Dazkarieh said:
Kasz216 said:
Dazkarieh said:
Mise said:
When the time is more based on vengeance and punishment than fairness, rationality and a possibility of redemption, that quote becomes just as BS as it's maker, regardless of the crime.
As far as I'm concerned, criminals still have rights, no matter what they've done. As for this man, he has a right to serve a sentence that's fair to everyone.
|
Ok... so imagine your assets worth 5M$. Some guy just completely destroys it. Boom... gone.
I'm going crazy here and assume you'll want your money back. So you'll charge him.
In the end, you win the claim and he'll have to pay 1.5M$.
Following your thoughts, even though you were going to loose 3.5M$, that's a harsh sentence, and the poor other guy that make you lose 3.5M$ can not pay it, so you would forgive him the other part and accept 50.000$. All set and done.
I don't know what to say when I read things like this...
|
Ok... so what happens when somebody doesn't destroy your assets at all... like you know this case. The guy didn't blow up a Nintendo warehouse. |
The same. Even if it is just a part of the warehouse. That's what I would do. That's what anyone would do.
Or you're saying that you would simply forget that percentage to be a nice guy? |
It's not the same, unless you like being intellectually dishonest.
Nintendo didn't lose any produt. They lost potential sales. Which means to recoup losses you need to prove those potential sales would be real sales.
AKA you need to show what percent of those downloads were actually lost sales.
It's like if somebody blows up a morgue. You don't charge them for 100 murders because 99 of the people in the morgue were already dead.
