[Hammerhead]

Hello,
I saw a statement by some actors group (Screen Actors Guild?) saying that we have to make sure that there is no "black list" for actors who are protesting the war, and it has gotten me thinking. That's almost always a bad thing, but here goes.

On the one hand, I don't think that a person should be forced to agree with me to be able to make a living. But, on the other hand, I refuse to deal with people that I despise. I will not buy anything from Neo-nazi dealers at gunshows, for example. I refuse to watch any movie with Jane Fonda in it.

So, where do other people think about this? I don't want to force people to keep un-popular opinions to themselves, but on the other hand, I am expressing my opinion by not dealing with them.

Anyway, I would like to hear what other people have to say about this.

Regards,
Hammerhead

[spacemanspiff]

why stop at actors? why not include all "entertainors"?

for example, i recently learned that michael moore directed the video for Rage Against the Machines "sleep now in the fire". that saddens me cause i really like ratm, but if they were willing to work with that sack of lumpy potatoes, i dont know if i can listen to their cds anymore.
also learned that lumpy potatoes is going to direct system of a downs next video. i really like soad too, but if they are also in cahoots with lumpy, i dont know if my conscience will feel right listening to them anymore.

but as far as actors being anti-war, its a joke. they're all hypocrites who do anything for a buck. if the actors were really serious about their political stance, they wouldnt care if they got no more work. now they are sitting there crying "ohh woe is me, i tried thinking for myself and now i have no work, oh how will i ever afford my multi-millionare lifestyle?"

if you really want to take a stand and not put your dollars into the media industry, download bootlegs of movies. sure, its illegal, but so is downloading mp3's. and as long as there are ftp sites the industry cant possibly stop the socalled 'illegal' bootlegs from being shared.

[10-Ring]

Even the President said that freedom of speech is enjoyed in this country and that this is one of the freedoms we fight for. I am glad to see & hear opposing opinions, it's just frustrating when these opinions are not based in reality :rolleyes:

[JimP]

I personally refuse to see the films of any of the balwins; Julia Roberts; Streisand; Moore; Sheen; etc, etc,....

Thay can open their suckholes and spew filth from them, but I don't have to support them with my dollars. Capitalism is great!!!! :neener:

[Kaylee]

if you really want to take a stand and not put your dollars into the media industry, download bootlegs of movies. sure, its illegal, but so is downloading mp3's

That's funny... one thread over we were dissing students who turned a political protest into an excuse to loot a store. I don't see the ethical difference between ripping off an artist's work "for the cause" and stealing candy bars "for the cause."

Theft is theft. Theft is not politics.

-K

[D.W. Drang]

There's a differance between a black list and a boycott.

If we refuse to spend a single thin dime on anything that Mivchael Moore or the Baldwins or Rosie O'Donnell ad naseum have to do that's a boycott.

A black list is when Kurt Russell couldn't get a role because Hollywierd was put off by him trying to organize celebrity hunting trips...

[Justin]

for example, i recently learned that michael moore directed the video for Rage Against the Machines "sleep now in the fire". that saddens me cause i really like ratm, but if they were willing to work with that sack of lumpy potatoes, i dont know if i can listen to their cds anymore. You're kidding, right? RATM, or at least Tom Morello and Zack De La Rocha are just as red as Michael Moore. Tom Morello is Harvard-educated yet openly Marxist, and De La Rocha has openly advocated any number of left-wing or Marxist causes, up to and including left-wing guerrilla organizations operating in South America.

Regardless of musical talent (good, but over-rated) those guys are world-class hypocrites.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Why stop there?

I would make everybody you do business with fill out a political questionaire.

That way, you could always be sure that the hotdog you buy from the street vendor doesn't support someone who is anti-war.

Knock yourself out.

[Justin]

That's funny... one thread over we were dissing students who turned a political protest into an excuse to loot a store. I don't see the ethical difference between ripping off an artist's work "for the cause" and stealing candy bars "for the cause." To my way of thinking, theft actually involves someone losing property. If I walk into the local Best Buy and take a CD without paying for it, that is theft. But if I download a song off of the internet, which does not entail me actually taking physical property, how is that theft? I see no difference between downloading music and listening to the radio. After all, if listening to MP3's is theft, then listening to the radio is theft as well, seeing as I didn't pay for that song, and I most likely switch stations during commercial breaks.

