It's funny if you do consider it in terms of American Law though, if the companies themselves start to block the sites, they would lose their Safe Harbor privileges under the DMCA and thus become liable for all the infringement across their networks.
If the author is not benefiting from the work anymore, and letting society benefit causes no harm to the author, then why should the author prevent society from benefiting from the work? Why does the author need to still have control over the work if it's not being published/sold/etc. anymore?
You are right that the point of copyright is to "promote the progress" and encourage creation, but there's no point if the work never makes it into the public domain. As GP stated, if you haven't sold/printed/etc. a book in 30 years, then having it go into the public domain causes you no harm and benefits society as a whole. Hell 20 years is enough, maybe less. I'm not saying I know what the "optimal" time limit would be, but it is no where near the current copyright length.
To use your example, if you choose not to make a mass market publication of your amazing book that's fine. But 20 years later if someone copies your book, or writes a new book based on yours or any number of other things that someone could do, why should copyright prevent them? Why should you maintain sole monopoly on the book when copying it and letting society benefit from it causes you no harm?
If the game was trying to be serious about it then obviously it's not "just a joke". However if, like DNF, the game was itself a giant satirical joke where the behavior itself was only a joke because it was not accepted behavior, and it made sense within the context of the game instead of being there for the sake of being there. Under the right circumstances in the right presentation, yea it could be just a joke, in a "it's funny because it's wrong" way, but that's just my sense of humor. Granted if it was a completely gratuitous, 'only there to cause a stir' that had no context within the game, then I wouldn't say it was "wrong" and "bad" and "evil" as people portray this, I would say that it was something tasteless only placed in the game to cause controversy rather than actually fitting into the world in which it lives. Duke's behavior fits the context of the world he lives in. I mean come on, aliens are kidnapping women to BREED them and turning men into pig creatures, how is this the most offensive thing in the game and deserving of the ire of so many people among the rest of the chauvinistic and misogynistic dialogue and world that the game takes place in?
Today's joke is tomorrow's accepted behavior
I much prefer Today's unacceptable behavior is tomorrow's joke.
The real question is that if you had a female protagonist who was as much of a misandrist as Duke is a misogynist who and it was Capture the Dude and you smacked him around for leaving the toilet seat up or some other stereotype, would there be this much outcry? I highly doubt it.
... Wow, you completely missed the entire point. Hitting a woman is not the joke in and of itself. Duke Nukem is an amalgamation of super macho action heroes stepped up to 11. He's the epitome of everything that is chauvinistic and non-PC. The joke is looking at his world through the lens of our own realizing how offensive he is and the fact that he smacks a woman makes perfect sense for his character and the world he lives in. I'll say it again, the joke is looking at it through the lens of our own world, knowing that it is offensive, and that the entire reason they had him do that is because it's offensive which is the point of the Duke character and the world he lives in.
You have a world where aliens are kidnapping women to use them to breed an army while turning all the men into literal Pigs. How do you not see the satire? It doesn't show Duke in a positive light, it doesn't even show men in general in a positive light. It's offensive, it's so offensive that it's funny because of how over-the-top it is. With the strippers being kidnapped, using women to breed, the Fellatio Hotel (i.e. the Bellagio) which is attended by entire families, why is him hitting a woman the only thing that you think is wrong? Isn't it also offensive to turn men into Pig creatures? Gimme a break. Picking this one thing out as offensive and condemning is hypocritical. If you find any other part of the game humorous then you're being hypocritical. If you've ever laughed at a racist joke then you're being hypocritical.
One last time in case you didn't get it, hitting a woman is not in and of itself the joke. The fact that hitting women is offensive and the game knows it is the joke.
As someone else in this thread said: "As far as domestic violence is concerned, 30% of it is woman on man violence, and women are twice as likely to use a weapon. Violence isn't something that men do to women and children, it is something that people do to people".
Murder is also a serious problem, why can that be funny? Bullying is also a serious problem, why can that be funny? It may not be funny to you. Fine, you have a right to your opinion. But if you've ever laughed at a racist joke or dead baby joke or joke involving someone dying, then you're just being hypocritical.
but treating female characters as chattel, e.g. a prize to be won, is also offensive
Yes, it's offensive. But that's the joke. I think it was said very well in TFA if you read the scans. "All of the offensiveness, the actions, within Duke's world it is all serious. It makes sense and is the way things work. It's only when you look at it through the lens of our world and our society that you get the joke." well..i paraphrased a little but you get the idea.
