WotC may have sent the Pinkertons to a magic leakers home. Update: WotC confirms it and has a response.

[Paul Farquhar]

So you’re just assuming that the cards were stolen and the YouTuber is guilty of fencing. Quite a claim, and one I see no reason to believe (or make, really, but you do you).

Intellectual property is property. The clue is in the name. If you are in position of something that is not yours, it is stealing. And the perpetrator knew it was stealing because they made a video bragging about it.

Even if I were to entertain the idea that the goods were stolen and the guy knowingly bought stolen goods, WotC reaction is still inappropriate! If that was the case, they 100% should have called the cops, rather than private armed goons.

If they had called the cops, there would have been a court case, expensive for both parties (but one WotC could far more easily afford), and the perpetrator might have ended up in prison, rather than with free stuff. Calling in private security was a more measured response than calling in official law enforcment.

I can see no scenario were WotC did things right.

Well, if someone had stolen my stuff, I would have wanted them actually punished, not given free stuff, so in that sense, I agree.

 

[Olrox17]

Intellectual property is property. The clue is in the name. If you are in position of something that is not yours, it is stealing. And the perpetrator knew it was stealing because they made a video bragging about it.

We are dealing with physical goods, here, intellectual property doesn’t really apply. I buy cards, I own cards. Again, if the guy bought from a retailer that broke street date, he has done literally nothing wrong and he legitimately owned the cards that were taken from him with suspect means.

If they had called the cops, there would have been a court case, expensive for both parties (but one WotC could far more easily afford), and the perpetrator might have ended up in prison, rather than with free stuff. Calling in private security was a more measured response than calling in official law enforcment.

See, that’s why I don’t believe any theft occurred. If a guy steals from your corporation and is also dumb enough to brag about it online, you absolutely call the cops, and you absolutely DON’T offer him free stuff. WotC is trying to soft-bribe him with free stuff precisely because they know he did nothing wrong, and, on the other hand, they probably did.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We are dealing with physical goods, here, intellectual property doesn’t really apply.

Yes it does. The information on the cards is intellectual property.

I buy cards, I own cards.

No you do not. You only own them if the person your bought them off had the right to sell them to you.

I bought your identity, therefore I own you identity. True or false?

But in this case the cards are irrelevant, it's the information on the cards that the twit on the internet knew darn well he had no right to.

Again, if the guy bought from a retailer that broke street date, he has done literally nothing wrong and he legitimately owned the cards that were taken from him with suspect means.

Strawman. That was not the crime. The crime was possessing and sharing the information on the cards.

I have a camera. I use it to photograph top secret documents. Since I bought and paid for the camera, no crime has been committed. True or false?

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes it does. The information on the cards is intellectual property.

No you do not. You only own them if the person your bought them off had the right to sell the to you.

I bought your identity, therefore I own you identity. True or false?

But in this case the cards are irrelevant, it's the information on the cards that the twit on the internet knew darn well he had no right to.

Strawman. That was not the crime. The crime was possessing and sharing the information on the cards.

I have a camera. I use it to photograph top secret documents. Since I bought and paid for the camera, no crime has been committed. True or false?

No crime has been committed unless you gave information we do not.

It's not illegal tossll stuff early. That's a civil dispute/contract violation.

I assume you have no evidence at all indicating a crime took place?

And even if a crime gas actually been committed there's still a presumption of innocent untilnproven guilty.

I assume there's veen no criminal court case I'm not aware of.

If someone did break a release schedule WotC is under no obligation to supply them. What they can't do is go and seize said goods.

Youtuber could just tell the Pinkertons to sod off. Know your rights lol.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Youtuber could just tell the Pinkertons to sod off. Know your rights lol.

They certainly could have done that. In which case the lawyers would have been called in. Now it might turn out that you are right and they had not done anything illegal (I would consider them still in the wrong morally). After expending a lot of time, money and stress. Or they could have free stuff.

Generally, settling out of court is better FOR EVERYONE.

Of all the hills to die on, you think they should have chosen this one?!

 

[Zardnaar]

They certainly could have done that. In which case the lawyers would have been called in. Now it might turn out that you are right and they had not done anything illegal (I would consider them still in the wrong morally). After expending a lot of time, money and stress. Or they could have free stuff.

Generally, settling out of court is better FOR EVERYONE.

Of all the hills to die on, you think they should have chosen this one?!

They're not even in the wrong morally. That's on the distributor if they sold the product intentionally or WotC if it was accidental since they sold something with very similar name to identical product.

Whole lotta stipud going around here.

And yeah if some try hard cops came around and made wife cry I would tell them to sod off.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They're not even in the wrong morally. That's on the distributor if they sold the product intentionally or WotC if it was accidental since they sold something with very similar name to identical product.

Then we simply live by different moral codes. It doesn't matter if it was an ascendant. They still had something they knew they where not supposed to have. The right moral decision is to return it. It is morally wrong to benefit from someone else's mistakes.

Now if you think it is morally acceptable to exploit someone else's errors, then we are simply never going to agree.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then we simply live by different moral codes. It doesn't matter if it was an ascendant. They still had something they knew they where not supposed to have. The right moral decision is to return it. It is morally wrong to benefit from someone else's mistakes.

Now if you think it is morally acceptable to exploit someone else's errors, then we are simply never going to agree.

Early releases happen all the time lol its not usually a big deal. It happens.

He'll I went to the Apocalypse mtg prerelease in 2001. The entire set had been spoilt so we knew what cards to aim for.

If tgey really want their crap to stay secret don't ship it until after the prerelease or whatever.

 

[Olrox17]

Yes it does. The information on the cards is intellectual property.

Doesn’t change the fact that I bought card, I own card. It’s a physical good. Now, intellectual property (or copyright), in this case, means I can’t make copies of the card and sell them. That’s it. The physical card belongs to the buyer. 1000%. Oh, did a sketchy retail seller break street date? Well, that’s between WotC and the retail seller.
As crazy as that may sound, the YouTuber who got his property swiped may have a case for robbery, of all things.

That was not the crime. The crime was possessing and sharing the information on the cards.

I have a camera. I use it to photograph top secret documents. Since I bought and paid for the camera, no crime has been committed. True or false?

Your example makes no sense. Owning a camera that a crime is allegedly committed with has no bearing on the alleged crime.
Possessing and sharing information about a physical good I legitimately bought from a store isn’t a crime in any legislation I know. Unless I signed some kind of NDA as part of the purchase, but I’m pretty sure the YouTuber in question signed nothing of the sort.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Their property? If the guy bought the cards, they were his property. He wasn’t the one who (mistakenly or willingly) broke street date. The retailer did. The guy had no obligation towards WotC, the retailer did, he just purchased a product.

I’m astounded that people are defending WotC for sending aggressive goons to a person’s house to “appropriate” goods he legitimately bought.

This is where I'm at. He paid for $4,000 worth of magic cards and got $4,000 worth of magic cards. He just got the wrong booster case sent (IDK what the quantity name would be). That's like buying a video game for $70 but Amazon sends you the wrong game that comes out next week that, you guessed it, also costs $70. Tell me, what ethical violation did he commit? He paid for product, got the wrong stuff but nobody was cheated.