As someone who produces copyrighted content and is aware of how much artists lose through piracy I think your first mistake was in violating the agreement you made when you went to the performance.For argument sake, Why couldn't one ask by what right did the Theater invoke that clause? If I really wanted to be Republican/Libertarian about it, I could point out that I wasn't warned about the restriction before purchasing my ticket - thus they lured me into the place and then sprang this unreasonable demand upon me. Take that CATO :cheese: I'll bet there was a prominent sign in the lobby or somewhere. In any case if you complained to the management that you did not receive proper notice they would probably give you your money back, especially if you complain loudly enough. Most theaters don't allow recording so you should take that as the default unless you've been told that it's permitted. LoisHey who's complaining? I was just say'n . . . . . . . :cheese: {and there was no "prominent" sign neither! :-/ }
As someone who produces copyrighted content and is aware of how much artists lose through piracy I think your first mistake was in violating the agreement you made when you went to the performance.For argument sake, Why couldn't one ask by what right did the Theater invoke that clause? If I really wanted to be Republican/Libertarian about it, I could point out that I wasn't warned about the restriction before purchasing my ticket - thus they lured me into the place and then sprang this unreasonable demand upon me. Take that CATO :cheese: I'll bet there was a prominent sign in the lobby or somewhere. In any case if you complained to the management that you did not receive proper notice they would probably give you your money back, especially if you complain loudly enough. Most theaters don't allow recording so you should take that as the default unless you've been told that it's permitted. LoisHey who's complaining? I was just say'n . . . . . . . :cheese: {and there was no "prominent" sign neither! :-/ } Well, that's unusual. I've seen signs like that in many theaters. How did you find out? Lois
Generally every performance I ever recall going to including High School to Broadway and everything in between usually has a very clear paragraph in the show program which makes it clear that recording of the performance is not allowed.
Generally every performance I ever recall going to including High School to Broadway and everything in between usually has a very clear paragraph in the show program which makes it clear that recording of the performance is not allowed.I'll have to dig out the program see if it's in there. I have mentioned that it was brought up in the opening announcements. Besides, it was an irrelevant aside - guess the joke I was making about the Rep/Lib legalistic approach bombed. And my more serious points were listed above, so I won't rehash them.
Here’s what I think:
Laws are laws. And morals are morals. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes they don’t. Obeying the law is not always the right thing to do. And in regards to laws that are also moral, disobeying some is more immoral than disobeying others.
But in this case, was disobeying the law as a sort of personal protest to being told of the restriction, only after you bought a ticket, the right thing to do? Your subsequent actions seem to have been in keeping with the spirit of the law, and some good (and no apparent harm) came of your criminal activity.
Since there is some apparent morality in abiding by copyright restrictions, I would have to say that your initial action was immoral.
So I think that you committed a criminal and immoral act, but I, as BugRib does, consider it to be immoral, only in the slightest degree, and I think that the degree of immorality was mitigated by your subsequent adherence to the spirit of the law, and by the results in which there was no apparent harm, and some benefit that came of it.
So to sum up, I think that you are a sinner and a criminal, but a very nice one. And if you had it all over to do again, personally, I doubt that I would advise you to do anything differently.
And if I had to be the judge at your trial, I would let you off with a warning. If I were your confessing priest, I would require a couple of Hail Marys. If I were your Psychoanalyst, I would ask “How do you feel about that?” If I were your behaviorist, I would say, “Really?, is that your most concerning problematic behavior?” If I were your philosopher, I would say,“You should go to someone who has more expertise in philosophy than I.”
As someone who produces copyrighted content and is aware of how much artists lose through piracy I think your first mistake was in violating the agreement you made when you went to the performance.For argument sake, Why couldn't one ask by what right did the Theater invoke that clause? Because the people who own the rights to the performance are the only ones who have a right to anything of value related it. Its not up to anyone else to decide whether the recording has value or not. There are several reasons its wrong to record it aside from the fact that the people who produced the performance asked you not to and you did it anyway (that in itself is a violation of trust and immoral). By recording the performance an individual may be less likely to come back a second time or less likely to buy a recording should one become available. Finally, once you recorded the performance and released it into the wild so to speak the copyright owners have essentially lost control over future performances which people can now watch via your recording. Not only is there your particular recording but you further exacerbated the issue by giving the recording to someone else so that even if you had no nefarious intentions you can no longer guarantee that your recording won't cause harm because you no longer control its destiny. If you spent months painting a masterpiece and displayed it in a gallery or loaned it to a gallery would you be happy if someone used their digital camera to make a copy of your painting knowing that you now had no control over what happened to that image. They could give it to friends to make copies that could be framed and hung in their own home. Even if they don't sell it they are enjoying value from something you worked hard to produce and they are paying you nothing for it. I don't understand why you are looking for absolution from the people here? No you didn't kill anyone, but what you did was wrong. That's much is not in question no matter how you spin this. If we all turn a blind eye and everyone does this harm will be done to the artists. The production of art in all of its forms is generally a labor of love with a very low return on investment so anything that puts the artists income at risk should not be condoned.