But even the most ardent RIAA supporter would have to admit that there's nothing wrong with copying media from artists that are openly Marxist. After all, surely these artists see the hypocrisy inherent in making money, and would encourage all of their fans to enjoy their works of art without having to bow to the evil machine of corporate free-market greed.

[CZ-75]

Why stop there?

Because the hot dog vendor isn't in the propaganda business, usually.

When I found out a local jewelery store, the nicest in town, in fact, supported Hillary Clinton's campaign for NY's Senator, I stopped doing business with them.

I won't patronize restaurants I know are owned by major supporters of the democratic party.

I wouldn't know any of this, though, had these folks not tried to peddle their influence. They gambled and lost me.

[pbman]

http://hollywoodhalfwits.localweb.com/


"I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."

- Sheryl Crow


Read the list of quotes, it will make you sick.

[CZ-75]

But if I download a song off of the internet, which does not entail me actually taking physical property, how is that theft?

Why not start making and selling your own pharmaceuticals, such as Viagra, etc., too?

After all, it isn't like you stole the pills.

Perhaps you think you can make a Honda Accord cheaper than Honda. You start making your own and selling them. Was anything stolen?

[seeker_two]

That way, you could always be sure that the hotdog you buy from the street vendor doesn't support someone who is anti-war.

It comes down to character & trust. If someone is willing to live by the anti-war Marxist drivel, that doesn't say much for their character. I won't do business w/ someone like that; and, in our free society, I don't have to.

(And I'd tell him to give his weiner to someone who'll swallow that crap...:evil: )

[Kaylee]

1. Justin -- you sound like you already know the arguments behind intellectual property, and have chosen to ignore them. Thus, there's little point in going over it again.

Suffice it to say that sales is how people in any IP business make their money, and by taking their product without paying for it, you ARE depriving them of a sale. As for radio -- that's part of a written contract between the radio station and the artist -- a mutually beneficial relationship. The artist gets recognition, the radio station gets to sell ad space. If you can get a written contract with the artist's agent to get copies of everything he/she did without paying for it, more power to you.

2. But even the most ardent RIAA supporter would have to admit that there's nothing wrong with copying media from artists that are openly Marxist.

I'll say it again.. theft is theft.
To dress it up in political clothing doesn't make it less theft.
Folks have justified "looting for the cause" since the Og dragged off the Ug's daughter. The argument doesn't hold any more water now than it does then.


=K

[BigG]

Theft is not politics.

I understand what you mean by this, Kaylee, but bending the context a wee bit... could you tell the :cuss: politicians to stay out of my paycheck, then? :(

[spacemanspiff]

That's funny... one thread over we were dissing students who turned a political protest into an excuse to loot a store. I don't see the ethical difference between ripping off an artist's work "for the cause" and stealing candy bars "for the cause."

looting a store, which takes away the livelihood of the store owner and actually puts a dent in his pocketbook, is not even comparable to depriving a record label the $18 for a cd that i am going to download. further, if i like what i hear, i do buy the cd so i can not only listen to the music while at work, but also at home or at the gym. in fact, if i really like the music, i'll buy two copies, one that stays at home and one that stays at work. dont ask how many copies of Tool's Aenima i've bought because i've worn the cd out or it got damaged. think its well over ten copies. i've paid nearly $200 for one cds worth of music. not to mention how many copies of undertow, opiate, and lateralus i've gone through as well.

the recording industry makes millions of dollars. their pocketbooks arent dented at all, not even scratched because people download the music instead of buying it. they whine and cry about it, just because they are whiny crying babies. the funny thing is that its the recording artists that make the biggest stink about it, when they are paid for the albums BEFORE they are released to the public and only make minute royalties for each album/cd/tape sold.

its just like the movie industry that is complaining about bootlegs videos being downloaded, and how even though they are experience record profits, the most now than ever before, they are complaining that they are losing money because people download movies instead of shelling out $8 at the theater to see them.

cry me a river.

