Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › After Hours Lounge › Media from "artists" whos ethics are seemingly very different from yours...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Media from "artists" whos ethics are seemingly very different from yours...

post #1 of 72
1/27/10 at 6:03pm
Thread Starter 
I have a question that has been on my mind a while. And certainly, its not to incite harsh feelings about any specific situation or incident.

But I have found myself enjoying this hobby (home theater) less and less over the past couple of years.  I still love the technical aspect of it, but the software has become a "problem" for me.

Just a couple of years ago, I knew nothing of an actors life - Or a directors, or a songwriter or musician.  Over the past several years, their lives and their beliefs have been almost forced on me through various media outlets.  Its just not something you can escape unless you live in a hole and have no friends.

I personally dont care about their life or their views on life.  They do their job, I pay them for that job.  It was a simple arrangement.

Lately though, that is just not the case.  I no longer watch a movie and see the character they are portraying.  I start thinking about the last rediculous (to me) statement they made on religion or politics.

For example. The whole Polanski thing.  Some of the comments made from directors or actors in support of this guy were appaling to me.  Now this is where I dont really want to get into a big thing about the rights and wrongs of Polanski - Suffice it to say I just cannot bring myself to support another movie of his.  Prior to this I will admit I was blissfully unaware of the situation. But now I even find myself not wanting to spend money on movies of those in support of him.

So the point of this thread is what to do?  Does anyone else think at all this way?  Am I being a tad overdramatic?

Celebrities of all kinds sometimes hold tremendous influence today in media.  They have a large audience and quite a bit of capital. 

I wouldn't willingly give money to a local cause that was obivously in conflict with my own beliefs - Who would?  So I find myself not wanting to give money to an actor (as an example) that was going to then use it to spew out their hate or promote some cause I dont agree with.

I know people support their favorite actor in many ways - Seeing every movie they are in etc.  I know people who support actors simply because of their views on life or a cause. So what about the opposite of that?

So what do you all think?  Thoughts at all?
Reply
post #2 of 72
1/27/10 at 6:56pm
Criminal (or seemingly criminal) acts where someone is hurt or damaged is where I draw the line.  I'll forgive a DUI or drug charge, but I won't buy any Polanski film, I won't buy any Woody Allen film.  They are geniuses, but they are also sick, creepy old men who preyed on young girls.  As far as those supporting them?  Well, I forgive talented people for being moronically stupid.  Matter of fact, moronically stupid often seems synonymous with talent.  I loathe Sean Penn's politics, but he's a hell of an actor.  He's never broken the law or hurt anyone (that I know of), so I can look past his stupidity and see the character. Same thing with Mel Gibson, so I'm an equal opportunity forgiver. YMMV.
Reply
post #3 of 72
1/27/10 at 7:36pm
I can separate the art from the artist. I don't care about a creative person's politics or religious views, etc. enough that their opinions or beliefs would stop me from looking at their work.

Like Jeff, acts that result in a person being injured are another can of worms. To use the current example, when I hear that someone supports Roman Polanski, I don't boycott their work but I can't imagine why they support him. Chinatown was great but it doesn't mean you get to have anal sex with 13 year old girls without any consequences (and that's giving Polanski the benefit of the doubt that he didn't rape the girl).
Reply
post #4 of 72
1/27/10 at 7:45pm
I think the above really strikes how I feel.  There are lots of actors, actresses and musicians who have advocated things to me that I found at times repugnant.  A good example of this (for me) would be Amy Winehouse.  Love the music.  Her first album I thought was brilliant.  As a person, she's a scumbag.  And yes, she's a criminal, though her crimes are all drug use.

So, I just overlook it and don't think about it.

 

Woody Allen would be my "I can't do it", I loved some of his films, and I'll watch on TV for some.  But I won't buy the DVD or Bluray, because I don't want any of my money directly going to him.  

For the most part, though, I can get past that and watch the film.  I don't mind any of that.  I just won't pay for it.

Reply
post #5 of 72
1/27/10 at 9:34pm
This seems like a thread on the edge, but I'll play along as long as it's open.

