I don’t know if there’s any other freak sorting their Lemmy homepage to Top Monthly who just found this post, but I’d advise to edit it to let people know that even if the site lists more than 1M signatures the actually valid ones might be less, so signing even now is still a good idea, as the creator said.
purchasers have legitimate moral and legal grounds to demand that they be informed that they are buying a license, or renting, the game; they are not owning a functional copy of the game outright.
I’m pretty sure that’s already the case, if you read the ToS of most games.
Not that it makes this any better.
They’re not “millions” right now. Imagine every single dollar they currently spend for different types of advertising, all used as budget for astroturfing. It would turn every online space into bots talking to themselves and nothing else.
I know, and that sucks. But outright banning something that has its benefits has always been detrimental (not to mention, they’d just find sneakier ways to do it and it’d be worse for everyone). We need regulations, a lot of them, not banning entirely.
Plus who are we kidding, everyone in power is so deep into the advertising/propaganda industry that neither of those options have a decent chance of happening in our lifetime.
Yup. The whole article and “we should bring back bullying” rhetoric (even used ironically) just reeks of someone who doesn’t like “uncool” people and finally found a morally valid excuse to hate on some of them.
Really, not much different from misogynists pointing at random female tiktok influencers and concluding “See? This is why women are dumb and we need sexism”.
That’s a generalization. The White Rose was doing “advertising”, and I think that’s all but “by the wealthy, against the working class”.
Advertising has its place and can be beneficial to society, it just needs regulations (admittedly, A LOT of them).
We all know if every other way of advertising was banned, they’d start paying (or “incentivizing”) millions of people to “do word of mouth” for them.
And then we’ll have those people polluting every online space with unlabeled ads. No thank you.
That makes sense when it harms business being done in that country, people’s opportunity to find jobs and stuff like that.
But blocking people from working for free on open source projects where there’s nothing to be gained is harming progress, not individuals or countries. That’s not what sanctions were made for.
Here’s an archive link 7 days later, with 800+ replies
They’re not “against reform”, they’re disenfranchised, lazy or just… not the brightest minds.
They made a mistake (a big one at that), but that doesn’t mean that they like what’s happening. The upper class has been doing their best to keep us dumb, busy, tired and uninformed. And it’s clearly working.
First, people supporting Trump are not the majority by any metric. They are 49.8% of the people who voted, which is 31,8% of the eligible voters and 23,3% of the total us population. You could argue that the majority of people “don’t hate” Trump, and while that’s still a scary metric, it’s not the point that I wanted to make.
“They” aren’t Republicans or Trump supporters, they’re wealth-hoarding billionaires that actively make people’s lives worse. As it has already been said, support for Luigi is pretty much bipartisan. Nearly everyone hates those people, and even plenty of people who voted Trump did it because they see him as “one of the people” (for some godforsaken reason). They’re propagandized into voting Republican through all the culture war, misinformation and fear mongering, but when people like Brian Thompson die, no one is actually sad and a lot actually celebrate.
Trump does indeed have a personality cult, but from what I’ve gathered the great majority of people voting him aren’t part of that and they don’t actually like him, it’s just that they hate “the gays”, “the libs”, or “the immigrants” more.
He traded his life for another. He showed the world that it’s possible. And “we” outnumber “them”. Making people realize that is an achievement in itself.
Would you say people like Rosa Parks “didn’t accomplish anything”?
I legit think the state/oligarchy will kill him silently.
Wouldn’t that backfire though?
Won’t more people start thinking “So this guy killed a really important CEO and apparently never got caught nor faced repercussions… you know what…”
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.
I mean, they’ve just filed a lawsuit against Krafton, to me that says they’re pretty confident about being right.