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

[Zardnaar]

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.

Ding ding. It's on who sold it.

 

[delericho]

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.

It's worth bearing in mind that by posting the details of those cards (and especially the artwork) he has probably broken copyright. (With the crucial caveat that I'm not a lawyer!) It's the sort of low-level infringement that companies mostly don't seem to care about... until they do.

But copyright infringement does carry the possibility of very large fines, and even jail time in some cases. The Pinkerton agent wasn't lying when he mentioned that possibility.

Had Cannon completely refused to engage, or warned the guy off, or called local law enforcement, it's likely that the Pinkerton would have left them with the advise to consult a lawyer... and then to call the number on the card when they were ready to talk. (The bit where the Pinkerton said he'd detain them was almost certainly a lie.)

And (again, with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer), I would be very surprised if the legal advice wasn't then to cooperate - knowingly or unknowingly, Cannon had probably done something he shouldn't, he was being given an opportunity for an easy way out, with the possibility (however slim) of becoming an example instead.

I'm not defending WotC's actions on this one - I suspect it will have cost them a lot more than it gained. But I don't think Cannon's hands are spotlessly clean here either.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Ding ding. It's on who sold it.

Right. I'm under no obligation to help Hasbro track down their distribution issue. That's not my problem.

 

[eyeheartawk]

It's worth bearing in mind that by posting the details of those cards (and especially the artwork) he has probably broken copyright. (With the crucial caveat that I'm not a lawyer!) It's the sort of low-level infringement that companies mostly don't seem to care about... until they do.

But copyright infringement does carry the possibility of very large fines, and even jail time in some cases. The Pinkerton agent wasn't lying when he mentioned that possibility.

By that logic every Youtuber who shows magic cards on their videos should then be sued for copyright, no? Is it only a copyright violation when the set breaks street date? It either is or it isn't.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

He had something he was not entitled too. If a shop keeper gives your the wrong thing the correct ethical decision is to give it back. Not go "ha ha I got one over on filthy shopkeepers everywhere!" And the idea that these are things of equal value is false. Unreleased information (i.e. secrets) are worth far more than public information. Once the secret becomes public it's value is destroyed.

 

[eyeheartawk]

He had something he was not entitled too. If a shop keeper gives your the wrong thing the correct ethical decision is to give it back. Not go "ha ha I got one over on filthy shopkeepers everywhere!" And the idea that these are things of equal value is false. Unreleased information (i.e. secrets) are worth far more than public information. Once the secret becomes public it's value is destroyed.

I think everybody draws the line somewhere. But again, the MSRP value is the same (presumably). So, the 'shopkeeper' didn't get cheated. Hasbro did. Their corporate marketing department suffered an opportunity cost of, I don't know, hype? It's not like you're stealing peppers from the locally owned co-op. I'm inclined to do a favor, and make no mistake this is a unobligated favor, to the former and not the latter. You might not. But I don't think there is an objective good/bad diktat to follow here.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Right. I'm under no obligation to help Hasbro track down their distribution issue. That's not my problem.

In the same way that you are under no obligation to help a little old lady whose handbag is being stolen, this is true.

Clearly, WotC is not a little old lady, but if you are not prepared to help them because you hate corporations, then it's clearly understandable that they will help themselves by hiring someone who will.

In principle, morality does not change depending on if you like the entity wronged or not.

 

[Cadence]

By that logic every Youtuber who shows magic cards on their videos should then be sued for copyright, no? Is it only a copyright violation when the set breaks street date? It either is or it isn't.

I thought part of the all rights reserved (or whatnot) was the right to decide who can use share things? And that, unlike Trademark, you don't lose copyright by not defending it in all cases?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think everybody draws the line somewhere. But again, the MSRP value is the same (presumably). So, the 'shopkeeper' didn't get cheated.

I take it you have never worked in a shop. If your inventory does not match your sales, it is a major inconvenience at best, and can lead to criminal prosecution and jail time at worse (example). The actual price (which is not the same thing as value) of the thing is irrelevant.

 

[eyeheartawk]

In the same way that you are under no obligation to help a little old lady whose handbag is being stolen, this is true.

I don't consider an old lady whose handbag was stolen as 1:1 analogous with Hasbro a corporation with a market capitalization of 8.17 billion dollars.

I thought part of the all rights reserved (or whatnot) was the right to decide who can use share things? And that, unlike Trademark, you don't lose copyright by not defending it in all cases?

Legally correct (I think). I'm just saying it's not consistent or a good look. Then again, if anything, Hasbro has shown a continued intransigence to good PR as of late so they may not care about that.