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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I did imply I wasn't a lawyer at the beginning since I stated how my limited view was based on looking stuff up on a search rather than spending years in law school, and made it clear I wasn't a lawyer at the end of my comment.

On what you pointed out, some things still don't seem quite right about this.

I'm sorry? I just went through those issues for you. Are you arguing with me based on, what? Your desire to be "right"?

Look, you want to say that Hasbro was morally wrong, fine. I can disagree with you, but that's a matter of opinion. If you're going to do armchair attorney ... not a great look. Here's a big hint- as soon as you're saying things like, "If the state law matches the federal law where the streamer lives" you're way out of your depth, and maybe just don't?

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry? I just went through those issues for you. Are you arguing with me based on, what? Your desire to be "right"?

Look, you want to say that Hasbro was morally wrong, fine. I can disagree with you, but that's a matter of opinion. If you're going to do armchair attorney ... not a great look. Here's a big hint- as soon as you're saying things like, "If the state law matches the federal law where the streamer lives" you're way out of your depth, and maybe just don't?

Right, right. But if federal law matches both state and Swahili law, what then!? Do I get to take a bath with the cards?

 

[Storyteller Hero]

I'm sorry? I just went through those issues for you. Are you arguing with me based on, what? Your desire to be "right"?

Look, you want to say that Hasbro was morally wrong, fine. I can disagree with you, but that's a matter of opinion. If you're going to do armchair attorney ... not a great look. Here's a big hint- as soon as you're saying things like, "If the state law matches the federal law where the streamer lives" you're way out of your depth, and maybe just don't?

I'm just wondering why you'd bring up stuff like cocaine that isn't applicable in this situation, or imply that possession of the goods is akin to theft. It's a tad extreme.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm just wondering why you'd bring up stuff like cocaine that isn't applicable in this situation, or imply that possession of the goods is akin to theft. It's a tad extreme.

ugh....

1. Is there "a US law" against receiving unsolicited product."

First, there is no "US law." The US is a law of many jurisdictions- the main two that most people are concerned about are STATE and FEDERAL. So when people look this up, they often completely misunderstand the issue. If something is given to you (an unsolicited gift, for example) then you have no obligation to return it under federal law (interstate commerce). This doesn't necessarily mean that you are okay under state law, nor does it mean that you are free from civil action. But more importantly, people are asking this question in the context of the rise of scams and/or free products directly sent to them. This is all about people who get sent scam merchandise and are then ordered to pay for it. You can't use this if, for example, a product is addressed to someone else. Or if you bought stolen or counterfeit merchandise. Or if the goods are illegal ("Hey, officer, I know I got a brick of cocaine, but it was unsolicited product! You're cool with that, right?"). Or if there are any number of state laws that you might be violating.

You made a blanket statement- here it was:
I looked up "unsolicited goods".

Apparently (at least according to US law), receiving an unsolicited product from a company and keeping it is not illegal, so this isn't exactly a case of stolen goods.


I explained to you why your statement isn't correct. You likely came across this statement because you googled it, and found websites discussing the issue in the context of the rise of scams- people being sent unsolicited products. This may shock you, but this does not actually answer the question presented, and I gave numerous reasons why, including a colorful example that everyone should be familiar with. In other words, you provided a "rule" that was incorrect- which is easily understandable if you think about it for even a second.

Moreover, the "rule" you're thinking about it simply the general rule about gifts- if you are given a gift you don't have to return it- whether the gift is from a corporation or a friend. But there are all sorts of "things" that go along with that idea that do not apply- and, for that matter, you can still be held liable (civilly and criminally) for a gift ... which this wasn't- no one is saying that Hasbro knowingly sent him an unsolicited gift. I could go into more detail, but that should suffice. The lesson, as always, is unless you have some background and understanding, it's best not to try and generalize legal principles based on a quick internet search.

But it's pointless to keep going, because if you don't understand basic background principles (like the difference between federal and state law and why that matters) then there is no point in this conversation, especially because you simply want to get to a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm just wondering why you'd bring up stuff like cocaine that isn't applicable in this situation, or imply that possession of the goods is akin to theft. It's a tad extreme.

