If I offer a product for sale, and people in France buy it, I am not “invading their culture.” They are choosing to purchase my product, be it a book or a movie.
If people want “their” culture to be free of “American” influences, they wouldn’t be going to American movies.
Kirk
Studios delay the release of movies for months or even years routinely. I’m not an expert on the studio system, but I would guess that very few movies are rushed to release so fast that there’s not time to dub other language versions. The studios simply choose not to. Also, many movies (dunno percentages but it is a significant percentage if not the majority) released in overseas markets are subtitled, not dubbed.
Agreed. You want to buy their product, but they refuse to sell it to you. Result: they lose your business to a pirate. Seems pretty simple to me.
Does it make you are criminal? Sure, but who cares? We’re all criminals. I doubt any of us pass a day without committing a crime of some sort. This is one of the unintended consequences of too many/overrestrictive laws - people lose respect for the law in general.
It’s not a matter of people wanting to be free of American influences. Rather, it is a desire not to have one’s culture smothered by American culture, and to have the opportunity to participate in one’s own culture.
I believe that pluralism is a good thing, and that participation in one’s own culture is necessary to the survival of one’s culture.
The international Hollywood distribution system is contrary to this. It is far less expensive to purchase and distribute American drek than it is to produce a regional film. This leads to the domination of cinema throughout the world by American films, making it all the more difficult for a regional producer to put forth anything worth watching. A handful of transnationals controlling most of the production and distribution of films of which the majority are Hollywood. The choice offered viewers is one of which American film to watch, rather than which film to watch.
Thus arises the vicious circle of cultural assimilation in conjunction with the collapse of regional cinemas. As the culture is assimilated, it be becomes more and more dificult to produce high end regional films, and as it becomes more difficult to produce high end regional films, the culture becomes more assimilated to watching Hollywood films.
The end result is the collapse of regional cinema. Get ahold of the top grossing film stats for various nations, and you’ll see what I am talking about. In most nations the top grossing films are Hollywood productions, not regional. In fact, regional hits are now few and far between, despite many nations once having thriving national cinemas.
The result is that minor variations of the American vision are what most people of the world have to chose from, rather than a true choice including both regionally and externally produced cinema.
People are no longer able to participate in the cinema of their own culture because either their cinema has been displaced, or it never had a chance to get off the ground. Cinema is paying an ever increasing role in culture, so it is a terrible shame that people in cultures throughout the world are not able to participate in their own cultures either by making or by watching their own cinema.
That is cultural assimilation, and to that I am morally opposed.
I think that says it all right there. You want to region-encode DVDs, then people are going to modify their DVD players. You want to avoid releasing games in the American market? Then people will import them form Japan anyway.
Where there is demand, there will be someone there to cater to that demand. I think the question of morality here is clear enough given that one respects/ignores intellectual property rights. So now that we’ve made our moral proclaimations, what next?
Any buffy fans out there import in seasons 2, 3, or 4 on DVD? Any Euro gamers import games from the US? I know plenty who import games from Japan.
I think these are all the same crime on different scales for they all fail to respect the wishes of the owners. But on the other hand, if the owners weren’t offering the merchandise anyway, then they aren’t losing any money!
Bootlegging and other illegal importation would drop dramatically if the owners brought their product to different markets simultaneously. If they were to do this, it wouldn’t be the first time in history a business had to acceed to the demands of the marketplace in order to avoid profit loss.
I am not proud of pirates, but I ain’t weeping over the business’ loss, either.
I don’t think anyone’s touched on this yet, but supposed you do want to report them, when? I’m not going to get up and search for a manager in the middle of a movie I’ve paid good money to see. And what if you wait for the movie to be over, but by the time you find a manager, the pirates are long gone?
I’m totally for bringing in you own food, though. And I’ve actually seen places with “no food” signs. Sometimes I’ll leave a soda can in the cup holder just to say “Ha!”
This OTOH with a little planning could easily make a pretty good copy of a movie. $500 in hardware and in a week or so you’re out at the swap meet selling videos for $10 a pop. Reciever hooked to battery packs in your car outside. Go to an early showing, maybe even rig a clamp to attach to a seat or armrest.
Better hardware would only make this more effective. So it is actually a serious threat. A decent 640x480 copy of a movie burned onto a VHS tape would probably keep most people from visiting a theatre.
Another thing to consider, they could be using digital rather than 8mm. A good digital video could easily be edited to put together a “local language” version.
As far as the OP, I would be the guy who makes a point out of crossing the path of the camera on my way to the bathroom 
I wonder if I could later file suit against the pirate, claiming I recieved no payment for appearing in the film
**
If people don’t want American “culture” they’re free not to watch our television, movies, or read our books. I don’t see anything morally wrong about selling American movies overseas.