I didn't say they didn't. But look at society, with the way that people protect women and put them on a pedestal anyone who doesn't know that society says hitting a woman is wrong is insane. But people do it anyways. That means that just "telling them it is wrong" is not going to change anything. You have to actually do something about it. A game is not going to change the mind of someone who knows it is wrong to believe it is acceptable.
You do realize that in the case of Duke Nukem, it's not just a sight gag? That the entire point for having him hit a woman is because it's not PC. It's satire, it's funny because it's making fun of the double standard. If he were smacking another guy or just punching him, there would be no uproar. It's not like society doesn't have a problem with bar fights or any other situation involving guys hitting guys. Society also has a problem with women hitting women, and probably even more serious than violence against women by men is the violence against men by women which largely goes unreported and ignored because the man should just "deal with it" or "take it in stride" as most men do because their men.
In fact, Duke furthers the idea of showing that hitting a woman is wrong simply because he's doing it. He's the epitome of every bad cliche and macho action that society despises now. What used to be seen as being "manly" is seen as wrong and bad.
Certain media that doesn't get with that program, meanwhile, needs to be squelched
Advocating censorship? How about you prove that the media is causing domestic violence before deciding that. =)
but hitting women as a subject matter can't be taken lightly in any media. not because i'm an uptight prude. but because it's a real problem society is trying to deal with, so the message has to get across loud and clear: hitting women is a no-no, its unacceptable, and any media that makes light of this real problem will not be tolerated
If every subject that is a real problem society is trying to deal with had to be removed from media then we wouldn't have much media left. Society is still trying to deal with murder, rape, burglary, bullying, and lots of other issues. You've chosen "violence against women" as one that you're advocating about, that's great. It is. But no one is going to play this game and think that because Duke hit a women to shut her up while kidnapping her (um, why is hitting her wrong but it's perfectly fine that she's being kidnapped?) that means that hitting a woman is perfectly fine? Why stop there? Don't we also need to get across that hitting a man is wrong too? Gotta be equal right? Why not also get across that shooting someone is wrong, take the guns out! See the problem here?
Once you understand that society doesn't like anyone hitting anyone (hello, assault and battery?) I believe you'll find that focusing only on men hitting women is counter to the obvious goal of equality and that the actions in a game are completely inconsequential to that point since it's been beat over the head of pretty much everyone already and no one is going to change their opinion and decide that hitting women is completely correct due to a video game.
Perhaps the irony is not in defending being PC about men hitting women AND women hitting men AND men hitting women AND women hitting women under the defense of un-PC content, but the irony is that you don't realize the entire point of defending the content of DNF is to spark the various discussions that are here. That when you focus on the fact that it's not PC for a guy to smack a women, it's hypocrisy that it implies that it's completely ok for a woman to hit a man, or man to hit a man, or woman to hit a woman when all situations should be seen the same way. Hence the desire for equality. The problem is people like you who make a bigger deal over men against women because it's "a bigger problem" and thus promote the continued behavior of treating the situations differently.
How is it against that goal considering that it contributes nothing to the goal and takes nothing away from it?
"Society and majority opinion" is at odds with itself and hypocritical: If games are so unimportant and looked down upon then why does it matter if a video game contains the ability to smack a woman? However, if games are so important that this is a grave error that must be fixed, then why isn't it important to realize that it is satirical and should be left in?
Actually, there is a very large culture of acceptance and normalization around violence by women against men, it is, in fact, more tolerated and ignored that male violence against women:)
You do realize that observing a real violent act, watching Pro Wrestling and watching Jackass all are completely different from playing a game where the violence is fictional?
In the Bobo Doll experiment the child saw an authority figure perform an action that seemed fun. He rightly assumed that if the authority figure was allowed to do that, he was allowed to and thus imitated the act. Anyone who didn't expect him to hit the doll after watching the adult do it would have been an idiot. A game is not an authority figure. Neither is a movie. This "proves" nothing about violent media. The only thing this proved is that a child will imitate an action that an authority figure performed even if it is a violent action. This makes sense due to simple psychology.