I'm out of sync with 99.9% of Hollywood, so I would watch nothing and listen to nothing if I had to agree with everybody.  That said, there are some who just take it too far and I can't do it.  I can't even stand to look at Clooney, so there's no way I could watch a movie he was in no matter how good it might be in spite of his presence.  Luckily, I have never had any interest in his work.

There's an old-time western swing artist named Spade Cooley who stomped his wife to death in front of his daughter.  Can't listen to him.  On the other hand, I still listen to the Drifters in spite of what Spector did, so I guess I have a bit of a double standard when it comes to things I like.  Then again, I'd be "punishing" a lot of innocent people in cases like that just to avoid the producer/instrumentalist.
Reply
post #6 of 72
1/27/10 at 10:55pm

Personally I don't care what someone's politics are. As far at the Polanski thing, I think the man is a pedophile and belongs in prison for the next 20 years, however that doesn't change the fact that Chinatown is one of my favorite movies.

The only thing that bugs me is when an actor or director brings their politics blatantly into the film itself. I don't even mind fairly subtle films like All The Presidents Men, which if made today would probably just be a boring diatribe against the "right" rather than fascinating a film about two investigators.

An example is Jane Fonda. Brilliant actress. All you have to do is look at two films, Klute and 9 to 5 to know that she can do it all. Hell I'd love to work with her.  However I don't want to know about her politics and her causes. Frankly her film (which she produced) The China Syndrome set back nuclear power production 40 years in this country. We are only not starting to talk again about building new plants. All because one actor/producer scared the hell out of people with a film that is rather misleading about the industry.

Doug

Reply
post #7 of 72
1/27/10 at 11:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce View Post

Frankly her film (which she produced) The China Syndrome


If you check the credits, I think you'll find that Michael Douglas produced the film. Fonda has rarely been a producer.

As for its impact, I'm sure the people who made it would be thrilled to believe that a mere film could have been so powerful. But a few weeks after the film was released, an incident known as "Three Mile Island" occurred, and without it The China Syndrome would have been just another thriller. The timing may have been an unfortunate coincidence (or a fortunate one, depending on one's point of view), but the resulting effect can hardly be said to be the the work of "one actor/producer".
Reply
post #8 of 72
1/28/10 at 1:37pm

I for the most part separate the person from the media they produce.  I was surprised how people reacted to Tom Cruise's antics on Oprah a few years ago.  I was hearing people say stuff like "I'm never going to see another one of his movies."  I was like "who cares, as long as the movie is good?" 

Then again, I do have my limits.  If Woody Allen or Roman Polanski agreed to do an adaptation of "Lolita", or if Michael Vick starred in a dog movie, then I'd have to boycott those!

Reply
post #9 of 72
1/28/10 at 3:22pm
I look at it this way. Say, for example, I buy a Polanski film: maybe he goes out and buys a new, high powered sports car. One day he's driving it and decides to see what it can do. He opens it up, goes out of control, hits a tree and it's goodbye Mr. Polanski. I can always think warm thoughts that my money contributed to the removal of a scumbag from the face of the Earth. At the same time, while I wait for said fortuitous event to occur, I can still enjoy watching a pretty good movie like "Chinatown". 

Now, before I get called a lot of nasty names, I am going to say that for the most part the preceding is said tongue-in-cheek, so it should not be taken too seriously. That being said, my purchase of a Polanski film is not a transaction that legitimizes the pig's behavior. It is strictly a business transaction for a piece of entertainment that is wholly separate from any of his personal failings.

Where I would draw the line is spending money on any book or film where Polanski or his adoring, apologist friends tried to make coin from the crime he committed. O.J Simpson is a good example of what I'm referring to. He writes about the murders he committed and tries to mitigate his confession by qualifying it with the title "If I did it". He then tries to actually profit from the crimes he committed by attempting to sell the book. In that case, I would never purchase any such book because then I would be directly helping a scumbag get rich from the act of committing murder. . 
Reply
post #10 of 72
1/28/10 at 6:04pm

My personal formula for support/non-support comes from how vocal the artist they themselves are.  If an actor/director goes out of their way to inform me of their beliefs/opinions, I think it's my obligation to direct my liesure funds based on my level of agreement to their position.  I can separate the art from the artist, but that doesn't mean I need to line their pockets.  If I can enjoy the art without financially supporting the artist, I do so (for example borrowing a Polanski film from the library versus buying).  It's a personal policy that works for me.

