• Maalus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    So that means “you can damage a company in any way you want to, just don’t have money yourself”. I.e. people with molotovs destroying office buildings for fun, because in the end you need to pay 20 dollars for it.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ah, I forgot to add this, but the damages part is from the civil suit. The criminal part would be unaffected of course. Hence the molotov part wouldn’t work like you imagine it. You still committed arson, and would probably go to jail for that.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        As long as restitution is part of the criminal sentencing I’m good with that. The person needs to reimburse the victim for the cost it took to get back to where they were before the crime.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah but that’s what I mean, scaled to what either party actually lost, given their wealth. If you cost Nintendo 14 mil, that’s rounding errors to them. If you cost a normal worker 14 mil, their life is forever ruined.

          And that’s also the civil part, not restitution as part of a criminal sentence, I’m not sure he had to pay anything there.

          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            If a drunk driver totals your car you’re ok with getting less of a car?

            If someone robs a bank they only have to repay a small percentage of the theft?

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              You’re not reading what I’m saying. If someone totals my car and I’m so rich the loss of a normal class car doesn’t even register on a monetary level while they are already poor, I’m not furthering their poverty because frankly there’s no reason I should ever want to!

              Meanwhile they’re still facing criminal charges for drunk driving and the accident, btw. It’s just about the rich not taking further money the poor already do not have.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I understand your point just fine. Your goal of protecting people from large corps is met but it doesn’t protect people from other people.

                If a drunk driver hits you and has half your wealth you’re only getting half the value of your car. I doubt very much the 30 day license suspension and points on their license will make up for that.

                Restitution only includes reimbursent to get them back to the state before the crime happened. It’s just for damages directly caused by the crime. In the case of piracy no direct damage occurs so there would not be $14m in criminal restitution.