Pro Wrestling, though fake, is very well done and made to look exceptionally real and does not expressly state itself as fake. Not only that, but the children have been rough housing and beating each other up for centuries, this is just a new way to do it. Let's be honest, you can't really blame Wrestling for children rough housing and having fun. You could blame it for the stupidity of hitting each other with chairs, but I like to blame that on parents who allow their children to do it. Again, these are role models that the children look up to and parents are obviously not explaining anything to the kids if they are imitating it to the point of hospitalization. It's kinda the job of the parents to point out "hey, this is fake. They are professionals, don't do this." etc. Not to mention I wouldn't call children horsing around and imitating Wrestling "violent" I would call it children having fun.
Jackass? Stupid idiots REALLY doing stupid shit and surviving. It's not the same as a fictional story or media. It's simple psychology again, they see this guy who really did this thing which was stupid and all his friends praised him and said he was awesome, they want to do it so they can get the same praise and attention.
Not a single example you provided proved anything beyond what GP stated. These studies fall in line with simple psychology and gaining admiration and horsing around. They prove nothing about violent media causing violent actions.
You do realize that belief in intelligent design and belief in God or that God orchestrated the creation of the universe are not mutually exclusive? You can denounce intelligent design and know about evolution and the big bang and simply believe that God is the creator who orchestrated it all to occur.
It is a law specifically protecting a single religion's religious belief. Therefore by only protecting one religion it is unfairly protecting one religion over the others and therefore violates the U.S. Constitution. Unless they intend for this to apply to people who believe various creationist theories aside from just Intelligent Design.
Actually something very different is happening. Copyright infringement results in large damages and mandatory statutory damages with unproven situation and industries that are created around it. A creator who drafts up a contract and then some one does something against the contract would simply be a breach of contract civil suit. The penalty would be hugely different and there wouldn't be entire industries surrounded around it. Let's face it, Copyright as it is currently implemented is not sufficient nor useful when the cost of copying is 0.
In general, they have every right, because they aren't granting a monopoly that the copyright owners couldn't already grant themselves with contracts...
Except without copyright, people who abuse that monopoly (ie. most copyright owners) to stifle competition (ie. most copyright owners) could be investigated and fined under the anti-trust laws. Instead copyright allows them to have a monopoly, granted by the government, legally, and be as anti-competitive as they like.
To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn whether you care about the creation of works. There is no reason for government to be involved whatsoever in what is essentially a private interaction of commerce. The decision to provide copyright was a bargain struck between the public and the people who create works that they could get a government granted monopoly of their creation in order to create an incentive to create. If copyright is hindering creation, then it no longer serves its purpose and should be fixed so that it can serve that purpose or removed. If there's no facilitation of creation, then the government has no right to grant the monopoly.
People were able to make a living by creating things long before copyright and they continue to make a living in many many situations without copyright and they would continue to find ways if we got rid of copyright. Copyright is not essential. Now, I'm not fanatic and saying we must abolish copyright altogether, though I don't see a problem with it, I'd be perfectly happy with simply reducing its length drastically. Say the original 14 years or less.
More delusion. In reality, you'd like get a judgment and never be paid. And that's assuming you can find an attorney to take you case. And if you can, most of your judgment, assuming you ever get paid, would be absorbed by the attorney.
Assuming that I won the case, which if i was fired but never paid for working up till then I would, I would ask for (and probably receive) attorney's fees paid for by the company.
Find a new job.
So what you're advocating is everyone who creates must find a new job. You just destroyed a huge segment of the economy. Congratulations idiot!
Wow, you hold up a strawman of "what if your boss came back saying they don't think they should have to pay you" and then manage to bring it back to the tangentially related topic of copyright. If my boss decided that they didn't want to pay me, it would be stupid to continue to work there, I'd find a job that wanted to pay me for my work. Considering I'm an engineer, it's a very different situation from a self-employed artist or creator.
I didn't advocate "everyone who creates must find a new job" i was talking about the specific situation you described which is not the same as "everyone who creates". Good job. A boss deciding not to pay an employee is very different from a business not having a viable business model with the current state of consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he's a lawyer who actually knows the law, specifically Copyright Law, and you're making assumptions.
It's funny if you do consider it in terms of American Law though, if the companies themselves start to block the sites, they would lose their Safe Harbor privileges under the DMCA and thus become liable for all the infringement across their networks.
