Regardless of the legality of the action or the product itself, a video reviewing, showing or reporting on it shouldn't be passable of a copyright claim.
Even if the video shows copyrighted material, it still shouldn't be allowed for Nintendo to claim it, as that would fall under fair use. Just showing a few screenshots of a video game for the purposes of education in an otherwise unrelated video would never fall under copyright infringement.
The piracy argument has nothing to do with Nintendo claiming a video as their own, despite them having no rights to do so.
That's not at all how piracy works. They don't lose any money by me not buying their product, the money was never theirs to lose. They can earn money if I buy it, but if I don't, then nothing changed. It's not like every company is entitled to my money.
Pirating or using Gimp or Krita instead, has the exact same effect on them, ie me not buying their product.
This looks like a weird version of a cold world era map, blue being US and allies, red USSR and allies and yellow non aligned countries. A little bit weird in Africa and south America, but we're mostly there
So the stupidest most gullible people you've worked with seem to live on that feed having lots of ad impressions, which are likely to be quite effective due to how gullible they are and the fact that they are all adults with money, and you are asking why MS doesn't remove the feed?
I'm honestly thinking of building a new AM4 PC. 5700X3D is under 200€ new, cheap mobo, cheap DDR4 RAM and tbh the benchmarks aren't that far off this new 9xxx series in gaming (which is the only thing I really care about). I'd rather save some money and get a better GPU
That's not even the point. The training should have taught them how to de-escalate the situation, or even let it go. They transformed a 3$ fare skipped into a massacre, how's that normal?
It's 3$, if he has a knife, just let him go, it's not worth the risk. You'll track him down later and get him without killing him, passerbys and other cops.
You don't need to drop a nuke because there's a pickpocketer somewhere in the city
1 - I'm not the one hyper focusing on the 9 or 10 or 11 dash line* China is the one hyper focusing
2 - there's no treaty that specifically mentions those territories, which is why China has to resort to a made up map with some unclear made up lines. If there were a real treaty, they'd use that to argue
3 - Even if there were a treaty, the validity would be questionable. Is the treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union regarding the partitioning of Poland still valid? Would a German invasion of Poland be justified by that treaty? Or by Russia?
4 - China has signed UNCLOS, a much more modern and real treaty, with clear laws. They then went to the UNCLOS tribune to plead their case and lost in court.
5 - it's just imperialism. They want to control more territory, so they do
^(* Historical claims may vary depending on current political objectives )
Well, that's a lie. It's not from the 19th century, it's from the 20th century. It's not from a treaty, but a statement by the RoC government, and there was no signee, because it's not a treaty.
Specifically, the RoC published a map in 1947 showing 11 dashed lines. Mao then adopted the claim after he took power and changed the map in 9 dashed lines, in 2013 then the PRC added a 10th line near Taiwan. Also the PRC ratified the UNCLOS in 1996, which should make the whole point moot.
It's almost as if it's made up bullshit to justify Chinese imperialism, don't you think?
China's claim is the same as Italy claiming the whole Mediterranean as their own because at some point the Roman empire claimed it (Mare Nostrum, literally "our sea"). That's not how it works and it's clearly bullshit
I didn't see Taiwan ramming anyone, did I? Also Taiwan is claiming to be China and all that because the PRC wants to keep the status quo. If Taiwan were to publicly renounce their pre revolution status and declare themselves an independent nation it would precipitate a crisis with China.
More like
Multi-millionaire tries to pass off marketing as a tax write-off