• NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s the purchase of video games that sustains Nintendo, and it is the games that make the people smile … It’s for that reason that we do all we can to prevent games on Nintendo systems from being stolen

    Which is why the 75 billion dollar company absolutely had to go through all this trouble to ruin the life of an old man. They’re on a razors edge of near bankruptcy, after all! His having to send Nintendo 25 bucks a month while he was still in prison is our society in a nutshell. Thankfully ruining his life has stopped all Nintendo piracy so it was certainly worth the human cost.

    Here’s his gofundme if you feel for his plight.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah there ought to be some designation that the damages amount is scaled to the comparative wealth between the parties.

      Meaning if Nintendo claims 14,5 million in damages, and they have 70 billion in the bank while he has 120 dollars, he’d have to pay 120/70000000000 * 14500000 = 24 dollars and 85 cents. Thats the actual damage he caused to Nintendo, scaled to their wealth!

      And the same goes in reverse. If Nintendo causes someone who owns ~80k total (that’s what I’m currently insured against) a damage of 300 dollar, then they’re liable for 262 million. That’s the equivalent amount against their wealth that they caused the other party given their wealth.

      I wonder how quickly these ultra rich assholes would stop with their frivolous lawsuits.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        So that means “you can damage a company in any way you want to, just don’t have money yourself”. I.e. people with molotovs destroying office buildings for fun, because in the end you need to pay 20 dollars for it.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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?

                • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

  • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This post kinda infuriates me. Gary bowser is not an innocent, fragile little guy here. He is the sock puppet of Max Louarn, the basically mob boss of all major piracy groups in the world.
    Gary is also part of the gang ( that max also owns ) that is working on new switch piracy hardware, months after he got out of jail.
    They were also caught selling open source software that was breaking its copyright license, while including their own code that could brick switch systems and more.

    This is not a story of big bad company vs small fragile guy. Not even close.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Okay so it’s a Big Bad Company vs a Small Bad Guy.

      I still don’t see the case here, Nintendo is so rich they could trivially advance to the next system long before the Switch gets fully cracked and those cards become readily buyable. If they wanted to. They don’t, because they make more money not doing it, which should already automatically exclude them from being allowed to ask for actual damages. As in, the criminal case? Sure. The civil lawsuit? Damages should amount to $0, as no presentable damage was caused to a degree where it affected the plaintiff’s ability to do business.