If the author is not benefiting from the work anymore, and letting society benefit causes no harm to the author, then why should the author prevent society from benefiting from the work? Why does the author need to still have control over the work if it's not being published/sold/etc. anymore?
You are right that the point of copyright is to "promote the progress" and encourage creation, but there's no point if the work never makes it into the public domain. As GP stated, if you haven't sold/printed/etc. a book in 30 years, then having it go into the public domain causes you no harm and benefits society as a whole. Hell 20 years is enough, maybe less. I'm not saying I know what the "optimal" time limit would be, but it is no where near the current copyright length.
To use your example, if you choose not to make a mass market publication of your amazing book that's fine. But 20 years later if someone copies your book, or writes a new book based on yours or any number of other things that someone could do, why should copyright prevent them? Why should you maintain sole monopoly on the book when copying it and letting society benefit from it causes you no harm?
If the options are Google has sole control or the works are lost forever, I'd rather Google have control.
wait....using a public library = leeching? You sir, have lost all privilege to speak further on this matter. Better luck next time :)
Hurrah! Another games are art discussion! :)
Accidental self parody? Methinks you missed something. The self-parody is intensional :)
If the game was trying to be serious about it then obviously it's not "just a joke". However if, like DNF, the game was itself a giant satirical joke where the behavior itself was only a joke because it was not accepted behavior, and it made sense within the context of the game instead of being there for the sake of being there. Under the right circumstances in the right presentation, yea it could be just a joke, in a "it's funny because it's wrong" way, but that's just my sense of humor. Granted if it was a completely gratuitous, 'only there to cause a stir' that had no context within the game, then I wouldn't say it was "wrong" and "bad" and "evil" as people portray this, I would say that it was something tasteless only placed in the game to cause controversy rather than actually fitting into the world in which it lives. Duke's behavior fits the context of the world he lives in. I mean come on, aliens are kidnapping women to BREED them and turning men into pig creatures, how is this the most offensive thing in the game and deserving of the ire of so many people among the rest of the chauvinistic and misogynistic dialogue and world that the game takes place in?
Today's joke is tomorrow's accepted behavior
I much prefer Today's unacceptable behavior is tomorrow's joke.
The real question is that if you had a female protagonist who was as much of a misandrist as Duke is a misogynist who and it was Capture the Dude and you smacked him around for leaving the toilet seat up or some other stereotype, would there be this much outcry? I highly doubt it.
Why?
... Wow, you completely missed the entire point. Hitting a woman is not the joke in and of itself. Duke Nukem is an amalgamation of super macho action heroes stepped up to 11. He's the epitome of everything that is chauvinistic and non-PC. The joke is looking at his world through the lens of our own realizing how offensive he is and the fact that he smacks a woman makes perfect sense for his character and the world he lives in. I'll say it again, the joke is looking at it through the lens of our own world, knowing that it is offensive, and that the entire reason they had him do that is because it's offensive which is the point of the Duke character and the world he lives in.
You have a world where aliens are kidnapping women to use them to breed an army while turning all the men into literal Pigs. How do you not see the satire? It doesn't show Duke in a positive light, it doesn't even show men in general in a positive light. It's offensive, it's so offensive that it's funny because of how over-the-top it is. With the strippers being kidnapped, using women to breed, the Fellatio Hotel (i.e. the Bellagio) which is attended by entire families, why is him hitting a woman the only thing that you think is wrong? Isn't it also offensive to turn men into Pig creatures? Gimme a break. Picking this one thing out as offensive and condemning is hypocritical. If you find any other part of the game humorous then you're being hypocritical. If you've ever laughed at a racist joke then you're being hypocritical.
One last time in case you didn't get it, hitting a woman is not in and of itself the joke. The fact that hitting women is offensive and the game knows it is the joke.
As someone else in this thread said: "As far as domestic violence is concerned, 30% of it is woman on man violence, and women are twice as likely to use a weapon. Violence isn't something that men do to women and children, it is something that people do to people".
Murder is also a serious problem, why can that be funny? Bullying is also a serious problem, why can that be funny? It may not be funny to you. Fine, you have a right to your opinion. But if you've ever laughed at a racist joke or dead baby joke or joke involving someone dying, then you're just being hypocritical.
but treating female characters as chattel, e.g. a prize to be won, is also offensive
Yes, it's offensive. But that's the joke. I think it was said very well in TFA if you read the scans. "All of the offensiveness, the actions, within Duke's world it is all serious. It makes sense and is the way things work. It's only when you look at it through the lens of our world and our society that you get the joke." well..i paraphrased a little but you get the idea.
