BadlyDrawnRhino
For context, the conservative party here in Aus is pushing hard for a transition to nuclear power, rather than renewables.
At least here in Australia, we believe in the right for a select group of billionaires to make money off the land in the form of coal mining, and renewable energy threatens that right.
Now that the world is turning away from coal as much as possible, we're now pivoting to allow a select group of billionaires to make money off the land in the form of uranium mining, and renewable energy also threatens that.
That's an oversimplification. All works are derivative to some extent. There's a huge difference between taking inspiration from something, to taking the characters and setting from something. Particularly if you're intending to make a profit.
If an author makes something that a large number of people enjoy, why shouldn't they be able to make money off it for the rest of their life? Why exactly should an individual give up the rights to their creation simply so that someone else can use their characters and their worlds?
To be clear, I'm talking solely on an individual level. I think the system we have where a corporation can own an idea is very broken. I'm also talking about this from a perspective of the world we currently live in. In an ideal world where money wasn't the endgame for survival, ideas would flow more freely and nobody would need to care. But that's not the world we live in.
I think an argument could be made to set it to the date of death of the author. I agree with the other guy that it should only apply to commercial works though.
I also don't think that the copyright should be transferable. The trading of ideas is an absurd concept to me. But then us humans do a lot of absurd things so I guess it's just par for the course.
On top of the tracking within the ads themselves, you also have all of the general usage data that Google sells. They're double-dipping.
Editor: The article is great! All we need now is a quote from social media and we can publish.
Journalist: We haven't been able to find anything suitable, everyone thinks this story is satire.
Editor: Then just post one yourself and then quote that! But don't reference your name, that'll be a dead giveaway.
Microsoft are no longer interested in selling consoles necessarily, otherwise they'd be holding stuff back from PC as well. They're interested in getting people into their ecosystem through Game Pass.
And while I agree with you that Sony and Nintendo have used plenty of anti-consumer practices, Microsoft has also done so in the past and I think the only reason they've been more pro-consumer of late is because they've been the underdog for a long time now. I would be anticipating a change in their behaviour the more people they get to subscribe to Game Pass, and this Activision-Blizzard deal is a huge step towards that.
The 4th one was the second best, in my opinion. I haven't seen 5 though, but from what I can tell it wasn't very well-received.
They should have made every movie standalone, 2 and 3 had too many moments where I felt they were just dragging things out to justify a cliffhanger and a sequel.