▲ 137 ▼ The man who owes Nintendo $14m: Gary Bowser and gaming’s most infamous piracy case (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by picandocodigo@lemmy.world [M] to c/nintendo@lemmy.world 39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] squiblet@kbin.social -8 points 2 years ago (4 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] hglman@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) When you hurt profits it's just like murder? Is that what your saying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It's worse in many western jurisdictions. People are plentiful and cheap, rich billionaires are rare and must be protected. 🤢 permalink fedilink source parent [–] squiblet@kbin.social -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Uh, no. It's a statement about the ability to modify property and laws relating to that. Not sure who brought up murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flynnguy@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago 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." permalink fedilink source parent [–] hglman@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago Why can guns be modified? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] flynnguy@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squiblet@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago Nobody cares if you have a rifle that fires a different caliber. Selling full auto mod kits is illegal though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Perhaps rifles should not be owned by individuals then. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) When you hurt profits it's just like murder? Is that what your saying? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It's worse in many western jurisdictions. People are plentiful and cheap, rich billionaires are rare and must be protected. 🤢 permalink fedilink source parent [–] squiblet@kbin.social -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Uh, no. It's a statement about the ability to modify property and laws relating to that. Not sure who brought up murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flynnguy@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago 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." permalink fedilink source parent [–] hglman@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago Why can guns be modified? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It's worse in many western jurisdictions. People are plentiful and cheap, rich billionaires are rare and must be protected. 🤢 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squiblet@kbin.social -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) Uh, no. It's a statement about the ability to modify property and laws relating to that. Not sure who brought up murder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flynnguy@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago 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." permalink fedilink source parent [–] hglman@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago Why can guns be modified? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flynnguy@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago 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." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flynnguy@programming.dev 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago 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." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago 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." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flynnguy@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] squiblet@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago Nobody cares if you have a rifle that fires a different caliber. Selling full auto mod kits is illegal though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] squiblet@kbin.social -1 points 2 years ago Nobody cares if you have a rifle that fires a different caliber. Selling full auto mod kits is illegal though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago Perhaps rifles should not be owned by individuals then. permalink fedilink source parent