The point is the owners of the play hold the copyright. The theater has bought the right to perform the play under the terms agreed to. The theater has also agreed not to allow recordings because the copyright holder has made this stipulation in the contract. If the copyright holder found out about the recording they could accuse the theater of copyright infringement and contractual infringement. The copyright holder could also sue the person doing the recording for copyright infringement, especially if he attempts to sell the recording. It isn’t a lot different from someone who photocopies a copyrighted book and sells copies of it. It comes under the rules of intellectual property, around which there is a whole legal philosophy and enforcement provisions. The playwright may not have enough money to pursue a copyright infringement action, but just try copying a Microsoft product and selling bootlegged copies. It’s the same principle and the same law that’s being broken.
Since, it is such a big deal, then maybe the sellers of the art should require audience members to sign a simple and clear statement that they will not video the performance, when they purchase their tickets.
Isn’t it immoral, also, to sell something to a purchaser, who doesn’t know the limits of what they are purchasing, until after they give up their money?
Immoral actions toward someone, can often lead to an immoral reaction.
In this case, the spiral of immorality was started by the theater.
How moral are we, if we insist that people everywhere, just suck it up and act right, when they have paid for something that turns out not to be what they thought they were paying for?
Hey, but kid - that pipe, you're gonna stunt your growth :grrr:The pipe is cool. He's got a Huckleberry Finn vibe going on. That's gotta be worth a bit of stunted growth.
I’ll bet that the tickets have in very tiny print, a reference to a contract agreed to when the ticket is purchased, and that somewhere in the theater there’s a copy of the contract posted. Just as we all are, lawyers are expert in their profession.
Nah, you’ve got it all wrong about BugRib’s avatar. He’s been smoking since he was a young kid, and that picture of him is one taken recently as an adult. It stunted his growth many years ago. :lol:
Occam
Most books don’t spell out that they can’t be reproduced and resold. They contain a copyright notice, which is self explanatory. When you record a play or photocopy a book you are stealing someone’s copyright protected work. It’s no different than robbing a bank or the corner grocer or someone walking down the street. That some people do it and get away with it doesn’t make it moral.
Lois
I agree with Lois. Its common knowledge that its illegal to copy or record performances or any form of art. Just as with Lois’ example, the onus in our society is not upon the artist to go around and get a written contract from everyone who might view their art. Such a requirement would make it impossible to put on a performance in any live venue or display art in any public location. Imagine the time it would require to get patrons into the theater if everyone had to read and sign a consent form first. And as Lois pointed out how would you do that logistically for books and other forms of creative materials?
Common sense has to rule the day here. Any reasonable person knows its wrong to record or copy something that someone else created without express permission from the artist. I can virtually guarantee that the playbook had that restriction printed in it. It is disingenuous for someone to imply that the selling of a ticket to a performance without written knowledge in advance of this restriction is immoral. Its common knowledge that its not permissible. The default position is that you are not allowed to do it. To promote a different point of view you would also have to believe that it would be immoral if they sold you a ticket without telling you in advance that you can’t yell and scream and run around the theater during the performance without getting thrown out?
Most books don't spell out that they can't be reproduced and resold. They contain a copyright notice, which is self explanatory. When you record a play or photocopy a book you are stealing someone's copyright protected work. It's no different than robbing a bank or the corner grocer or someone walking down the street. That some people do it and get away with it doesn't make it moral. LoisNot all live performers ban videotaping. Some implicitly permit it, for reasons such as inspiring fan loyalty. And I imagine that in some cases it might amount to free advertising. Therefore, since some do and some don't, those who don't should be very explicit that videotaping is not included in the price of admission. That is, if they want to be perfectly moral about it, from their end. We have all, seemingly, already agreed, that CC did the wrong thing, once he knew that videotaping was not permitted. The point, that I am moving on to, is about the morality of the behavior of the art seller, or of all sellers who sell a pig in a poke.
Tim I disagree. Even if it were true that most performances allowed recordings ( and it’s not), there is more harm to be done by recording a performance without permission than to forbid recording without notice. Additionally as previously mentioned it is not practical in most cases to notify people before they purchase a ticket and it sets a bad precedent I that it says to the public that they have a right to copy copywrited material unless expressly forbidden to do so.
When you buy a ticket you have a right to View the performance. That’s all you’re entitled to.