That’s just insane.
Marc
I was not responding to the OP, I was correcting the misconception that paying for a ticket somehow grants the right to tape the movie–"Who was the victim? One assumes that the videographer had paid to be adimitted, and that there would be no resale value of the video. "
If I want to buy a product, but the owner refuses to sell it to me, the ethical thing for me to do is go without. This is not a case of inadventantly violating a law you knew nothing about, but of making a moral choice to encourage the theft of another’s property. I see a clear difference.
Muffin: If you invite someone into your house, it isn’t home invasion.
erislover: Importing games or dvd’s is a different issue. These are officially liscenced products from which the owners and distributors are making a profit. If you import a Japanese game that isn’t available in the US, ie Parodius, you are actually increasing the profits of the owners of that property. This is an importatnt difference because when you support a product, you are encouraging the people who produce that product to produce more. Buying pirated materials encourages and supports piracy. Importing officially liscenced products does not.
ElwoodCuse: You don’t have to find the manager. You find any theater employee and tell him/her. I do this about once out of every four visits to the theater to report jerks with laser pointers or groups talking loudly. It usually takes less than a minute.
I was not responding to the OP, I was correcting the misconception that paying for a ticket somehow grants the right to tape the movie–"Who was the victim? One assumes that the videographer had paid to be adimitted, and that there would be no resale value of the video. "
If I want to buy a product, but the owner refuses to sell it to me, the ethical thing for me to do is go without. This is not a case of inadventantly violating a law you knew nothing about, but of making a moral choice to encourage the theft of another’s property. I see a clear difference.
Muffin: If you invite someone into your house, it isn’t home invasion.
erislover: Importing games or dvd’s is a different issue. These are officially liscenced products from which the owners and distributors are making a profit. If you import a Japanese game that isn’t available in the US, ie Parodius, you are actually increasing the profits of the owners of that property. This is an importatnt difference because when you support a product, you are encouraging the people who produce that product to produce more. Buying pirated materials encourages and supports piracy. Importing officially liscenced products does not.
ElwoodCuse: You don’t have to find the manager. You find any theater employee and tell him/her. I do this about once out of every four visits to the theater to report jerks with laser pointers or groups talking loudly. It usually takes less than a minute.
It may be insane to you, but it is the basis of domestic content regulation and cultural protectionism in many nations.
That is a silly analogy.
Perhaps you could explain to me why many nations have cultural protectionist policies, including domestic content regulations, despite some of these nations being supportive of free trade in other sectors. What is it that makes culture special to such nations, and why do they feel a need to protect theirs?
While it might be possible to dismiss many such nations as being non-democratic, and/or dominated by religions, it is harder to dismiss others, such as Canada, England and France.
The American position on its cultural exports has for the most part been that such exports are no different than non-cultural exports. Much of the rest of the world takes a very different position.
I’m not certain they are entirely different issues, though. In both cases the distribution goes against the explicit wishes of the owner. In both cases, distributors make a profit. In one case the owner makes money and in the other he doesn’t. That’s a rather petty distinction, to me, to say that these two crimes are really all that different.
And I think it is true that the solution to pirating and other illegal exporting is to simply release to major markets simultaneously.
And, come on, would it really be so hard to do? Why do they have to wait until the filming is over to do the voice overs? It seems that the money they may make by curbing pirating and having (relative)worldwide releases would far outweigh the costs of doing, er, real time translations (recording translated audio at approximately the same time the filming is done). All the sound is recorded seperately anyway, so it seems to just make sense that they could do the whole thing at once and be done with it.
If the pirating market is that huge, why are the companies acting so damn stupid about it? Is there something painfully obvious that I am missing here?
muffin
I notice that you have changed seats. Apparently you are no longer able to hold yo your belief that the pirate was probably just making a copy for personal use and now seek other justifications for doing nothing. Of course, this directly contradicts your statement, "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. " Apparently internal consistencyl matters less to you than combatting Hollywood’s cultural invasion. That’s certainly your prerogative, but I think it important to note when somebody offering moral advice is changing their seats while the show is still going.
As to clutural invasion, it is a serious and legitimate concern. The balance between cultural protection and cultural isolationism is a tricky one, though, and I cannot see how turning a blind eye to theft in this country is supposed to be a moral response to a complex issue of culture, free choice, and trade. After all, the movie being pirated is most likely one of those very Hollywood blockbusters whose influence you decry. Doing nothing does not stem the “invasion”, it just shifts the profit for the invasion from one pocket to another.
