1
The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Nintendo
18465 readers
13 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
|
Mario & Luigi: Brothership | Nov 7 Donkey Kong Country Returns HD | Jan 16, 2025 Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition | Mar 20, 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025
Other Gaming Communities
- Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Games @ sh.itjust.works
- World of JRPG's @ lemmy.zip
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.world
- Patient Gamer @ lemmy.ml
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.