Tim I disagree. Even if it were true that most performances allowed recordings ( and it's not), there is more harm to be done by recording a performance without permission than to forbid recording without notice. Additionally as previously mentioned it is not practical in most cases to notify people before they purchase a ticket and it sets a bad precedent I that it says to the public that they have a right to copy copywrited material unless expressly forbidden to do so. When you buy a ticket you have a right to View the performance. That's all you're entitled to.It IS TRUE that SOME live performers permit videotaping. And people CAN, legally, reproduce art that is not copyrighted and they CAN reproduce copyrighted material with permission (perhaps even when the permission is only implicit, though I am not sure about that). Certainly, as to matter of degree, it would be a small sin for an individual artist or production company to neglect to explicitly inform their patrons as to the limitations of what they are paying for when paying to attend a show. Except for the cumulative effect on all the poor ignorant chumps who thought that the opportunity to video a memento was part of the price of admission. Mainly, my point is that when we are making judgments about what is immoral, there are likely going to be different perspectives. In the case of the morality involved in transactions, there is going to be moral behavior or not, on the part of the buyer, and also, moral behavior or not, on the part of the seller. (BTW, I imagine that the particular issue of copyrighted art is particularly salient to you, as you are an artist whose medium may be most vulnerable to being stolen. And you make a good case for the social importance of supporting artists' copy rights.)
oops screwed that up -
Now here’s another moral dilemma - I knew someone long ago, who worked in a very grand hotel that had custom
china and more important to this story a full set of bar glassware with a unique quite artsy ‘brand’ etched into them.
Don’t remember for sure but there must have been at least ten styles, from little liqueur, scotch, champagne, everything.
These glasses would break regularly - When the Hotel was sold to a corporation with all their cost cutting obsessions
that extravagance cancelled. Now my pal, who’d worked at the place decades and felt that personal connection
went on a mission and over time pilfered 6@ of every style, until he had a complete set. His stated plan was that
at sometime when the value of these historic glasses was appreciated and none were around any more, he
would return probably the only complete collection of these very cool looking glasses back to this historic grand hotel.
I don’t know how that story every wound up - but I’ve always wrestled with how to judge what he did.
The glasses were doomed by attrition, so he saw himself as a rescuer.
Mind you at this same grand hotel I’d watch a few pig dish washers playing frisbee with these beautiful dishes, with
contempt and intent to break, and somehow they got away with it. So I had quite a juxtaposition to ponder on with that one.
It is disingenuous for someone to imply that the selling of a ticket to a performance without written knowledge in advance of this restriction is immoral.Absolutely! Why do you think I invoked Republican/Libertarians, don't you know? :coolsmirk:
As someone who produces copyrighted content and is aware of how much artists lose through piracy I think your first mistake was in violating the agreement you made when you went to the performance.For argument sake, Why couldn't one ask by what right did the Theater invoke that clause? If I really wanted to be Republican/Libertarian about it, I could point out that I wasn't warned about the restriction before purchasing my ticket - thus they lured me into the place and then sprang this unreasonable demand upon me. Take that CATO :cheese:
I think it really comes down to a couple of questions
- Do most people expect that they have the right to record professional performances? I am pretty confident that if you asked people ( especialy those who go to them often) you would find that the majority of individuals would admit that they know recordings are not allowed.
- Is it reasonable to ask artists to make an effort to notify consumers in some way prior to purchasing a ticket that recording is not allowed? Given the fact that most performances and most artists are not highly profitable this seems to be an unfair and untenable burden to put on the artist. The cost and effort could be impossible for some artists and performances to bear. Additjonally, if the burden is upon the artist to inform the public then anyone who attended the performance could always claim there was “insufficient” notification no matter what efforts the artist made since the burden is on the artist to prove otherwise.
- What is the effect on society? If recordings are permitted the value of the performance goes down and becomes less profitable because some people will wait for the recordings and reproductions. Its a widely known fact that in many major cities you can buy crude copies of many first run movies on the street corner. These days you can also download them on the internet. Even though these recordings are inferior to the official productions people buy them and movie companies lose a lot of money. Major movies will still be made but some loss of income may result in smaller projects being cancelled. If you don’t protect artists and their creations from unauthorized and uncompensated theft of their work then there will be fewer artists and less art produced.
Also to clarify one thing which was said above. A copyright is not required in order for a creative work to be protected from unauthorized reproduction. All creative works are protected under copyright law whether an official copyright has been obtained or not. Having a copyright simply provides documentation of original ownership but this can also be accomplished if the creator keeps a log or in some other way documents that they are the original creator. The point is that just because a work is not copyrighted does not mean it is legal to copy it.
And ignorance of the law is not a defense. Otherwise a person could rob a bank and claim the bank did not inform him that it was against the law to rob it. I’ve never seen a sign or heard an announcement that informs the public that robbing a bank is against the law. Individuals don’t carry signs that it is illegal to mug or rape them, either. Individuals have an obligation to find out what is against the law before they act.
Lois