Just...who cares? Famous people have sex. Get over it.
Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it...
I'm don't mean to mock you, but people are never going to "get over" the concept of sex.
Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
11–20 of 32 posts
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#12Just...who cares? Famous people have sex. Get over it.
Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it... I'm don't mean to mock you, but people are never going to "get over" the concept of sex.
>Just... who cares? Your mom has sex. Get over it...
I am alive, so yes, she did at some point, more than likely 9 months before I was born. I would assume more than once given average human reproduction chances and barring divine intervention.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#13This is not the big shot. This is just a small fixer at the forefront. For the tiny cases.
Behind are the enties, the entertainment lawyers from the agencies and studios, behind that are the studio bosses, who might also pull the strings on the press, which they control, on the police which they control, and in some cases on the mafia or intelligence agencies to get rid of the really big problems. You'll read about a celeb suicide or drug death then.
There is also a huge economy of secrets behind the "closets". about 10% of the celebs are gay and hire "beards", models sho earn their money pretending to be a girlfriend. Also a huge economy of drug trading and "yachting", prostitution by celebs on yachts. With all these illegal activities and lies you are involved in a grander scheme, keeping it suppressed, you are owned, blackmailable. Not just Hollywood, also in the Asian counterparts. Not a healthy basis for their economy.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#14I remember a video circulating that had this Kevin guy talking to a vice camera crew and he took a fake call about some 'Alist celebrity' just 'out of the blue'. Dude is corny...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5vsucz9byw
But as the top comment suggests who cares about this stuff. its ridiculous...
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#15The entire article borders between horrifying and disgusting. This is blackmail and extortion, regardless of how the law technically defines it. And naming the person responsible for it is just giving him more publicity. I used to consider Wired to have a solid journalistic standard, but this article has proven otherwise.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#16I remember a video circulating that had this Kevin guy talking to a vice camera crew and he took a fake call about some 'Alist celebrity' just 'out of the blue'. Dude is corny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5vsucz9byw But as the top comment suggests who cares about this stuff. its ridiculous...
Show me a less trustworthy hat choice.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#17I wonder how the rise of deepfakes will impact this topic.
As deepfakes become more believable and prevalent, celebrities will be able to just label any kind of sex-tape type leak as a deepfake. So hopefully this scumbag's business model is destroyed.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#18>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.
[deleted]
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#19The entire article borders between horrifying and disgusting. This is blackmail and extortion, regardless of how the law technically defines it. And naming the person responsible for it is just giving him more publicity. I used to consider Wired to have a solid journalistic standard, but this article has proven otherwise.
I could’ve excused Wired if they were just upfront about what’s happening, but instead they chose to skirt around the issue and avoid mentioning ethics or morals.
Re: Hollywood’s Economy of Secrets
#20>> Contrary to what many people believe about celebrity sex tapes, it is not legal in most states, California included, to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent. Why would anyone think otherwise? This is unethical and illegal regardless of fame. This article is describing extortion and blackmail, and overall immoral activities, while not using the terms. Disgusting.
>> to distribute pornographic content without the subjects’ consent.
Fine wording issue: To distribute pornographic content made without the subjects' consent. Actors cannot remove consent post-production, they cannot make the R-rated movie and then turn around and say it cannot be distributed because they no longer like the sex scenes in it. No doubt countless celebs would love to delete scenes they did in their early careers. That it is simply pornographic is not enough. The must prove that it was made without consent (eg a hidden camera or long range lens through an open window).
Where this mattered very recently: What about a "sex pic" taken by the celeb themselves? Say a selfie taken using their own phone pointed at a mirror? That happened a few years ago to lots of very famous female celebs. Or, going back more years, the infamous Paris Hilton tapes. She made those herself. She lost control of them much later. She consented to their creation at the time, only removing her consent to their distribution after someone purchased the originals legally at auction.