So does what I said. Someone taking pay for someone else’s work is pretty unambiguously shitty. But when you call taking anything that isn’t a physical item theft, a large percentage of people— especially in the ‘data wants to be free’ crowd— will roll their eyes, think “that’s ridiculous... they aren’t stealing anything. That voice actor still has their voice” and just stop listening. The only people that feel the impact of statements like that are people that already agree. It turns it from an intellectual discussion to a reinforcement of existing tribes. Divisive language works for rallying those who already agree around a specific cause but it’s not even useless— it’s counterproductive— for changing people’s minds. When’s the last time someone you disagreed with changed your mind by being more aggressive towards your stance, and more terse in their portrayal of the dichotomy? If you can even think of one time that it has, you’re in the extreme minority.

Indirect involvement can still be ok within the confines of a license agreement for using the actor's voice.