Understanding connections between 'purse' and 'principle'

True, some of the character behavior in "Paparazzi" was either underplayed or overplayed for the sake of creating a story for an action movie, but if the only thing people get from this film is an understanding of the connection between product and purchasing power, I think it got its point across.

When we buy things, we are paying for a service; we are either paying someone for time taken out of their life (and away from family and friends) to create/produce something for others, the risk of capital that represents this time or to stand-in and perform specific actions for us. In a humane world, people are compensated for being compromised in some way; their cells are using energy, their bodies or social reputations are endangered, their "hands" are being utilized to make something, etc. In "Paparazzi", viewers get a taste of the service paid for when they purchase or support tabloid media. Having someone lurk around properties taking pictures of people's children, hide in trees and peep into homes, dig through garbage, follow people from doctor's appointments--when you buy tabloid media, you are paying someone to stand-in for you and perform these actions. Humans are curious, social creatures and its not that everyone who buys a paparazzi mag has malicious intentions against other human beings, they're just conveniently ignoring what it is that they're really purchasing. There are legitimate media options to choose from, those that allowed subjects to willingly engage in interviews and choose how and when their children are photographed. What are you willing to "pay" for your curiosity?

There is even more ambiguity when it comes to consumers understanding how the marketing machine works, something that results in fickle consumer response, misplaced loyalties and opinions that result from misinformation. The same people who choose to boycott the work of an actor based on the "immorality" of said actor's personal life, seem to have gathered information from stories that strongly resemble those released through tabloid media--those same sources that engage in the arguably "immoral" behaviors described above. Some activists fight against having to purchase music/film/media, take advantage of a "freebie" through a legitimate source or watch a 10-second advertisement before having access to the media--"art and music should be free for the people!"--but they obviously don't understand what they're really supporting; by claiming that all media be free, they are also stating that artists should not be compensated for their work and that companies somehow release this work without any investment of capital or resources; essentially, that artists and those who support the production and release of their work, should be enslaved "for the good of humanity". In the words of Inigo Montoya of "The Princess Bride": "I do not think you mean, what you think you mean."

Opinions? Anyone?