I’ve run out of ways to tell you that’s not correct. The explicit purpose of the copyright law in the constitution is to allow creators to profit from their work. If you’re arguing that we should live in a pure communist society, where the products of all labor, including intellectual property, belong to community, fine, but we don’t live in a communist utopia. We live in a capitalist hellscape, and you’re looking at one of the only protections artists have, seeing how it’s been exploited by capitalism, and claiming the protection is the problem. It’s like looking at the minimum wage, seeing how cooperations have lobbied Congress to keep it so low it’s now starvation wage, and coming to the conclusion that the minimum wage needs to be abolished.

Right, but as I said to someone else in this thread, the fact thar copyright can’t protect 99% of creators is a problem with capitalism, not copyright. The fact that our courts favor the wealthy isn’t the fault of copyright law itself.

Also, you’re correct that most art is created for pleasure, not profit, but that doesn’t mean the need to protect artists’ rights to their creations isn’t necessary, even beyond capitalistic reasons. Bill Waterson, the creator of Calvin & Hobbes, refused to merchandise his art simply because he didn’t want to ruin the image of his characters for a licensing deal. Without copyright law, any company could have slapped his characters on t-shirts and coffee mugs to make a quick buck off of his labor. But because of copyright law, he was able to refuse his publisher’s attempts to franchise his characters (reportedly, he even turned down Spielberg and Lucas’ pitch for an animated series based on the strip).

Well, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. To me, most of the updates have been set dressing, not significant changes to the formula or gameplay. But I guess that’s a matter of opinion, not fact.

First of all, no, publishers don’t necessarily own the copyright. Most authors do a licensing deal with a publisher, but they retain the copyright to their work. My understanding is that music industry contracts vary a lot more, since music is usually more collaborative, but lots of artists still own the rights to their songs. But even if that were true, artists being forced to sell their rights to cooperations isn’t an issue with copyright, it’s an issue with capitalism. It’s like blaming America’s shitty healthcare on doctors instead of a for-profit system controlled by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Literally everyone who’s ever written a book, recorded a song, painted a painting, or created any other artwork.

No, Copyright exists to protect creators. It’s just been perverted and abused by the wealthy so that they can indefinitely retain IP. Disney holding on to an IP for 70 years after an author dies is messed up, but Disney taking your art and selling it to a mass audience without giving you a dime is worse.

I agree with you almost entirely, but if we’re being honest, there really hasn’t been a lot of innovation in their games since Gen 4, and that was almost 20 years ago. Once they figured out the physical/special split, nothing really changed in the major mechanics. They have a new gimmick mechanic every game, like Z-Moves or Dynamax, but they’re always dropped by the next game. I guess camping/picnics are evolving into a new feature, but that’s about it.

Yeah, I meant people generally give away this data, not you specifically, and again, I can see the potential for abuse, but alcohol isn’t like other goods and services. When a bartender serves you alcohol, they become legally liable for your actions if you overconsume, in civil and (in some states) criminal court, and for good reason; irresponsible alcohol sales can kill people. Regulating how this data can be used is one thing, but sharing data on what customers are liabilities is objectively good, not just bars, but public safety.

Your email app will give your messages to other companies, your navigation app will share your exact location with marketers, and your dating app will sell your sexual preferences to the highest bidder, but sure, bars having a way to warn each other which costumers tried to assault a waitress is a bridge to far.

Yeah, and a lot of this will depend on how it’s used. If I were still in the service industry and I saw that a guy had been to 20 bars in the last year, and I saw he got flagged at one for violence, I would think, “Well, this doesn’t seem to be a pattern of behavior, maybe he wasn’t the instigator, I’ll keep an eye on him but I’m not too worried.” But I could see a lot of larger places, like clubs, who aren’t hurting for business, just rejecting people who are flagged out of hand. The information seems objectively good to have, but the application could be really problematic.

That’s very true, although I think it’ll be unlikely that an individual bartender will get blamed for overserving in a large venue. I worked at a relatively small venue (280 at capacity) and on a busy night it would be difficult to tell you who served an individual customer, much less who gave him the drink that, “overserved,” them.

Possibly controversial opinion, but this sounds reasonable. The flags they can put on customers are, “violence, assault, destruction of property, sexual assault, fraud, and theft.” Those aren’t petty gripes like, “rude,” or, “poor tipper.” I was bar staff for a while, and I’d have wanted to know if the guy I was serving got violent the last time he went out.

That being said, I could see how this system could be abused. If one power-tripping bouncer claims you sexually assaulted someone, and no one will serve you anymore, that’s bullshit. Some regulations around how businesses use these databases would be good.

Honestly, I spent a lot of years tending bar, and most of the time, if someone was too drunk, it was my fault. Sure, there were times when someone was pre-gaming too hard or snuck in alcohol, but 9 times out of 10, if someone overconsumed, it was because I overserved.