Syrc

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.

That’s not the point I’m making. I’m saying between inciting an insurrection, spending campaign funds for silencing pornstars, telling people to inject disinfectant in their veins, and sexual assault sentences… I’d say one shady rape allegation that never went anywhere is definitely not the main reason why he shouldn’t be president.

…which confirms that there’s no new info.

Some X users appeared to believe that the document is a recent filing. The post was shared after about 150 pages of transcripts related to a 2006 grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's rape and sex trafficking of teenagers was released to the public on Monday.

However, the document included in the X post isn't connected to those papers, but actually comes from a lawsuit filed in the months leading up to the 2016 election by an anonymous plaintiff using the name "Katie Johnson."

Now, I wouldn’t even be surprised if he actually did it, wouldn’t even be the worst thing he did. But that is indeed the general consensus, afaik.

…does it? I tried googling a bit but couldn’t find anything recent.

EDIT: okay, there’s articles talking about the Epstein documents, but they don’t seem to be explicitly connected to this specific case. Would’ve been better to post that article instead of a 8-year old one.

Well, as others said, it’s probably because it’s a 2016 article about a story that never got anywhere.

Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn’t, who knows. But it’s definitely not the best thing to give press announcements about, especially considering all the horrible stuff Trump has verifiably done.

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.

And splitting the votes of the sane Americans among multiple parties, allowing Trump to get a second term and enact Project 2025 is a productive and thought-out strategy?