Reply
post #11 of 72
1/28/10 at 6:09pm
I mostly don't care. But sometimes the wall is broken. This happened with Tom Cruise, when he revealed his true self a few years back, going bonkers on Oprah and touting his Scientology nonsense. I don't want to care about this. I'd enjoyed his movies for years. But now, the illusion is broken. I can't see him playing a role, I just see the dumbass on Oprah's couch. And I don't have any interest in his current movies.

Whaddya do?
Reply
post #12 of 72
1/28/10 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post




If you check the credits, I think you'll find that Michael Douglas produced the film. Fonda has rarely been a producer.

As for its impact, I'm sure the people who made it would be thrilled to believe that a mere film could have been so powerful. But a few weeks after the film was released, an incident known as "Three Mile Island" occurred, and without it The China Syndrome would have been just another thriller. The timing may have been an unfortunate coincidence (or a fortunate one, depending on one's point of view), but the resulting effect can hardly be said to be the the work of "one actor/producer".
 

I believe your right about Fonda being the producer on China Syndrome. I was confusing it with 9 to 5 which she developed  and on which she was an un-credited executive producer.

The incident at Three Mile Island was not nearly as serious as it was blown up to be by the press, which was directly influenced by the plot of the film which was released about 2 weeks before. The Three Mile Island accident would likely have been a page 3 story if it had not been for the film.

Doug

Reply
post #13 of 72
1/28/10 at 7:01pm
You actually believe that a partial core meltdown of a nuclear reactor would have been page 3 news if not for a Jane Fonda movie?  

You gotta be kidding.
Reply
post #14 of 72
1/28/10 at 7:05pm
These are people doing jobs.  They get paid for those jobs when I buy their product.  I buy the product based on whether or not I want the product, not the behavior of the people making the product.  The guy who dropped the engine into your car might be a serial killer.  If you knew he was a serial killer would you not buy the car?

I'll admit to having a knee jerk thing that prevents me from supporting certain actors or moviemakers films but it has everything to do with artistic prejudice on my part and not any concern about their personal lives.

I'll avoid Cruise movies because he's a screen hog whose power in the industry cows directors and producers into turning what could have been good films into showcases for his enormous ego.  I could care less if he's a Roman Catholic or Scientologist or Wiccan.  

 
Reply
post #15 of 72
1/28/10 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Schaffer View Post

These are people doing jobs.  They get paid for those jobs when I buy their product.  I buy the product based on whether or not I want the product, not the behavior of the people making the product. 
You've never chosen a contractor or salesperson in part because of the "vibe" you got from them? Personality has never played a role in choosing the product or whom you bought from? :) Personality certainly affects regular business. How much more when the business is oneself projected on an 80-foot screen?
Reply
post #16 of 72
1/28/10 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S View Post

You actually believe that a partial core meltdown of a nuclear reactor would have been page 3 news if not for a Jane Fonda movie?  

You gotta be kidding.

and a mushroom cloud is just a beautiful sunset.
Reply
post #17 of 72
1/28/10 at 8:33pm
Thread Starter 
I think I need to get to where Jeff and Dave are.  I swear I am not a nutjob.  I am generally pretty ambivalent about things.

I am not sure what has happened with me on this.  Its just gotten very hard for me to get past all the nonsense and just enjoy the flick.  And I guess its just because of the oversaturation of celebrity in our everyday lives.  I cant sit and read a news outlet without reading something new and usually disturbing.

I mean I wouldnt hire a well renouned contractor if I knew he was also a slumlord.  Or I wouldn't shop at a store if I knew the owner was using procedes from sales to fund a political stance I was vehemently against.  I wouldnt buy the coolest product in the world if I knew the proprietor was going to go speak positively at a neonazi convention.

I guess maybe I have started attaching to much importance to the meaning of my dollar.  But sometimes I feel like I am just walkin up to one of these people, saying hey, here is more money, keep on doing what you're doing (on and off the screen).

