{"id":5022,"date":"2017-02-21T13:34:29","date_gmt":"2017-02-21T17:34:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=5022"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:56","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:56","slug":"switch-ing-stories","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/switch-ing-stories\/","title":{"rendered":"Switch-ing Stories: Lucky Leak or Caf\u00e9 Culprit?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Nintendo Switch<\/a> was set to release on March 3rd<\/sup>, 2017, when\u2014two weeks early\u2014an \u201cunboxing\u201d video<\/a> surfaced, attributed to Neogaf user Hiphoptherobot. However, according to a Nintendo spokesperson,<\/a> Switch units were stolen by employees of a U.S. distributor, with one system (this system) being illegally resold.<\/p>\n

Hiphop may be guilty of possessing stolen goods<\/a> if he knew, or should have known, that the Switch in his possession was stolen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If Hiphop unknowingly purchased the stolen Switch, he likely must return the Switch, but can seek restitution from the seller for the purchase price. Let\u2019s look at the facts of this case.
\nHiphop posted pictures of his new Switch at 8:29pm on February 16, 2017. As hype grew in forums, Hiphop first claimed to have received the Switch from a store that shipped it early<\/a>. As Hiphop explained, he didn\u2019t \u201c[grab] it off the back of a truck or anything,<\/a>\u201d just \u201chappened to get lucky<\/a>.\u201d Hiphop refused to name the store that \u201cdecided to ship early for whatever reason,<\/a>\u201d to avoid \u201cgetting the store that shipped it early in trouble with Nintendo.<\/a>\u201d As Hiphop explained, \u201cif [he] did something shady [he] wouldn\u2019t be posting on the internet about it.\u201d<\/a>
\nHiphop agreed to share footage of the Switch, and the Neogaf forum exploded with activity. Sometime before 10pm that night, a three minute video<\/a> of the Switch and it\u2019s user interface\u2014regarded as the most well kept Switch secret<\/a>\u2014was released. Later that night, or early the next morning, Hiphop teamed with FlokKO.tv to host the first \u201cunboxing\u201d video<\/a> of the Nintendo Switch. Hiphop repeated that he \u201chad no clue [he] was going to get it early until it was at [his] door.<\/a>\u201d He \u201cdidn\u2019t ask to get it early,<\/a>\u201d and \u201cdevoted [his] entire day to answer people\u2019s questions<\/a>.\u201d \u201c[H]opefully Nintendo isn\u2019t too mad about the unboxing and ui videos,<\/a>\u201d Hiphop said.
\nAt 8:49 pm on February 17th<\/sup>, Hiphop stated he was going to take down the videos to not risk Nintendo \u201ccoming after [him] any more than they already have,<\/a>\u201d and revealed that the console had been returned to Nintendo. Though Hiphop was \u201cpersonally not in any trouble,<\/a>\u201d he was out the console and the money he paid.
\nAt this point, the story began to shift. Hiphop explained that he didn\u2019t think \u201cthe person<\/a>\u201d he got it from knew the switch was stolen, and recognized that the caf\u00e9 in which he worked as a barista didn\u2019t usually carry Nintendo products<\/a>. Hiphop asserts that he unknowingly bought the stolen Switch. Many of the Neogaf users insisted Hiphop was under no legal obligation to return the Switch to Nintendo.
\nWhile it is impossible to say on the facts whether Hiphop actually knew the Switch in question was stolen (despite his suspicious change in story), it appears likely that Hiphop should<\/em> have known he was dealing with stolen goods. First, acquiring a Switch console two weeks before the release date, whether shipped from a store as he first stated or purchased from a person as he later stated, should have been a red flag. Second, Hiphop himself states that the caf\u00e9 doesn\u2019t usually carry Nintendo products, another red flag. Other facts may be informative, such as the price paid. Under the facts as they stand, it seems a reasonable person should have known, if they didn\u2019t actually know, that the purchased Shift was stolen.
\nThe employees responsible for the original theft have been terminated by Nintendo<\/a> and are currently under investigation<\/a> by local law enforcement authorities on criminal charges. Although it appears Hiphop will not be charged with a crime in this case, Hiphop is likely legally required to return the Switch to the rightful owner. As Hiphop likely should have known the Switch was stolen, he likely cannot seek restitution of the purchase price from the caf\u00e9 culprit.
\nIn many ways, the \u201ccat is out of the bag,\u201d or the Switch is out of the box, but Nintendo looks forward to everyone being able to discover the wonders of the new Nintendo Switch<\/a> for themselves on March 3, 2017.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Nintendo Switch was set to release on March 3rd, 2017, when\u2014two weeks early\u2014an \u201cunboxing\u201d video surfaced, attributed to Neogaf user Hiphoptherobot. However, according to a Nintendo spokesperson, Switch units were stolen by employees of a U.S. distributor, with one system (this system) being illegally resold. Hiphop may be guilty of possessing stolen goods if …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5023,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5022"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5022"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5022\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7107,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5022\/revisions\/7107"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}