[Viking6]

I agree in principal that a Hollywood blacklist is a bad thing for either side left or right, heck neutral, too. But at the same time, after taxes and bills, I get to decide how to spend what's left of my income. Considering the size of that portion, I would consider whether or not I want to support someone who clearly does not respect me or my position. Can you do it every time? Probably not. Does it work? Who Knows. All things being equal, it's another one of life's choices. Blacklist = BAD; Boycott = a form of expression.

[Kaylee]

BigG -- we're working on it, remember?

spaceman... so it sounds like you're saying that the ethics of taking someone's product without paying for it are contingent on how much said someone is making from it.

How much then do I have to earn in order for it to become ethical to steal from me?
$20K?
$200 K?
$2 million?

Where's the magical line between "stealing is wrong" and "it's okay to take my goods without paying me because I have *enough* already?"

If this starts to sound like the reasoning behind the lib's pushing a steeply progressive income tax ...


:)

-K

[D.W. Drang]

So, back to the Hollywood Blacklist thing...
This AM I heard an interview on the radio with Screen Actor's Guild president Mellisa Gilbert (formerly Laura Engalls of "Little House on the Prarie" and wife of President John Sheriden of the INterstaller Alliance :p ) and she said that the rumors of a Hollywood Blacklist are based on some web sites calling for a boycot of entertainers who advocate unpopular political views. She further said that there is no blacklist, i.e., Time-Warner (for example) is not refusing to do business wth Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn--darn it! :evil:

[spacemanspiff]

you are an individual. i wouldnt steal from an individual. the entertainment industry is corporate. no one likes the corporates. they pay ceo's millions of dollars to sit around and play tiddlywinks. stealing from them isnt "bad", its a public service.
:evil:

[Kaylee]

so then.. we're back to "stealing is okay, as long as you steal from the right people."

So "asset forfeiture" against druggies, gun-runners, and Juden are okay, because no one likes them either? Closer to home.. taking land from Indians was okay, because no likes them either and besides they weren't using it in a civilized manner anyway? (It was a public service after all -- you have indoor heating in Alaska now ;) )

:p



To the original point.. I'd say the production studios are within their rights to refuse work to any actor, for any reason. Supporting the war or not supporting the war. Wearing too much or too little at the latest awards show gig.. whatever. Forcing that discrimination through gov't fiat is another matter though. Further, in setting up their own private blacklists, I'd say they lose any moral authority (such as they might have left) to criticize others for discrimination in their workplaces.

-K

[CatsDieNow]

Now Justin, you know better than that. :rolleyes:

While you and I are very capable of rationalizing student graphics software piracy (IIRC, it is a first-semester course at Purdue), we get seriously snarked off when someone steals an image we created with it - total hypocracy. Services can be stolen just as easily as tangible goods.

[Zander]

no one likes the corporates. Corporations are owned by individuals. They are called stockholders.

Grow up...

[grampster]

One of the best things about freedom is that one can do just about any damn thing one wants to do. At the same time, one needs to understand that doing so sometimes elicits consequences that have to be absorbed.
I support the right to shoot off one's mouth. I do so a lot myself.
Other folks can deal with me as they please as a result. I can do the same.
A boycot of one sometimes turns into an avalanche of millions.
You just never know.......:cool:

[spacemanspiff]

ooh remind me to send a thank you card to those who took kids away from villages and placed them in schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language or adhere to their native rituals because they were supposed to be learning how to be 'civilized'. and gee, all those generations back that didnt survive without indoor heating, wait, if indoor heating was such a necessity, why didnt my forefathers freeze to death? why am i still here if they didnt have the luxuries the palefaces did?

oh yeah, i suppose i should be "thankful" for all that.

taking assets away from criminals is one thing. taking assets away from people just because you dont like their skin color is a whole different subject. taking profits away from the recording industry isnt going to put their execs out on the streets bumming for change. and what makes a person a 'stockholder'? someone who paid for that stock? so therefore they already had cash reserves, right? boo hoo if they suffer losses for which they will get refunds from the irs on.

[Skunkabilly]

After all, if listening to MP3's is theft,

Hey, not all MP3s are gotten illegally.

Most of my music is on my hard drive because I have so much gun stuff I can't stash my CDs anywhere :D