I didn't say they didn't. But look at society, with the way that people protect women and put them on a pedestal anyone who doesn't know that society says hitting a woman is wrong is insane. But people do it anyways. That means that just "telling them it is wrong" is not going to change anything. You have to actually do something about it. A game is not going to change the mind of someone who knows it is wrong to believe it is acceptable.
You do realize that in the case of Duke Nukem, it's not just a sight gag? That the entire point for having him hit a woman is because it's not PC. It's satire, it's funny because it's making fun of the double standard. If he were smacking another guy or just punching him, there would be no uproar. It's not like society doesn't have a problem with bar fights or any other situation involving guys hitting guys. Society also has a problem with women hitting women, and probably even more serious than violence against women by men is the violence against men by women which largely goes unreported and ignored because the man should just "deal with it" or "take it in stride" as most men do because their men.
In fact, Duke furthers the idea of showing that hitting a woman is wrong simply because he's doing it. He's the epitome of every bad cliche and macho action that society despises now. What used to be seen as being "manly" is seen as wrong and bad.
Certain media that doesn't get with that program, meanwhile, needs to be squelched
Advocating censorship? How about you prove that the media is causing domestic violence before deciding that. =)
but hitting women as a subject matter can't be taken lightly in any media. not because i'm an uptight prude. but because it's a real problem society is trying to deal with, so the message has to get across loud and clear: hitting women is a no-no, its unacceptable, and any media that makes light of this real problem will not be tolerated
If every subject that is a real problem society is trying to deal with had to be removed from media then we wouldn't have much media left. Society is still trying to deal with murder, rape, burglary, bullying, and lots of other issues. You've chosen "violence against women" as one that you're advocating about, that's great. It is. But no one is going to play this game and think that because Duke hit a women to shut her up while kidnapping her (um, why is hitting her wrong but it's perfectly fine that she's being kidnapped?) that means that hitting a woman is perfectly fine? Why stop there? Don't we also need to get across that hitting a man is wrong too? Gotta be equal right? Why not also get across that shooting someone is wrong, take the guns out! See the problem here?
Ooo! OO! Can I try?
Once you understand that society doesn't like anyone hitting anyone (hello, assault and battery?) I believe you'll find that focusing only on men hitting women is counter to the obvious goal of equality and that the actions in a game are completely inconsequential to that point since it's been beat over the head of pretty much everyone already and no one is going to change their opinion and decide that hitting women is completely correct due to a video game.
Perhaps the irony is not in defending being PC about men hitting women AND women hitting men AND men hitting women AND women hitting women under the defense of un-PC content, but the irony is that you don't realize the entire point of defending the content of DNF is to spark the various discussions that are here. That when you focus on the fact that it's not PC for a guy to smack a women, it's hypocrisy that it implies that it's completely ok for a woman to hit a man, or man to hit a man, or woman to hit a woman when all situations should be seen the same way. Hence the desire for equality. The problem is people like you who make a bigger deal over men against women because it's "a bigger problem" and thus promote the continued behavior of treating the situations differently.
How is it against that goal considering that it contributes nothing to the goal and takes nothing away from it?
"Society and majority opinion" is at odds with itself and hypocritical: If games are so unimportant and looked down upon then why does it matter if a video game contains the ability to smack a woman? However, if games are so important that this is a grave error that must be fixed, then why isn't it important to realize that it is satirical and should be left in?
Actually, there is a very large culture of acceptance and normalization around violence by women against men, it is, in fact, more tolerated and ignored that male violence against women :)
How about a new Redneck Rampage game with a multiplayer game mode 'Capture the Nigger'.
I would actually find that particularly hilarious if done with the same satirical "yea, we know this is over the top" bent that Duke Nukem has. :)
You do realize that observing a real violent act, watching Pro Wrestling and watching Jackass all are completely different from playing a game where the violence is fictional?
In the Bobo Doll experiment the child saw an authority figure perform an action that seemed fun. He rightly assumed that if the authority figure was allowed to do that, he was allowed to and thus imitated the act. Anyone who didn't expect him to hit the doll after watching the adult do it would have been an idiot. A game is not an authority figure. Neither is a movie. This "proves" nothing about violent media. The only thing this proved is that a child will imitate an action that an authority figure performed even if it is a violent action. This makes sense due to simple psychology.
