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.
It is absolutely infuriating when you see this and put it next to cases filed against people like Trump and Gaetz.
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.
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.
Sounds like someone is salty that they bricked their switch.
Nope. My switch is fine. Played diablo 1 on it recently too :p
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.
He modified an object that you own, which means it’s not your object.
If I modified a rifle to be full auto, that would be a crime in most countries. That would not, however, mean I didn’t own the rifle.
When you hurt profits it’s just like murder? Is that what your saying?
It’s worse in many western jurisdictions. People are plentiful and cheap, rich billionaires are rare and must be protected. 🤢
Uh, no. It’s a statement about the ability to modify property and laws relating to that. Not sure who brought up murder.
It’s a statement comparing 2 objects that are forbidden to modify. Guns are forbidden due to their ability to kill even more people through modification, video game systems are forbidden due to their ability to hurt company profits through piracy.
People are pointing out the huge moral difference between the bases for those two similar rules, and how one cannot compare them fairly as being equivalent unless they also believe those bases are equivalent.
It’s not illegal to modify a gun, it’s illegal to modify a gun into a gun that meets certain criteria to then become illegal. The crime isn’t modification of the gun, the crime is the possession of a (now) illegal gun.
So it’s… forbidden to modify it into something that kills even more people. There’s a reason I didn’t use the word “illegal.”
Why can guns be modified?
You would lose ownership the moment they found out about it. I’m not really sure I understand your point and it comes off as a huge false comparison. There is a difference between the laws that are there to protect the general population and the ones meant to protect corporate profits.
Perhaps rifles should not be owned by individuals then.
No, in your case the crime isn’t the fact that you modified the rifle, the crime is that you modified it into an illegal version of the rifle. The crime is possession of a full auto rifle.
If I take a rifle that was setup for one caliber and modify it so it can shoot a different caliber, that’s not illegal.
Nobody cares if you have a rifle that fires a different caliber. Selling full auto mod kits is illegal though.
It’s always a Bowser with Nintendo
It’s for this reason that it seems like a bad idea to ruin this guy’s life even as an “example”. If this guy has anything happen to him in any way that even hints at despair it’d definitely be a meme and maybe a PR disaster.
There’s the obvious one, but imagine “Bowser is homeless because of Nintendo” or “Nintendo is so litigious that Bowser drank himself to death” or “Nintendo’s lawyers are so ruthless that Bowser didn’t bother with cancer treatment and just decided to die in his apartment”. I’m reading this in Dunkey’s voice in my head and so should you.
Got what I came for
This has got to be the true reason the article exists
Fuck Nintendo, never going to buy a Nintendo game ever again.
Welcome to the dark side!
yarrrr
Nintendo are such assholes. Jesus Christ…
How can I ever give Nintendo money ever again after being brazen enough to attack somebody like this? Costing a company a bit of unrealized profit can never be a good enough reason to financially ruin an individual–anything less than this is simply admitting subservience to our wannabe overlords. If a company or entity wants to make big money, they are going to have to come to terms with the fact that this sort of thing is going to happen, and get over it.
Bowser says the people he worked with weren’t very social and he helped “testers” troubleshoot devices. “I started becoming a middleman in between the people doing the development work, and the people actually owning the mod chips, playing the games,” he says. “I would get feedback from the testers, and then I would send it to the developers … I can handle people, and that’s why I ended up getting more involved.”
Bob Slydell : What you do at Initech is you take the specifications from the customer and bring them down to the software engineers?
Tom Smykowski : Yes, yes that’s right.
Bob Porter : Well then I just have to ask why can’t the customers take them directly to the software people?
Tom Smykowski : Well, I’ll tell you why, because, engineers are not good at dealing with customers.
Bob Slydell : So you physically take the specs from the customer?
Tom Smykowski : Well… No. My secretary does that, or they’re faxed.
Bob Porter : So then you must physically bring them to the software people?
Tom Smykowski : Well. No. Ah sometimes.
Bob Slydell : What would you say you do here?
Tom Smykowski : Well–well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don’t have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
