Okay, here's an interesting moral "what if" question, then...

Let's say you frequented a certain restaurant. Let's say it was a particularly good Indian restaurant in a different city that you only went to a few times a year. But you always went there with your friends every time you visited them in that city, it was sort of a tradition.

Now let's say someone tells you that the restaurant is owned by a rich Indian family, the patriarch of which (and person who holds title to that restaurant) was convicted and sentenced to prison for running an underage prostitution ring. He and other male members of his family are now serving prison time for it. And not only was he just a pimp, he would bring over girls from his home village in India, promising them prosperity in the US, but instead keep them locked up in slave-like conditions. And that this was all discovered when one of the locked-up girls died from negligence. And this all happened a few years ago and you didn't know about it until now. But the same family owns the same restaurant and it's still doing a booming business because their food is excellent.

Knowing that, in a very small and possibly indirect way, your patronage of that restaurant puts money into those men's bank accounts, would you stop eating at the restaurant?

If your answer (as mine was when I found out about it) was "hell yes I'd find a different restaurant", how different is that from buying albums or any other kind of art from an artist whose morals you find reprehensible?

I'm not talking about Pete, of course, I'm just saying in general, as a hypothetical concept.