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

[Mannahnin]

He had 2000 subscribers before all this. I’m not sure many other folks would have known either. Maybe that first video was blowing things up for him but I dint know.

He had a relatively small audience, sure. Which was probably a strong incentive for him to make a series of videos of a major card spoiler like this, which is very rare and unusual. He had hot material for the videos, which no third party content creator normally has that far in advance of release.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'm confused here by why people are speaking as if Wizards had any legal claim to the cards AT ALL.

1. Wizards sells the cards to dealers, distributors, etc. There's an agreement with those people that street dates will not be broken, but the cards have been sold to said dealers, etc. They are not at this point property of Wizards.

I don't think that is true. Not a lawyer, but, WoTC can have a contract with the dealer/distributor/whomever, that they are not allowed to sell the cards until a specific date or until after a certain amount of time has passed. A couple of Years ago, Ford sued Jon Cena (some wrestlers guy - I guess he is famous) for having sold his Ford GT before he was allowed to. Cena sold the GT, and he was promptly sued by Ford. Cena ended up settling with Ford, probably because his lawyers told him he is going to lose and should just settle. In any case, just because a company sells a product, doesn't mean they lose all rights to that product. The dealer Cannon bought these cards from may be under a similar contract. Cannon has nothing to do with tat, so he i fine, but to say that once the cards were sold to the dealer, WoTC had no legal claims to them "at all" is not completely accurate.

2. One of these people sells them on to said YouTuber, likely on accident, possibly on purpose. In doing so, the dealer has broken their deal with Wizards, and Wizards can be big mad at them if they like, but Wizards legitimate target here is the dealer.

This is very true. This is very true.

3. Assuming this was on accident, the dealer may have a legitimate claim to try and get back the card from the youtuber, claiming it's their property, given in error.

He may have a reason as to why the cards got out before the release date, but that may not be an excuse that prevents WoTC from raking him over the legal coals for breaking the contract. Again, not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that there are contracts where intent is not an excuse. He may not have intended for this to happen, but it happened. It's his responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen. He didn't. He may be in a legal mess because of this.

4. The YouTuber was never ever part of the street date agreement; it's not binding on him, it has nothing to do with him. Again, that's beef Wizards can have with the dealer, not him.

Wizards can have reasonable beef with the dealer, the dealer can have beef with the youtuber, but Wizards seized things they do not own.

"Seizing" is such a loaded term. Did they take the cards back? Yes. Did a "seizure take place? No. The asked him for the cards, and he gave them the cards. He was also given the cards he had actually intended to buy. During a "seizure" you are not compensated for what is taken from you. It's more of, "We're taking this, and you're not getting anything for it. Take it to court if you want it back."

The normal courses of action for a producer to take against a retailer breaking street dates are, so far as I've been able to find, not sending stuff to that retailer in advance anymore, demanding restitution from the retailer, and suing the retailer.

For the producer to jump down to deal with the final purchaser in any way at all is, so far as I can see, very much not normal.

(Edit to clarify "whose action")

I mean, would you consider this a normal situation? How often do you get unreleased merchandise sent to you b mistake?

 

[darjr]

He had a relatively small audience, sure. Which was probably a strong incentive for him to make a series of videos of a major card spoiler like this, which is very rare and unusual. He had hot material for the videos, which no third party content creator normally has that far in advance of release.

I wasn’t talking about his motives. His footprint was nill.

 

[LeviKornelsen]

I don't think that is true. Not a lawyer, but, WoTC can have a contract with the dealer/distributor/whomever, that they are not allowed to sell the cards until a specific date or until after a certain amount of time has passed. A couple of Years ago, Ford sued Jon Cena (some wrestlers guy - I guess he is famous) for having sold his Ford GT before he was allowed to. Cena sold th

Cena literally signed, was subject to, and broke a no-resale clause. He had an agreement.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

No. If WotC hadn’t sent the Pinkertons most of us would have never known.

Actually, wasn't it his follow up video that let people know? If Pinkerton went to his home and he never made a video, would any articles have been written, or this thread started?

 

[eyeheartawk]

I don't think that is true. Not a lawyer, but, WoTC can have a contract with the dealer/distributor/whomever, that they are not allowed to sell the cards until a specific date or until after a certain amount of time has passed. A couple of Years ago, Ford sued Jon Cena (some wrestlers guy - I guess he is famous) for having sold his Ford GT before he was allowed to. Cena sold the GT, and he was promptly sued by Ford. Cena ended up settling with Ford, probably because his lawyers told him he is going to lose and should just settle. In any case, just because a company sells a product, doesn't mean they lose all rights to that product. The dealer Cannon bought these cards from may be under a similar contract. Cannon has nothing to do with tat, so he i fine, but to say that once the cards were sold to the dealer, WoTC had no legal claims to them "at all" is not completely accurate.

Except in that situation that follow-on sale stipulation was part of the sales agreement. There was no such thing here. He went to a retailer, paid for $4,000 worth of cards and got $4,000 worth of cards. They just happened to give him the wrong $4,000 box.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Cena literally signed, was subject to, and broke a no-resale clause. He had an agreement.

Apples and oranges.

Same concept. they are both fruit.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Except in that situation that follow-on sale stipulation was part of the sales agreement. There was no such thing here. He went to a retailer, paid for $4,000 worth of cards and got $4,000 worth of cards. They just happened to give him the wrong $4,000 box.

I apologize. I wasn't aware you had seen the contract. My bad. I take it back.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I apologize. I wasn't aware you had seen the contract. My bad. I take it back.

You're right, it's an assumption on my part that he didn't have to sign a "don't put this on youtube" agreement as part of his normal interaction with his FLGS.

Happens at mine all the time.

 

[LeviKornelsen]

Same concept. they are both fruit.

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".