Pro Wrestling, though fake, is very well done and made to look exceptionally real and does not expressly state itself as fake. Not only that, but the children have been rough housing and beating each other up for centuries, this is just a new way to do it. Let's be honest, you can't really blame Wrestling for children rough housing and having fun. You could blame it for the stupidity of hitting each other with chairs, but I like to blame that on parents who allow their children to do it. Again, these are role models that the children look up to and parents are obviously not explaining anything to the kids if they are imitating it to the point of hospitalization. It's kinda the job of the parents to point out "hey, this is fake. They are professionals, don't do this." etc. Not to mention I wouldn't call children horsing around and imitating Wrestling "violent" I would call it children having fun.
Jackass? Stupid idiots REALLY doing stupid shit and surviving. It's not the same as a fictional story or media. It's simple psychology again, they see this guy who really did this thing which was stupid and all his friends praised him and said he was awesome, they want to do it so they can get the same praise and attention.
Not a single example you provided proved anything beyond what GP stated. These studies fall in line with simple psychology and gaining admiration and horsing around. They prove nothing about violent media causing violent actions.
You do realize that belief in intelligent design and belief in God or that God orchestrated the creation of the universe are not mutually exclusive? You can denounce intelligent design and know about evolution and the big bang and simply believe that God is the creator who orchestrated it all to occur.
It is a law specifically protecting a single religion's religious belief. Therefore by only protecting one religion it is unfairly protecting one religion over the others and therefore violates the U.S. Constitution. Unless they intend for this to apply to people who believe various creationist theories aside from just Intelligent Design.
Actually something very different is happening. Copyright infringement results in large damages and mandatory statutory damages with unproven situation and industries that are created around it. A creator who drafts up a contract and then some one does something against the contract would simply be a breach of contract civil suit. The penalty would be hugely different and there wouldn't be entire industries surrounded around it. Let's face it, Copyright as it is currently implemented is not sufficient nor useful when the cost of copying is 0.
In general, they have every right, because they aren't granting a monopoly that the copyright owners couldn't already grant themselves with contracts...
Except without copyright, people who abuse that monopoly (ie. most copyright owners) to stifle competition (ie. most copyright owners) could be investigated and fined under the anti-trust laws. Instead copyright allows them to have a monopoly, granted by the government, legally, and be as anti-competitive as they like.
To be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn whether you care about the creation of works. There is no reason for government to be involved whatsoever in what is essentially a private interaction of commerce. The decision to provide copyright was a bargain struck between the public and the people who create works that they could get a government granted monopoly of their creation in order to create an incentive to create. If copyright is hindering creation, then it no longer serves its purpose and should be fixed so that it can serve that purpose or removed. If there's no facilitation of creation, then the government has no right to grant the monopoly.
People were able to make a living by creating things long before copyright and they continue to make a living in many many situations without copyright and they would continue to find ways if we got rid of copyright. Copyright is not essential. Now, I'm not fanatic and saying we must abolish copyright altogether, though I don't see a problem with it, I'd be perfectly happy with simply reducing its length drastically. Say the original 14 years or less.
More delusion. In reality, you'd like get a judgment and never be paid. And that's assuming you can find an attorney to take you case. And if you can, most of your judgment, assuming you ever get paid, would be absorbed by the attorney.
Assuming that I won the case, which if i was fired but never paid for working up till then I would, I would ask for (and probably receive) attorney's fees paid for by the company.
Find a new job.
So what you're advocating is everyone who creates must find a new job. You just destroyed a huge segment of the economy. Congratulations idiot!
Wow, you hold up a strawman of "what if your boss came back saying they don't think they should have to pay you" and then manage to bring it back to the tangentially related topic of copyright. If my boss decided that they didn't want to pay me, it would be stupid to continue to work there, I'd find a job that wanted to pay me for my work. Considering I'm an engineer, it's a very different situation from a self-employed artist or creator.
I didn't advocate "everyone who creates must find a new job" i was talking about the specific situation you described which is not the same as "everyone who creates". Good job. A boss deciding not to pay an employee is very different from a business not having a viable business model with the current state of consumers.