No, they’re right. Even after reading the article, it just assumes he voted, but there’s no confirmation.

In fact, The Guardian reports that he voted on Wednesday, so he effectively didn’t vote yet when this article was posted.

The definitions of several concepts are fuzzy, and therefore can be circumvented or challenged or abused by all sides of the equation.

They are, but it’s not like they’re very definite nowadays either.

What is a ‘similar product’ that is allowed after 30 years (and therefore what is a ‘dissimilar product’ that would be forbidden before),

I’d say “similar product” is anything that doesn’t try to pass off as the original one, and is mechanically different enough. Palworld for example, or all the other Pokéclones that popped up in recent years.

how would a non-profit that just pays high salaries to its managers fare between the marks of 30 and 50 years (and just gives some little money to research or charity).

They wouldn’t, in that period I’d allow stuff like piracy or free cultural events, stuff like that. Obviously the copyright holder would still be able to profit off of their own products, but everyone else would have to ask them to do so.

And again, why give artists and creative companies so much more time of IP protection than we give STEM inventors and companies time in patents (this random site claims patents last 15 to 20 years only) ?

Because those are things that humanity needs to progress. I do think they could be longer in a different way, like “they can be used by anyone without consent from the inventor, but they need to pay a small percentage in royalties” or something like that, just to ensure they have a permanent source of income that’s enough to live off. I’m not knowledgeable enough about that to talk though, so I can’t really answer that question without going into baseless speculations.

I still think if copyright laws weren’t so oppressive, 50 years would be fair (And still a huge improvement from the current situation).

Maybe have it in tiers or something? First 10 years: full copyright - until 30: similar products allowed, but no blatant reproduction - until 50: reproduction allowed as long as it’s not for-profit - post 50: public domain?

If we’re talking PvP, battling has constantly evolved through new abilities, even without gimmicks the way the game is played changed a lot through the years.

In single player they also changed a lot of stuff since gen 4, although the positive changes were mostly in gen 5/6 and the later ones like wild areas and the switch to “””open world””” were… not as well received.

However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since.

First, not really, there’s been a LOT of innovation in Pokémon, as much as people want to deny it.

And second, 28 years is really not that much. We’re not in the Disney realm of copyright-hogging, I think 50 years is a fair amount of time. The issue is that it’s often way too broad: it should protect only extremely blatant copies (i.e. the guy who literally rereleased Pokémon Yellow as a mobile game), not concepts or general mechanics. Palworld has a completely different gameplay from any Pokémon game so far, and (most of) the creatures are distinct enough. That should suffice to make it rightfully exist (maybe removing the 4/5 Pals that are absolute ripoffs, sure).

It’s the studio Nintendo chose as lead developer for BDSP.

I can’t think of a single first-party Nintendo game that’s released riddled with bugs in recent memory

Literally Pokémon. SwSh, SV and BDSP are all a bug-ridden mess. You will probably find more bugs playing SV for an hour than in all gen 3-6 games together.

Although yeah, it’s a (huge) anomaly and the rest of the first-party games are extremely polished. It just sucks to be a Pokémon fan in the 2020s.

Is this what they call “Crowfunding”?

I mean, I’m not completely against that… but Crowdstrike is an American company. Did you comment on the wrong post?

Ehh… that depends too. Here in Italy there’s plenty of people that wouldn’t bat an eye at their 10-year old playing CoD and shooting people in the most graphic ways possible, as long as there’s no female nipples in sight.

I don’t know how viable would that be on a large scale, but they could just ban all China-based companies from operating outside like the US did with Tiktok.

I think that would deal a decent blow on their economy, but I’m far from an expert in those fields so someone who knows better will probably come and debunk me.

It’s not even a real ad, btw.

Hey, the situation isn’t so grim. At a certain point, old people will die and maybe then we’ll be able to elect sensible politicians.

Oh, I trust them to do everything I wouldn’t like them to do.

For example, so far they’ve been following through with removing LGBTQ rights and lowering taxes for the rich, just as they promised.

Here in Italy, the only parties that seem to be favorable to nuclear are right-wing.

And of course, they got elected and didn’t actually do anything towards it.

For me it’s nostalgia and being a sucker for statistics, mostly.

Is it this one? I’m far from an expert but it seems like they used a different part of DNA from each woman, I doubt it’s possible to go beyond 3 parents with the same method.

Oh, that makes sense.

I think “open source money” is a great idea and I’m sure many here do too, but as others pointed out in the replies, cryptocurrency has a lot of issues at the moment for that to be viable.

Also, a lot of the hate probably comes from all the people shilling for it and the whole “get rich with this!!!” narrative around it.

The minute a billionaire bought the company they previously used, because in open source software, they finally see that no billionaire can buy it and control it like they can a closed source system.

I’m genuinely struggling to understand what this sentence means. Is it badly worded or am I just brainfarting?

Still waiting for the Swastika/Manji to be de-nazified. Probably not gonna see it in my lifetime, unfortunately.