefit of society as a whole. That is why intellectual property rights do not continue forever, the way other property rights do. Essentially, when a studio creates a movie, the intellectual property aspect (as opposed to the physical film ) only belongs to the studio by grace of the government saying so, and only belongs to the studio for as many years as the government decrees. Outside of that very specific protection granted by the government, there is no ownership in intellectual property, and anyone can do whatever they want with the product.

In exchange for protection of intellectual property, the government expects a societal benefit. If there is no benefit, then the government will start to get antsy about providing protection. Obviously this is rare, for one wants a stable system, but it does occur on occasion. Take a look at the pharmaceutical industry with regard to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and how some nations in that region are not willing to continue patent protection for AIDS drugs if the transnationals are not willing to make the drugs affordable.

So I put out for consideration: is it reasonable for the American film industry to expect cooperation in mainland China in enforcing Berne intellectual property rights when the associated benefit is delayed product releases, rather than releases equal to those provided in the United States?

55

Please provide a cite.

Don’t confuse an ability to significantly reduce a problem with an allegation of fault for the problem in the first place.

56

Perhaps no one realizes that these movies are made in America, generally, and almost always in English. This allows for them to be released in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom rather quickly. However, before they can be released elsewhere, more post-production work needs to be done. Namely, dubbing. Dubbing takes time. And it costs money. Ergo, the studios dubb movies in certain orders… based upon what secondary languages will reap the most benefits.

Generally, Spanish is first. Then Japanese and the European languages. Followed by Chinese, Russian and then the remainder of the languages of countries the studios have decided to target.

So long as other countries don’t speak English, they will get movies later, because it takes longer to prepare them. Would you have studios delay American releases by 9 months to a year and not release any movies until they’ve been re-looped in ALL planned languages? That would be stupid.

You know, Japanese films are released in Japan first. And then often in Hong Kong. And may not make it to the United States for six months to a year. Does that mean its okay for me to go buy bootlegs of Japanese films I want to see?

No. Because the companies and persons who make films are the ones who deserve to make money from all proceeds and copies of their works. If I buy a bootleg copy of a Japanese film, I’m as much a criminal as the guy who videotaped it in Tokyo. Or the guy who videotapes American movies to send East.

Kirk

57

Not “gee”. “Goo” damn it!:smiley:

58

It not that sort of theft (though as I have already ponted out, it is a form of theft). Video piracy affect profits, but does not have an effect on north American theatre ticket prices, which are demand driven.

59

If people in Asia are buying bootleg copies of English-language films, obviously there’s a market for English-language films in Asia. If translation and dubbing are the reason the movie shows up in Asia 6 months later than America, why don’t they release the English version in Asia simultaneously, then release the dubbed version when it’s ready?

DocCathode:

If you go to see a movie on opening day, how much of that $8.00 ticket price is actually going to the theater? 80 cents?

OTOH, if you own a bootleg, you might not see the movie in the theater, so the remaining $7.20 won’t go to the studio. You might not buy or rent the DVD or watch it on cable either.

60

OK, here’s a strictly moral approach which totally ignores the practical aspect of when and when not to bother reporting something.

American culture is flooding the world, to the detriment of other cultures.

Hollywood’s product is leading this indefensible invasion.

A regionally produced film has a better chance a competing against a poor quality Hollywood pirated video than it does against the same high quality Hollywood original video.

Various nations have decided for themselves the degree to which they chose to provide protection for Hollywood’s distributors, and in many cases (particularly mainland China’s), they have been extremely reluctant to provide much protection.

Thus maintaing a neutral stance by declining to assist in protecting Hollywood’s international distribution system is the morally correct thing to do, for just as theft is wrong, so too is cultural invasion, leaving the only morally justifiable position being one of neutrality.