137
The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
137 points (95.4% liked)
Nintendo
18465 readers
38 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
He modified an object that you own, which means it's not your object.
Seems like you didn't read the article. His job was updating the website not modifying objects. Also, your argument is wrong on its face - the company he worked for modified objects to allow them to commit piracy. If you modify a stick into a shiv and stab someone, you won't be arrested because you "modified an object that you own" -- you'll be arrested because your modified object was then used in a crime.
Now, whether intellectual property laws are morally just, whether Nintendo are being assholes, whether he should be afforded free healthcare rather than having his income garnished to a private multi-billion dollar company, etc. are different issues
Not to stretch the metaphor too taught, but in this case the guy going to jail was the guy who runs the social media for a business that sharpen sticks for folks that don't know how to do it themselves, not the guy actually doing any stabbings.
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.
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.
Perhaps rifles should not be owned by individuals then.