There just doesnt seem like there are many aspects of life (except in entertainment) where people in droves do this - hand over loads of cash to what many would consider a horrible person.
Reply
post #18 of 72
1/28/10 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRyan View Post

I mean I wouldnt hire a well renouned contractor if I knew he was also a slumlord.  Or I wouldn't shop at a store if I knew the owner was using procedes from sales to fund a political stance I was vehemently against.  I wouldnt buy the coolest product in the world if I knew the proprietor was going to go speak positively at a neonazi convention.

 


Having a different political opinion or religious belief than you isn't the same as somone being a slumlord or a neo-Nazi though.
Reply
post #19 of 72
1/28/10 at 9:10pm
Thread Starter 
Oh I basically agree.  I dont believe I did a great job of explaining it in that last post - I did better in the first one.  But then again, it COULD be the same thing.  It depends on the person and what they do with it.  Take John Travolta versus Tom Cruise on their religious beliefs.  I personally have never heard Travolta showcase his beliefs as I have Cruise.  Maybe he has but I havent heard it personally. 

Celebrity in this day comes with a certain platform for their beliefs.  Some seem to use that platform (that we have afforded them) to promote their beliefs.  Some dont.

I guess my point is... Do I care if I am willingly giving my money to someone that I know will use it to promote a beliefe with which I dont agree, or in a case such as Polanski, giving money to a pedophile.
Reply
post #20 of 72
1/28/10 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRyan View Post

There just doesnt seem like there are many aspects of life (except in entertainment) where people in droves do this - hand over loads of cash to what many would consider a horrible person.

Sure there are. There's just a lot less hand-wringing and moral posturing about it, because they aren't the subject of celebrity reporting. In the modern world, almost any financial transaction into which one enters involves multiple recipients, and the odds are that at least one of them will be a horrible person. (If a bank is involved, as is almost always the case, the odds approach certainty.  )


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Schaffer View Post

These are people doing jobs.  They get paid for those jobs when I buy their product.  I buy the product based on whether or not I want the product, not the behavior of the people making the product.  The guy who dropped the engine into your car might be a serial killer.  If you knew he was a serial killer would you not buy the car?

 

I'm with Steve.
Reply
post #21 of 72
1/28/10 at 9:44pm
Thread Starter 
Oh but I said knowingly and willingly.  Of course in everyday life you simply cannot (nor would I want to) know what everyone is doing...  Ignorance can be bliss.

And that is fundamentally the point of this thread as stated in the original post.  I do know and am willingly giving my money in the case of many directors, actors or musicians.  Because some are so vocal and they have the cash and platform to spew their beliefs and promote their causes.

And certainly in cases of large organizations the same can be said.  Enron comes to mind or WalMart for some.  Even Sony when they introduced a rootkit in an audio CD.  People boycott organizations everyday for different ideals.

Me, I just want to watch a movie.  I am just trying to get past the idea that my money is in some cases knowingly going to a cause I despise.
Reply
post #22 of 72
1/29/10 at 3:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

Sure there are. There's just a lot less hand-wringing and moral posturing about it, because they aren't the subject of celebrity reporting. In the modern world, almost any financial transaction into which one enters involves multiple recipients, and the odds are that at least one of them will be a horrible person. (If a bank is involved, as is almost always the case, the odds approach certainty.  )

Indeed. Any time you buy a car, you're certainly putting money in the pocket of someone who's repulsive -- too many worked on that vehicle for it to be otherwise.

But if I'm trying to buy a car, and the salesman rubs me the wrong way, he won't get my business. He could be offensive that I swear off the whole dealership. I've also sworn off an entire pet-supplies company because of a past incident where one store killed a friend's dog. Their corporate attitude was so malevolent that I won't do business with them.

I don't mean these as badges of pride, nor advocate you do the same. But we're influenced by our emotions on these things. So, sure, some may be swayed away from an actor because of emotional reaction to their public affairs.