He didn't. Snarf simply explained briefly how things work in various circumstances and gave a few examples. Nothing in that post was meant to imply what was or was not happening with the cards.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

facepalm

1. Is there "a US law" against receiving unsolicited product."

First, there is no "US law." The US is a law of many jurisdictions- the main two that most people are concerned about are STATE and FEDERAL. So when people look this up, they often completely misunderstand the issue. If something is given to you (an unsolicited gift, for example) then you have no obligation to return it under federal law (interstate commerce). This doesn't necessarily mean that you are okay under state law, nor does it mean that you are free from civil action. But more importantly, people are asking this question in the context of the rise of scams and/or free products directly sent to them. This is all about people who get sent scam merchandise and are then ordered to pay for it. You can't use this if, for example, a product is addressed to someone else. Or if you bought stolen or counterfeit merchandise. Or if the goods are illegal ("Hey, officer, I know I got a brick of cocaine, but it was unsolicited product! You're cool with that, right?"). Or if there are any number of state laws that you might be violating.

You made a blanket statement- here it was:
I looked up "unsolicited goods".

Apparently (at least according to US law), receiving an unsolicited product from a company and keeping it is not illegal, so this isn't exactly a case of stolen goods.


I explained to you why your statement isn't correct. You likely came across this statement because you googled it, and found websites discussing the issue in the context of the rise of scams- people being sent unsolicited products. This may shock you, but this does not actually answer the question presented, and I gave numerous reasons why, including a colorful example that everyone should be familiar with. In other words, you provided a "rule" that was incorrect- which is easily understandable if you think about it for even a second.

Moreover, the "rule" you're thinking about it simply the general rule about gifts- if you are given a gift you don't have to return it- whether the gift is from a corporation or a friend. But there are all sorts of "things" that go along with that idea that do not apply- and, for that matter, you can still be held liable (civilly and criminally) for a gift ... which this wasn't- no one is saying that Hasbro knowingly sent him an unsolicited gift. I could go into more detail, but that should suffice. The lesson, as always, is unless you have some background and understanding, it's best not to try and generalize legal principles based on a quick internet search.

But it's pointless to keep going, because if you don't understand basic background principles (like the difference between federal and state law and why that matters) then there is no point in this conversation, especially because you simply want to get to a predetermined conclusion.

Thank you for the clarification, though you don't have to be snarky about it - I did do a google search so I wasn't 100% sure if the results was accurate, hence why I stated it was just me looking stuff up, why I iterated that I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Amrûnril]

Here you go

Though, the most germane part:
“[The Pinkerton agents] cited several statutes about copyright infringement and some other things threatening 1-10 years in jail and up to $200,000 in fines if I failed to cooperate,” Dan Cannon told Kotaku over an email. “They also said if I didn’t hand over the product, they would call the county sheriff and detain us until they arrived to arrest us and search my house for the product and that they would most likely force us to show receipts for every magic card in the house (which is literally over a million cards).”

Hopefully, this will end the argument that that WotC merely sent representatives to "ask" for the product back.

To be clear, this includes a specific threat of extralegal force ("detain us until [the county sherriff] arrived"). Also importantly, there's no indication that the sheriff had or could have obtained a relevant search or arrest warrant.

To me, this conduct seems consistent with the hypothesis that WotC lacked, or was at least unsure of, a legal right to recover the cards and wanted to intimidate the recipient into acting before he could investigate his own legal rights

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Seems to have got off extremely lightly to me. In the UK the rozzers would have smashed his door in at 3am and carted him off to the cells to face a charge of Receiving Stolen Goods, not given him free stuff.

 

[Umbran]

To me, this conduct seems consistent with the hypothesis that WotC lacked, or was at least unsure of, a legal right to recover the cards and wanted to intimidate the recipient into acting before he could investigate his own legal rights

However, it is also consistent with WotC not having handed the investigators a detailed script to follow. These are things someone experienced in recovering property might say independently to get the job done, if not instructed to do otherwise.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hopefully, this will end the argument that that WotC merely sent representatives to "ask" for the product back.

To be clear, this includes a specific threat of extralegal force ("detain us until [the county sherriff] arrived"). Also importantly, there's no indication that the sheriff had or could have obtained a relevant search or arrest warrant.

To me, this conduct seems consistent with the hypothesis that WotC lacked, or was at least unsure of, a legal right to recover the cards and wanted to intimidate the recipient into acting before he could investigate his own legal rights

Out of curiosity, do you have anything to back this up? For example, have you ever dealt with LEO or with courts to retrieve property or to impound property? How do you think this works in different jurisdictions (and feel free to distinguish going directly to LEO and getting an ex parte court order).

Because .... while private individuals might be in trouble in terms of "detain" (and again, those are his words- but that would be a false imprisonment), it is also the case that these types of agencies, like Pinkerton, recruit heavily from law enforcement and know how to color within the lines.

My only hesitation is that while the agents could have done that, usually local LEO prefers to have a court order first and will consider this a civil matter. Not always, though.