• hglman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    He modified an object that you own, which means it’s not your object.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Seems like you didn’t read the article. His job was updating the website not modifying objects. Also, your argument is wrong on its face - the company he worked for modified objects to allow them to commit piracy. If you modify a stick into a shiv and stab someone, you won’t be arrested because you “modified an object that you own” – you’ll be arrested because your modified object was then used in a crime.

      Now, whether intellectual property laws are morally just, whether Nintendo are being assholes, whether he should be afforded free healthcare rather than having his income garnished to a private multi-billion dollar company, etc. are different issues

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you modify a stick into a shiv and stab someone, you won’t be arrested because you “modified an object that you own” – you’ll be arrested because your modified object was then used in a crime.

        Not to stretch the metaphor too taught, but in this case the guy going to jail was the guy who runs the social media for a business that sharpen sticks for folks that don’t know how to do it themselves, not the guy actually doing any stabbings.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        When you hurt profits it’s just like murder? Is that what your saying?

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s worse in many western jurisdictions. People are plentiful and cheap, rich billionaires are rare and must be protected. 🤢

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Uh, no. It’s a statement about the ability to modify property and laws relating to that. Not sure who brought up murder.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • flynnguy@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • Signtist@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months 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.”

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months 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.

      • flynnguy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Nobody cares if you have a rifle that fires a different caliber. Selling full auto mod kits is illegal though.

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Perhaps rifles should not be owned by individuals then.