Oh I don’t disagree at all. Its just a thought experiment, assuming people are actually convicted of the same crime, how we fairly make a distinction in law

Copyright isn’t inherently bad. It’s clearly been abused, and molested, and twisted by corporations (re: Disney) to the point where it serves the rich. But originally, it was an excellent tool to promote creativity and ingenuity. People didn’t have an incentive to create and invent if they knew it was going to…

they’re referring to “white color crime” (sic) hopefully being a typo about white COLLAR crime.

No: same crime, different victim sympathy. In case you don’t know, there are “pure” software solutions being developped by and from medical centers that don’t directly save lives (but arguably more useful in everyday life). It’s still stealing from a “virtuous” company as opposed to a designed bad guy like Nintendo.

I don’t have a great answer to that either. It’s indisputable that that would be a different set of circumstances, and I’d agree that the moral weight of that crime would be greater than what we have here. But as you say, how one might address that in law is an open question.

Yep, definitely hasn’t existed for as long as America has been a country.

“But do you really think that jail is a sane and reasonable response to a guy selling illegal copies of videogames? Where the only effect of his crime was that a gigantic multi-billion dollar company maybe made slightly less money than they otherwise would have?”

Unfortunately it’s not: white collar crime was and still is less prosecuted or recognized as such, and that’s because of lobbies and overall pressure from corporations against better regulation of this kind of crime. It’s also less “visible”: no clear-cut victims (like a murder vitim against multitudes of other people…

Saying “white collar” crimes are victimless is ignorant at best.
Using whataboutism to compare it to entirely different crimes (and their own failings) does not help anyone, not even you trying for virtue signaling.

Yes, because there is only one judge in America, and he ruled on both of these cases.

I mean, it’s not victimless though.

They were making a false dichotomy between caring about POC and caring about this man. They’re not mutually exclusive.

Oh, shit, no, not even a little bit intended.

pun intended?

Whataboutisms and false dilemmas are different things.

You’d make for a shitty lawyer.

The reason Nintendo went after him so hard is because he was actually selling the ROMs for money.

You literally began your tirade here with “What about...”, and then went on as if worrying about racist arrests was mutually exclusive with worrying about other injustices. How is that not a false dichotomy?

By chance have you heard of a false dichotomy?

It’s OK to care about multiple things.