Roger, I know Cebu City Philippines isn’t China, but the phenomenon is still the same, and I wish I had a picture of the open air market where pirated movies were being sold. It was blocks long, and totally out in the open. Piracy is simply not worried about in many parts of Asia. Harsh but true reality.

Anyway, back to the topic: I actually agree with a good portion of Expat’s article there, but at the same time, I’m not sure why the focus is on Spielberg’s “resonance” with the Chinese people. Simply put, I don’t see that act as being aimed at the Chinese people. Nor at his domestic audience. Either you have a principle, and you act by it, or you don’t. He’s simply acting according to an internal principle (I hope!), and let the consequences fall as they may. Am I worried that I fail to resonate with (cliched example here) trailer denizens because I shun the meth dealer in their park? Should I be? Or should I act according to my principles?

With Mr. Spielberg’s recent “embarrassment” to the government, look for the government to begin “banning” his movies and turning a blind eye to the counterfeits (of his movies particularly) as well.

Whatever else he may be, I think Spielberg is no fool as a businessman, and he was quite aware of the possible business consequences of his actions.

For that reason, I very much admire what he did here. It wasn’t, for once, mere empty moral posturing by a Hollywood celebrity.

Jamie Irons