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

[Umbran]

Wil Wheaton’s on fire over this. He’s good people.

He's good people, but in his anger he slides into asserting things as truth for which he seems to have no evidence. That's not good.

 

[Parmandur]

Google wasn't being my friend on this. I was going to ask who besides Amazon is out for those who find Pinkertons a red line? And then I googled Securitas. I'm guessing the list of who the parent company serves is pretty freaking expansive...

The security staff on site for my employer are Securitas...

 

[Guest 7031328]

I can't think like that, or I'd be unable to buy groceries, or even accept my paycheck.

Remote, material cooperation with evil.

There's plenty of stuff that I've removed from my own consumption due to absolutely horrible practices. There's obviously a difference between necessities (you need food to survive) and a hobby (tabletop RPGs). Even then, there are some things that can be substituted (I don't buy Nestle). There's also of course degrees of how bad something is. There's bad, and then there's the Pinkertons absolutely horrible. And worse. I'd also never fault someone for working where they do for a paycheck, everyone has their own circumstances. I've stopped working for a particular company previously due to their practices I was not aware of beforehand, but I'm also not blind that I was at the time in a privledged position where I could leave and find other work without any real financial harm to myself. Plenty don't get that kind of luxury.

But everyone has their own lines and priorities, and people may have the same knowledge and reach a completely different conclusion.

 

[Faolyn]

Official statement from WotC on the matter:

As part of an investigation into the unauthorized distribution and disclosure of embargoed product, we repeatedly attempted to contact an individual who had received unreleased cards. After that outreach was unsuccessful, an investigator visited him and asked that he reach out to us as part of our investigation and return the embargoed product and packaging. He agreed to do both. The unreleased product will be replaced by us with the product he intended to purchase. We appreciate the individual’s cooperation and the investigation is ongoing.

I thought it was illegal to force someone to return something they had been sent by mistake?

 

[Faolyn]

Ah yes, the “How dare you ask me to understand something …. i need my feels and my outrage”: argument. It’s a favorite of people that need to talk the talk, because walking the walk is hard.

Nobody has to be personally moved by actual knowledge. Everyone is free to make bombastic statements on the internet and then continue acting as they did before.

So, that WotC did something of questionable ethics is somehow OK because the Pinkertons aren't the worst?

 

[Dausuul]

I thought it was illegal to force someone to return something they had been sent by mistake?

Quite possibly. But it is not illegal to send somebody to their house to talk to them about it.

 

[Clint_L]

In case there is any doubt, I think it’s pretty gross

It's not remotely gross.

The YouTube guy's story keeps changing substantially, but by his own admission he was knowingly in possession, and possibly (from his earlier statements) sought out illicit goods, the early release of which could be extremely damaging to its owners (WotC). He began making videos on them for his YouTube channel.

WotC reached out to him several times unsuccessfully and subsequently hired investigators (gasp the Pinkertons - I know them from ButchCassidy!) to show up at his door, put him on a call with someone at WotC, and retrieve the various illicit goods. They subsequently reimbursed him with the product that he claims to have actually intended to order (but see some of his earlier statements).

That seems completely reasonable. Sending investigators to retrieve leaked, stolen, or even accidentally released product happens all the time. In the music industry, for example, thieves are forever trying to get a hold of product that they can sell before official releases. This is rampant in the film industry as well, and in fact throughout the entertainment industry in general.

WotC acted legally and responsibly. If, as this YouTuber later claimed, it was all a mistake, then he got what he always intended to purchase, and illicit goods were returned. Legally and ethically, I have zero problems with what occurred.

 

[humble minion]

Quite possibly. But it is not illegal to send somebody to their house to talk to them about it.

Here in my non-USA country, the usual procedure (from debt collectors and sundry corporate goons and the like) is to speak in hypotheticals, or to speak in generalisations while avoiding making specific allegations.

"You do know that receiving stolen goods is punishable by X years in jail, right? I want this to be resolved peacefully and without anyone getting in unnecessary trouble, just like you, and i think it helps both of us if you're fully informed about stuff like this."

"Having an unpaid debt can ruin your ability to get credit, and may result in repossession of your property. People have lost their houses over unpaid debts. How about I just help you work out a repayment plan?" (This one has been specifically used many times by debt collectors on my aging mother, over debts that an overseas family member owes. She's not liable, they're just trying to scare her into taking on his repayments when she has no legal obligation to do so. So this whole industry is not something i have very fond feelings for)

etc etc etc.

No actual allegation that the target did anything wrong. No allegation that anything was even done wrong at all. No proof that the debt is owed, or that the target is liable. Just a discussion of consequences for transgression X, in the hope that the target will be so frightened of the possible consequences that they'll just cave in rather than consider whether X is what happened at all.

 

[Guest 7031328]

(gasp the Pinkertons - I know them from ButchCassidy!)

People's issues with the Pinkertons aren't due to popular culture portrayal.

 

[humble minion]

It's not remotely gross.

The YouTube guy's story keeps changing substantially, but by his own admission he was knowingly in possession, and possibly (from his earlier statements) sought out illicit goods, the early release of which could be extremely damaging to its owners (WotC). He began making videos on them for his YouTube channel.

WotC reached out to him several times unsuccessfully and subsequently hired investigators (gasp the Pinkertons - I know them from ButchCassidy!) to show up at his door, put him on a call with someone at WotC, and retrieve the various illicit goods. They subsequently reimbursed him with the product that he claims to have actually intended to order (but see some of his earlier statements).

That seems completely reasonable. Sending investigators to retrieve leaked, stolen, or even accidentally released product happens all the time. In the music industry, for example, thieves are forever trying to get a hold of product that they can sell before official releases. This is rampant in the film industry as well, and in fact throughout the entertainment industry in general.

WotC acted legally and responsibly. If, as this YouTuber later claimed, it was all a mistake, then he got what he always intended to purchase, and illicit goods were returned. Legally and ethically, I have zero problems with what occurred.

A lot is turning on the word 'illicit' here. 'Illicit' and 'illegal' and 'accidentally released ahead of embargo date' are not the same thing. WotC, much as they would like to, have no power to chuck someone in the slammer simply for leaking a Magic card early, or for being the recipient of a leaked Magic card. How the leak happened, matters. What does 'illicit' mean here, exactly? Cos if it's 'something that WotC sold to someone else and doesn't want you to have yet because it doesn't suit their marketing strategy', then so what? WotCs commercial preference does not decide what is or is not 'illicit'

I don't think there's been any serious allegation of actual theft by anyone, am i correct there? If so, we can rule out this being a criminal matter, and in that case, the reported threats of jail time were waaaay out of line, if they occurred.

More likely is that someone in the supply chain either goofed and broke embargo by accident, or else broke embargo on purpose for clout or for $$, and this youtuber somehow found out or got notified of it, and saw his opportunity to get a bunch of eyes on his channel. Now, this almost certainly a breach of contract on the part of the leaker, and there could well be consequences in civil court over that, should WotC choose to pursue that option, But the YouTuber is a different matter. He has, to the best of my knowledge, no contractual arrangement with WotC, so he can't be sued for breaking it. He has, to the best of my knowledge, made no agreement to respect WotCs embargo. If he'd offered inducements to the leaker to break the contract then he might be more firmly on the legal hook (dunno whether it'd be civil or criminal), but what, if anything, has he done wrong if he's capitalising on a leak that's already happened?