Nintendo

18325 readers

1 users here now

A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.

Rules:

No NSFW content.
No hate speech or personal attacks.
No ads / spamming / self-promotion / low effort posts / memes etc.
No linking to, or sharing information about, hacks, ROMs or any illegal content. And no piracy talk. (Linking to emulators, or general mention / discussion of emulation topics is fine.)
No console wars or PC elitism.
Be a decent human (or a bot, we don't discriminate against bots... except in Point 7).
All bots must have mod permission prior to implementation and must follow instance-wide rules. For lemmy.world bot rules click here

Upcoming First Party Games (NA):

Game | Date

Other Gaming Communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

137

The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ah, I forgot to add this, but the damages part is from the civil suit. The criminal part would be unaffected of course. Hence the molotov part wouldn't work like you imagine it. You still committed arson, and would probably go to jail for that.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As long as restitution is part of the criminal sentencing I'm good with that. The person needs to reimburse the victim for the cost it took to get back to where they were before the crime.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah but that's what I mean, scaled to what either party actually lost, given their wealth. If you cost Nintendo 14 mil, that's rounding errors to them. If you cost a normal worker 14 mil, their life is forever ruined.

And that's also the civil part, not restitution as part of a criminal sentence, I'm not sure he had to pay anything there.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

If a drunk driver totals your car you're ok with getting less of a car?

If someone robs a bank they only have to repay a small percentage of the theft?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're not reading what I'm saying. If someone totals my car and I'm so rich the loss of a normal class car doesn't even register on a monetary level while they are already poor, I'm not furthering their poverty because frankly there's no reason I should ever want to!

Meanwhile they're still facing criminal charges for drunk driving and the accident, btw. It's just about the rich not taking further money the poor already do not have.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

I understand your point just fine. Your goal of protecting people from large corps is met but it doesn't protect people from other people.

If a drunk driver hits you and has half your wealth you're only getting half the value of your car. I doubt very much the 30 day license suspension and points on their license will make up for that.

Restitution only includes reimbursent to get them back to the state before the crime happened. It's just for damages directly caused by the crime. In the case of piracy no direct damage occurs so there would not be $14m in criminal restitution.