Farmageddon said: SosusOCR said: This dickhead reminds of people who get parking tickets, they take a chance breaking a law they know full well they shouldnt, they know what will happen if they get caught and then cry about when they get caught. Though shit! You have no sympathy from me. What if they had their feet cut ou insted of a ticket, would you still agree?

 

Well if he parked illegally 50,000 times and get caugh out I'd hope the fine would be the same.

 

 

He got fined 1.6 million dollars... for what was at maximum a 2.5 million dollar loss... and with current piracy numbers would be in reality more like a 250,000 loss... assuming there were no other pirated copies ANYWHERE on the internet and all those people would of been deterred by his one file not being up.

SosusOCR said: Farmageddon said: SosusOCR said: This dickhead reminds of people who get parking tickets, they take a chance breaking a law they know full well they shouldnt, they know what will happen if they get caught and then cry about when they get caught. Though shit! You have no sympathy from me. What if they had their feet cut ou insted of a ticket, would you still agree?   Well if he parked illegally 50,000 times and get caugh out I'd hope the fine would be the same.

He'd had lost his license by then :P

But really, that's different on many levels.

For one this pirate only did one ilegal action, while your guy did 50 thousand of them. Now, this action made possible another huge amount of ilegal actions, but even if you wanted to charge him exactly as much as the damage he inflicted it wouldn't be so easy (and this sum is a big strech), while in your guy's case it would be obvious.

As far as I understood, he didn't even crack the game! He just uploaded the original game. Someone else cracked it and then it was uploaded and only then these 50 thousand people downloaded it. Now, really, he's not even close to be the sole responsible here, and it's even argueable if he's the most responsible one.

Also, my point was that it's ridiculous to imagine that the sum they settled on isn't away over what Nintendo actually lost, so the fine is an overpunishment, while applying 50,000 consecutive, fair, fines for 50,000 consecute, objective, infractions as per your example wouldn't be.

I've been seeing that a lot of people are complaining that Nintendo doesn't see the full AU $100 from a game. While true, it may also be that Nintendo is suing on behalf of themselves and their partners. (In this case, retailers.) Should this be so, then the retail price is what has to be used, and truthfully, I think him getting off with 30% isn't bad. We all know (including Nintendo) that one download does not equal one lost sale. But the sheer volume of downloads does result in said loss of sales, though again, not on a 1-to-1 basis.

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for criminals. If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time, whether it's behind bars or working for someone else. There is a chance, as some have mentioned, of this being an "example" case, and an external settlement for just legal fees or such was reached privately, but this, of course, we don't know.

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...

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.

what did he say in court? "i uploaded it because my friends want Proof?" saying something like that it will be the worlds quickest court case on the planet because you automatically lose

Sure, you don't have to have sympathy for criminals if that's how you feel. But that doesn't make you have to agree that a criminal gets a bigger "sentence" then he should, because that's kind of a crime itself.

Also, as Seece said, it doesn't really make sense to do the math on "lost sales". But even when some math is done, and even if you believe Nintendo is suing "for everyone" (kinda hard), even 30% is a lot. The fact that the game was available before launch reduces this ratio, the same goes for the fact that only people with mods to run downloaded games (which means, people who have a lower chance of actually buying anything) could benefit from this.

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?

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.