Your argument seems to be that since Hollywood studios export their product they deserve to be stolen from. That is certainly a moral standard, but it is not one for which I have any sympathy.
erl
I think you are assuming that every film has an overseas distribution schedule determined before US release. I do not think that is the case. I believe that in many cases domestic results will change the scope of foreign distribution. Thus, it is not always possible to create the necessary dubs/subtitles immediately after filming.
Yeah, but if what I am reading here is accurate, and there is such a large market for these pirated vids, then apparently someone needs to reassess the situation, and it isn’t the government. No?
How so? At what point in a free market do you determine that a merchant is obligated to service a certain sector or else he should lose his property? The studios know there is profit to be made overseas. They make whatever decisions they feel are appropriate in order to address that market. If they are not meeting demand, then another studio should see an opportunity to capitalize upon their mistake. If no other studios are capable of delivering the goods desired by the market, that does not justify stealing from the studios who do.
Failing to have a business satisfy all of my desires does not grant me ethical license to steal from said business. Really, as an ethical question this one isn’t even close. Wanting something does not provide one an ethical carte blanche.
Contradictory, yes. Changing seats, no.
My position is that I doubt that the OP videographer was shooting for the pupose of mass pirating, and therefore I would not bother to report him. This position is one of self interest, and has nothing to do with morality.
If I thought that a person was pirating for mass distribution, I would report, but that would be because I do not like shady types, and believe that keeping such types under the nose of the law is a good prophilatic. Again, this is not a morality based decision, but simply one of self interest - - essentially a NIMBY position.
After I set out my practical, amoral, position, DesertGeezer put forth that the OP had asked for “moral advice”, but had not been provided any.
Thus I provided “a strictly moral approach which totally ignores the practical”. Obviously my moral position and my practical position are contradictory. Such is life.
I’m a vegetarian, but my dress shoes are leather. I’m an environmentalist, but I drive a vehicle. I abhor violence, but I support the war on terrorism. Moral positions do not always support practical actions. In this case, my moral position is to remain neutral when balancing intellectual property rights against cultural rights, but my practical action is to keep the riff-raff out out my neighbourhood and therefore report if I suspect pirating for mass distribution.
**
Nope. I am not saying that they deserve to be stolen from. I am saying that for piracy for personal use, I couldn’t be bothered to report. For piracy for mass distribution, if I had my druthers and could take a moral action with no thought to practicality, then I would stand apart and not report, supporting neither theft of intellectual property nor promotion of cultural assimilation, but due to the practical consideration of not wanting bad characters in my back yard, I would report, just as I would report anyone I believed to be involved in serious, damaging activities in my area.
Actually, the international market for films is booming. Many pictures earn more money overseas than they do in North America. Especially your Stallone-type action movies. My guess on the reason for the staggered opening of films worldwide would be due to the cost of the actual print of the film. The film print itself is surprisingly expensive, so it just wouldn’t be cost effective to make enough prints for every theater in the world. It would make more sense to ship the prints that were shown in the U.S. to overseas markets after they’ve run their course here. Also, studio may want to spread their marketing costs over a longer period of time.
Now when Digital film takes off, and movies can be “beamed” into theaters anywhere, I wonder if this strategy will change.
As for the OP, I personally wouldn’t bother to tattle on the alleged bootlegger. It’s the responsibility of the theater to enforce the law–not mine. Not to mention the fact that I too have a problem with intellectual property laws. I’m not saying they’re all wrong, I just feel that we really should look into revising them somewhat. After a period of time, we should have a greater right to access our own cultural art. But that’s a topic for another time…and another thread.
Am I the only Doper who’s stunned and disappointed at the attempts by some folks to justify the piracy situation described in the OP?
Call me a prude, but I thought the ethics of this dilemna were very clear-cut. And now I’m reading messages with lame, half-arsed attempts to justify the videotaping, including convoluted stuff like “Maybe it’s a guy who got a new camcorder and is recording everything he sees.” :rolleyes: And now I wonder if if maybe it’s time for me to reassess my opinion of our society’s moral fiber.
Muffin: I suspect that domestic content policies are at least as much economic protectionism as cultural.
Invasion implies the use or threat of force. The annexation of Hawaii involved cultural invasion. The settlement of North America involved cultural invasion.
Distributors of pirated movies in other countries are actively seeking out movies not being offered for sale there. They are responsible for the importation, duplication, promotion and distribution of this product. People then buy the product; without a local market, the piracy couldn’t exist. Whatever cultural influence there might be, for good or bad, is being willingly imported.
This has been a very lively and interesting debate. I just hope you all realize that the whole thing is being Silmed by the Goo Men for a Codumentary.