As long as this isn't pathological, interfering with daily life, what's it matter? If you can't function, can't work with anyone because you know they're secretly loathsome, you need therapy. But if you're swearing off the rare actor or salesperson because they're pedophiles, nutjobs, or simply annoy the heck out of you, you're simply a normal person.
Reply
post #23 of 72
1/29/10 at 7:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRyan View Post


For example. The whole Polanski thing.  Some of the comments made from directors or actors in support of this guy were appaling to me.  Now this is where I dont really want to get into a big thing about the rights and wrongs of Polanski - Suffice it to say I just cannot bring myself to support another movie of his.  Prior to this I will admit I was blissfully unaware of the situation. But now I even find myself not wanting to spend money on movies of those in support of him.

 

What I find interesting is that some of the people exclaiming "oh, you musn't be judgmental of Polanski for being a pedophile" and/or "you must keep your views of his personal and professional lives separate" have no trouble abandoning such "principles" when it comes to the apparently much greater "crime" of having a differing political view.  George Clooney expressed satisfaction that Charlton Heston was suffering from Altzheimer's disease.
Reply
post #24 of 72
1/29/10 at 7:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRyan View Post

Oh but I said knowingly and willingly.  Of course in everyday life you simply cannot (nor would I want to) know what everyone is doing...  Ignorance can be bliss.

 

That's where we part company. I don't consider ignorance to be an acceptable dividing line. Either one decides to forswear purchasing goods and services from sources one considers morally compromised (in which case, best to go seek out the current equivalent of Walden Pond), or one accepts that one's participation in the world means indirect involvement in all sorts of awful things, whether you like it or not. (Gee, that sounds like the kind of edgy stuff for serious artistic exploration!  )


Quote:
Originally Posted by CRyan View Post


And that is fundamentally the point of this thread as stated in the original post.  I do know and am willingly giving my money in the case of many directors, actors or musicians.  Because some are so vocal and they have the cash and platform to spew their beliefs and promote their causes.

 

We're surrounded 24/7 by people and organizations spewing beliefs and promoting causes. It's the nature of a free society. Directors, actors and musicians aren't entitled to be part of that?
Edited by Michael Reuben - 2/9/10 at 4:23pm
Reply
post #25 of 72
1/29/10 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post




George Clooney expressed satisfaction that Charlton Heston was suffering from Altzheimer's disease.
 

"Satisfaction"? That's pushing it. Clooney made a joke about it at a National Board of Review event, as reported by gossip columnist Liz Smith: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." He subsequently apologized to Heston.

(But even though I pick up this stuff, because I'm a junkie for show business gossip and trivia, I forget all about it when I'm watching Omega Man or Michael Clayton. I just see the characters, because both men are terrific actors.)
Reply
post #26 of 72
1/29/10 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

Review event, as reported by gossip columnist Liz Smith: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." He subsequently apologized to Heston.
 

And while that's not the nicest joke to make, it was a joke and no worse than something you'd hear on any late night talk show.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post

We're surrounded 24/7 by people and organizations spewing beliefs and promoting causes. It's the nature of a free society. Directors, actors and musicians aren't entitled to be part of that?


I could be wrong but it seems like some people only want to hear someone's opinion if it matches their own. Unfortunately for them, it's a free country so everyone gets to spout off their dumb opinions.
Reply
post #27 of 72
1/29/10 at 10:31am
Quote:
But if I'm trying to buy a car, and the salesman rubs me the wrong way, he won't get my business. He could be offensive that I swear off the whole dealership. I've also sworn off an entire pet-supplies company because of a past incident where one store killed a friend's dog. Their corporate attitude was so malevolent that I won't do business with them.

 

I'm not sure that can be a direct comparison. If you want to buy a specific car and the salesperson at that paticular dealership offends you, you can likely find that same model car at another dealership. There are also other pet supply companies that sell a lot of the same stuff. If there is a specific movie that you are interested in seeing, yet it stars, say, Tom Cruise, you either have to accept his presence or you don't see the movie period.

I guess it's just kind of a choose your battles kind of thing. When I saw Avatar, I appreciated the film of a visual level and found the story thin, which is okay, not every film needs a convoluted plot. It was the allegories and the horribly stereotypical characters that made my eyes roll, but I'm sure I'll be buying it on Blu-Ray anyway.

