Baldur’s Gate 3 has made bank for Hasbro, significantly contributing to a 40 percent increase in digital revenue for the company.
Baldur’s Gate 3 has made bank for Hasbro, significantly contributing to a 40 percent increase in digital revenue for the company.
Knowingly possessing stolen goods is a crime, however that law is about addressing the trade of stolen goods, ie fencing. Merely possessing the goods is unlikely to attract a criminal charge, let alone a conviction with jail time, as it will usually be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the buyer knew the goods were stolen. A reasonable person might think it is likely that they were stolen but would not know for sure.
Like I say, they were after the person who leaked it from the supply chain. If the police had been involved, they too would have been interested in the leaker, not the one-time buyer.
Edit: It can also vary by jurisdiction. Looking into it, there’s an interesting bit in the wiki for this in the UK section, where they distinguish between suspicion, belief and knowledge:
However I don’t think the US makes this distinction, as the US version of the law does not include “belief”.
It’s generally hard to prosecute because there are plausible other explanations for intent. You don’t have any way of knowing a generic laptop is stolen vs used.
Having a unique item from a company you make money covering, that wasn’t ever sold legitimately and you didn’t acquire from any legitimate source, is absolutely something that could get to trial at minimum, if the company is pushing the DA to do so. You’d end up having to have a lawyer convince a jury that “I didn’t know” is believable.
The fact that they chose to give the streamer a pass for cooperating doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have perfectly reasonably or successfully pursued charges. Choosing not to do so is more evidence of them choosing the nice way.
You probably didn’t see my edit, which is pretty relevant :o)
US law requires knowledge of the goods being stolen, not mere belief. You don’t have to convince the jury you didn’t know, the prosecution has to convince the jury you did. That’s a very high bar to meet, and while it could go to trial it almost certainly wouldn’t, not unless they had solid evidence of his knowledge (eg, if he said they were stolen on his stream).
The fact that they chose to go through the Pinkertons more likely points to the fact that they knew they wouldn’t have charges thrown about if they involved the police. The buyer would have been less likely to cooperate.
You don’t have to see into their brain.
The US tends to use the reasonable person standard. If a reasonable person, with the information you have, would know that it’s stolen, you knowingly possessed stolen goods.
Something that doesn’t exist through legitimate channels, especially for a subject you portray yourself as knowledgeable of, is enough. You have to cast reasonable doubt with a plausible alternative explanation.
You’re presenting generalised speculation as if what you’re saying is certain. It would be nice if you could provide something that would back up your claim, like a similar case with a one-time buyer that proceeded to trial.
A reasonable person would not necessarily know the goods were stolen, even if they had knowledge of the industry. All the buyer would likely need to say is something like “the seller convinced me that this was an early release for select reviewers”, and the only way to counter that would be for the prosecution to provide actual evidence proving their knowledge of the theft. “Legitimate channels” is not confined to retail.