[smitherfield]

Yeah, the burden is on the buyer not to purchase stolen goods. The manufacturer is certainly under no obligation to support them. In many states even unknowing possession of stolen goods is a crime, so many of the "users" here are in fact getting off lightly.

[jhall1468]

> Yeah, the burden is on the buyer not to purchase stolen goods.

1 party has 100% of the information, 1 party has 0% of the information, and the burden is on the party with 0% information. That's absurd.

> The manufacturer is certainly under no obligation to support them.

Not support and bricking are two different things.

> In many states even unknowing possession of stolen goods is a crime

Generally the state has to prove the defendant took receipt of the items for an unlawful purpose. Ohio is an exception, but I'm not sure if there is another one.

> so many of the "users" here are in fact getting off lightly.

You use "many" incorrectly here: Very, very few are. Because very, very few jurisdictions make it a crime to unknowingly receive stolen property and even fewer would actually press charges even if allowed.

Your post is nonsense.

[Azeolus]

His post is mostly nonsense, but not entirely. First while the burden of proof is not necessarily on the purchaser, if you have in fact purchased stolen goods, you must still forfeit them to law enforcement. There are no jurisdictions that let you keep stolen goods. In most jurisdictions you then need to get restitution from whomever sold you the device, and they can obviously face charges.

The manufacturer can definitely brick, or do whatever they want. The devices are still their rightful property, this isn't a gray area, they were stolen, no one has rightful claim to them except the owner, who was the manufacturer.

[codedokode]

> 1 party has 100% of the information, 1 party has 0% of the information, and the burden is on the party with 0% information. That's absurd.

As I know the law requires you to return stolen goods even if you didn't know they were stolen. So this sounds fair.

[alibarber]

> Not support and bricking are two different things.

I wouldn't expect a stolen car to be maintained for me, and I would expect it to be stopped by the police and taken away - which I would consider to be effectively bricking it. This would still, and sadly does regularly happen, even if I didn't know it was stolen when I bought it. It doesn't need to be stolen too, if the owner is in fact still a finance company (for example) and it was sold to me without their agreement - they would be within their rights to take it away, and as I understand it without any police involvement (if it's publicly accessible and they don't use force)

[unit91]

> In many states even unknowing possession of stolen goods is a crime

I've never heard of this. Source?

[dexen]

Possession of stolen goods[1] is a crime USA-wide, and in many other countries. The rationale behind is ability to prosecute fences[2] - people who act as intermediaries and a layer of security between thieves and end-users, providing the thieves with option for easy cash-out.

Edit: As a counter-point, at least in Poland, while obtaining stolen goods is an offense ("paserstwo"[3]), the buyer of any good or service that has a "legal defect" - including having been stolen, IIRC - has a valid legal case to demand recourse from the seller. The goods are nonetheless subject to forfeiture.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

[3] https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paserstwo

[cr1895]

From your own link:

"A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven: The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property. The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce. The items had a value in excess of $5,000. The person acted knowingly and willfully."

So that doesn't really answer the question asked, because it's only a federal crime if the goods are known to be stolen and a part of "interstate commerce."

Now, at the state level, this may differ. But neither of us has that information.

[dexen]

A subsequent section on Wikipedia (link [1] in GP) tells us the following:

>All US states also have laws regarding receipt of stolen property; however, there usually is no minimum dollar amount in many jurisdictions, and, of course, the requirement in Federal law regarding interstate commerce does not apply.

i.e., USA-wide

>Also, in many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent.

i hereby rest my case.

[icebraining]

Curiously, the references backing those statements are both dead :)

[jandrese]

If you surrender the goods and have a plausible reason for not knowing that they were stolen then you won't be prosecuted. You will be SoL on getting your money back unless you bought from the worlds most scrupulous fence though.

It's a risk when you buy anything from eBay or the like, but the overall risk is small enough that the savings are justified usually.