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

[LeviKornelsen]

By seized, you mean, asked for it back in a manner he says he found intimidating (and Pinkertons showing up in suits to ask for things back does feel like something that would be intimidating to me), later talked nicely to him on the phone to explain (whether remphasizing the truth or gaslighting isn't clear), and offered compensation?

If you prefer: "Acquired under duress"

 

[LeviKornelsen]

This is a reasonable question. I'm unclear whether, if a seller is in breach of contract to sell particular goods, the recipient is genuinely entitled to keep them under statute. This seems like an easy shelter for misconduct and preventing anyone from ever getting stolen goods back, for example. Perhaps there's a clear line between "stolen" and "contractually forbidden to be sold", but it seems like a variety of illegitimate property transfers could be shielded and enabled under this standard, and the original owner left without recourse.

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")

 

[Mannahnin]

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")

Even if the final purchaser publicizes the purchase and monetizes leaking information on the new product before it's officially "spoiled" as part of the standard marketing for said product?

It was Cannon's videos that kicked this whole thing off, right?

 

[eyeheartawk]

Even if the final purchaser publicizes the purchase and monetizes leaking information on the new product before it's officially "spoiled" as part of the standard marketing for said product?

It was Cannon's videos that kicked this whole thing off, right?

I mean, it's his property, so yeah? They can copyright strike his videos if they don't like it.

 

[darjr]

Even if the final purchaser publicizes the purchase and monetizes leaking information on the new product before it's officially "spoiled" as part of the standard marketing for said product?

It was Cannon's videos that kicked this whole thing off, right?

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

 

[Mannahnin]

I mean, it's his property, so yeah? They can copyright strike his videos if they don't like it.

Sure, and maybe they should have. I'm just saying it makes perfect sense why they wanted to talk to him and get him to not do that. His actions precipitated the controversy. The dealer just selling him the stuff and him keeping it quiet would have likely meant that WotC had little or nothing to say to him.

 

[Mannahnin]

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

"Most of us" being people in D&D circles, outside the MtG community, you mean. I'm pointing out that it seems obvious that they never would have sent the Pinkertons if he hadn't posted the videos.

I'm not saying that makes their choice RIGHT or GOOD, I'm pointing out that Cannon's videos are the missing piece of the picture that was apparently confusing Levi.

 

[LeviKornelsen]

Even if the final purchaser publicizes the purchase and monetizes leaking information on the new product before it's officially "spoiled" as part of the standard marketing for said product?

It was Cannon's videos that kicked this whole thing off, right?

This has happened with video games many many many times, and all the stories, legal actions, description of possible courses to be taken, and so on that come out of that I could find are all about producer vs. retailer.

The final purchaser is not bound by street date agreements. He didn't sign them. Media embargoes aren't general-purpose law and they aren't a EULA that applies to the purchaser. They're between producer and retailer.

 

[LeviKornelsen]

I mean, it's his property, so yeah? They can copyright strike his videos if they don't like it.

They certainly could have gone for that. As I understand it, it's fairly questionable whether that'd be a justified use of copyright striking, but that would at least have been a relatively normal action.

 

[darjr]

"Most of us" being people in D&D circles, outside the MtG community, you mean. I'm pointing out that it seems obvious that they never would have sent the Pinkertons if he hadn't posted the videos.

I'm not saying that makes their choice RIGHT or GOOD, I'm pointing out that Cannon's videos are the missing piece of the picture that was apparently confusing Levi.

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.