51–60 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could always do a startup and apply for yc, ofc.
I think unfortunately the ‘we’ll fund anything, no matter how stupid’ era of VC (not specifically YC) is over for the time being.
for what it's worth, this is the guy who took the open source efforts of the homebrew community, who try their absolute hardest to avoid association with piracy (and by extension nintendo's hammer), and sold modchips to enable the use of an os based on aforementioned open source efforts, for the unambiguous purpose of piracy, and to top it off those modchips were designed with an intentional tamper trigger that brick…
> for the unambiguous purpose of piracy That would mean he did it for the purpose of sailing the high seas, entering and robbing mercantile ships. In actual fact, he did it for the purpose of enabling users to run software not authorized by the manufacturer on physical devices they own. (All of which is just to say: the association between "intellectual property" infringement and much severer violent crimes is itself…
Roaming the oceans freely, how nice - but the rest is indeed bloody murder and theft, which copying is not.
for what it's worth, this is the guy who took the open source efforts of the homebrew community, who try their absolute hardest to avoid association with piracy (and by extension nintendo's hammer), and sold modchips to enable the use of an os based on aforementioned open source efforts, for the unambiguous purpose of piracy, and to top it off those modchips were designed with an intentional tamper trigger that brick…
... so what? How does any of that justify such a severe punishment? It's insanity. Who actually was hurt by the piracy? Nintendo is still printing money. They're not bankrupt, they're not measurably worse off. None of their employees were hurt. How can what he did possibly justify having to pay a significant part of his income for the rest of his life?
for instance, it is possible to simultaneously think “draconian copyright legislation is bad” and “this particular guy was a crook”
Bowser antagonizing the House of Mario has to be one of the best examples of nominative determinism I've seen lately :) Unless it's a nickname of some sort, but I can't find any evidence of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... so what? How does any of that justify such a severe punishment? It's insanity. Who actually was hurt by the piracy? Nintendo is still printing money. They're not bankrupt, they're not measurably worse off. None of their employees were hurt. How can what he did possibly justify having to pay a significant part of his income for the rest of his life?
What do you think is an appropriate punishment in this case? I see your point about nintendo still printing money but unfortunatelly that's the reality of our society. Apparently Nintendo made some 15B in revenue last year. Would that punishment be ok if they made 5B? Or 500M? At what point does the punishment become acceptable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... so what? How does any of that justify such a severe punishment? It's insanity. Who actually was hurt by the piracy? Nintendo is still printing money. They're not bankrupt, they're not measurably worse off. None of their employees were hurt. How can what he did possibly justify having to pay a significant part of his income for the rest of his life?
in the absence of serious conditions such as borderline personality disorder, it is actually possible to have thoughts that differ in connotation, implied tribal signals, or whether they intuitively paint some given thing as “good” or “bad” for instance, it is possible to simultaneously think “draconian copyright legislation is bad” and “this particular guy was a crook”
Murderers and corrupt crooks that have destroyed entire communities have received less than this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you were to go about changing copyright law, I have to imagine you’d only be able to change it for your nation’s works while still respecting the duration from other countries. In that case, copyright reform wouldn’t have helped this guy. I’m all for copyright reform though. 70 + life is absurd. Even worse, you penalize people for dying early like MLK.
This is an interesting perspective! So in the long run, it might be economical to hire a hitman and coerce the artist into dying early, saving potentially tens of years worth of royalties.
how do you know it's early?
Is there a ceiling to how much the US legal system can award in cases involving individuals? At what point does it become manifestly unjust - or are they not even required to consider that?
Doesn’t he owe them a specific dollar amount, and the 25-30% is essentially a lien?
I'm sure that difference is very important to him.