But if I had to eschew all artistic entertainment made by people who's opinions are different from mine, it wouldn't leave me with much.

Quote:
 I loathe Sean Penn's politics, but he's a hell of an actor.  He's never broken the law or hurt anyone (that I know of),

 

I believe he did famously assault a photographer.

Quote:
 I won't buy any Woody Allen film.  They are geniuses, but they are also sick, creepy old men who preyed on young girls.

 

I can look past the Woody Allen thing. I don't remember all the details of the story, but as far as I know, all he did was engage in a very frowned upon relationship. Yeah, it's kind of creepy, but Soon Yi was not underage and as far as I know they're still married so the relationship seems to have worked out (although you'd could consider him a prick for putting Mia Farrow through that). But it's not like he did the same thing as Polanski.

 
Reply
post #28 of 72
1/29/10 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post
We're surrounded 24/7 by people and organizations spewing beliefs and promoting causes. It's the nature of a free society. Directors, actors and musicians aren't entitled to be part of that?

     Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR View Post
I could be wrong but it seems like some people only want to hear someone's opinion if it matches their own. Unfortunately for them, it's a free country so everyone gets to spout off their dumb opinions.

With all due respect, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you guys seem to agree with Hollywood's viewpoint for the most part.  Let's get away from what a celebrity says or does and get down to what happens in modern movies and television shows: I'll be watching a television show, enjoying it, minding my own business, and they'll throw in some partisan jab that wasn't even necessary to the script.  If I was allowed to come on here and complain about it, no doubt one of you or one like you would reply, "You're upset about something that minor?  Just get over it and enjoy the show."  I've seen it done here.  And, on a certain level, I could understand where you'd be coming from, but you have to understand that you don't get the same kind of treatment from Hollywood that I do.  When your beliefs are ridiculed and assaulted every time you turn on the TV or step into a movie theater, "get over it" tends to turn into "just sit there, shut up and take it."  But, you can't understand it if you don't have to experience it in turn.

On the other hand, on the extremely rare occasion where the tables are turned, all hell breaks loose.  I'm thinking of a certain figure drummed off of a sports program and sure to cause howls of outrage and calls for boycotts this weekend when a beauty pagent is broadcast.

But, yeah.  It sucks watching a show with open affection and being slapped down.  From then on, there is a certain distance between yourself and the show that tempers your level of enjoyment.  If you don't ever feel that--something people like me are made to feel all the time--consider yourself lucky.

To make clear, I would never say Hollywood can never nor should ever tackle a partisan or political issue.  It's just that when it's unnecessary red meat to their side that you wish someone in the writers' room would follow Michael Jordan's lead and say, "Republicans buys shoes, too."  But, I think I understand that as well.  Hollywood is a pretty closed world and they don't even really believe there are regular people out there who disagree with them.
Reply
post #29 of 72
1/29/10 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_S_H View Post


With all due respect, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you guys seem to agree with Hollywood's viewpoint for the most part. 

 

Not only have you gone out on a limb, but you've also climbed into a different tree.

As best as I could tell, the original question was about individuals: actors, songwriters, directors, musicians. That's how the discussion has proceeded so far.

Now it's something bigger and more loosely defined: "Hollywood's viewpoint". And this is usually the point where these threads start to wander.

I'm not even sure what "Hollywood" is anymore, given the multi-national ownership of the studios and the international financial interests that fund the movies (leave aside the international array of talent that makes them). But I'm pretty sure that there's no such thing as a univocal "Hollywood viewpoint", except maybe "let's sell as many tickets and units of merchandise as possible so that our corporate parent companies don't fire us!"

That's a viewpoint I understand, and in that sense I guess you could say I agree with it.
Reply
post #30 of 72
1/29/10 at 11:34am
When it's just a difference of opinion, I overlook it. I'm not going to avoid watching someone in a movie because I disagree with them, although I might avoid a movie that pushes a viewpoint I don't like.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: After Hours Lounge
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › After Hours Lounge › Media from "artists" whos ethics are seemingly very different from yours...