Search results

Yeah, there's a few weird cases like that - Like, Disney is getting amazingly good at the whole "include everyone, make everything accessible" deal, and it's because they're motivated by an urge to get all the entertainment money from everyone forever... But they actually understand "everyone"...

I actually agree entirely here. A corporate entity apologizing for an action and that corporation's management sincerely believing in the apology are only occasionally connected, and in this case I doubt it strongly. Wizards top brass is a lot of former Amazon/ Microsoft folks; they're there...

I mean, they're allowed to ask, obviously, and reasonable people get to hash stuff out in reasonable ways outside of using the actual legal system. But when the metal meets the meat, in terms of packages and such, the regulations go hard on the side of "If you didn't want them to have it, you...

Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to parse the thing in this context, because the regulations were originally passed to stop mail fraud schemes and the like, but the key bit is that so far as the FTC is concerned, if someone mails you some stuff, that's your stuff now.

Then he very likely has the right to both keep that set AND demand the one he ordered, as the law is set up. Shipping problems rest with the shipper.

The FTC disagrees with you. If he bought them from a retailer, then he bought them. If he was shipped them in error, then he still owns them. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-do-if-youre-billed-things-you-never-got-or-you-get-unordered-products Notably, these rules exist in order to...

Cool. What's the grounds you'd imagine for the civil case, or the legal precedent for attempting to retake the cards? Are they stolen property in your mind, or what? Like, what's the legal basis for Wizards getting the cards back? Because if it's "They broke street date", that's not it...

"Oh whoa I have something Wizards definitely didn't intend me to have". Wizards doesn't get to set the morality or legality of what people are 'supposed' to have.

Serious response: Literally every place they are selling or marketing things. They should be able to have their charity outings, I think; if that means they react by smokescreening themselves behind doing lots and lots of charity work, that's actually a win. Not the one I'd be aiming to...

Oh, I don't think he's some unimpeachable source, no. But in terms of overall credibility of statements, he wins over "What Wizards spun from what the Pinkertons reported to them" by any number of country miles.

These don't strike me so much as a credibility problem as they read as "Story changed so as not to snitch out my buddy, after realizing that's what I was doing".

Sorry, tangled up a couple thoughts there; the stealing bit was actually from a different post than yours.

To me, the tactics described sound like what Repo Men do when, well, repossessing property (except they have a legal claim to it). Come in hard, keep talking, don't do anything technically illegal, but steamroll right over the subject's idea of what proper and predictable behavior is as if...

Brand recognition is important in terms of making sure the market leader stays there and can sell related merchandise. I don't see how that that translates to "Good for the hobby" unless, again, your conception of what the hobby is and mine are very different. (On your last point...

This reads to me like a reason why we would want to have lots of different d20-based adventure games - switching around small bits of rules to move from one to another is great practice for switching further, out to the wider hobby. It's only "Good for the hobby" on these grounds for it to be...

There is some value in having a common point-of-entry baseline rules set for the wider hobby, in that it establishes a sort of common language that people can work from, contrast other games to, and so on. That's d20-based fantasy adventure gaming, and will be for the foreseeable future. I...

I mean, the stat names alone would make for a quite weak copyright suit according to most lawyers I've heard on the topic, but Wizards does have a great deal of money. If they wanted to bleed Paizo (while also bleeding themselves) over various product similarities, they likely could, but it...

Very much so, yes, thank you. And, on that front... Maaaaaaybe? Like, it seems unlikely in general terms to me, but we have an obvious case of them being really weird about street dates, so the chance of their street date agreement also being weird kinda... goes up?

The YouTuber didn't sign a contract. Again, I've said, Wizards may very well have a legitimate beef with the dealer, potentially a very expensive beef. This doesn't give them any power over the YouTuber.

It's really not. "This guy broke a contract that he signed" is not the same as "This guy did a thing that would have been bad if he signed that contract over there".