Quoted from Purpledrilmonkey:
So it's considered counterfeit, not stolen... For my own education, what are the ramifications of that (and the selling of counterfeit goods) to the buyer(s) of said counterfeit goods?
I can't imagine that owning counterfeit goods is 'ok' or 'tolerable' just because they aren't considered stolen goods? Surely Fox would have some sort of legal recourse to pursue the acquisition or destruction of infringing products, which is really what we're curious about no?
At the core of the concept.. the IP holder can pursue ensuring the unauthorized copies/uses of their IP be returned or destroyed by order of the court. Basically, they have the right to ensure only their authorized versions exist. But actually enforcing that is where the difficulty comes in. Once the items are out on the open market, or in the hands of individuals, its typically too difficult or expensive to pursue.. so classically the enforcement is pursued at the source or distribution. Basically force the people to destroy their stock.. threaten people who are involved in the distribution of it and try to stop the bleeding. Most of the time, its not worth pursuing one person, one item at a time.. so they focus on the 'big fish'.
In a case like this, it may be easy to win a judgement to say the item should be destroyed or deem it as unauthorized.. but to actually get it enforced? That requires again additional action.. and follow-ups to try to get enforced. They won't call the sherriff and say 'go break down that guys door and burn that game'. The guy holding the game has legal protections too, and copyright/etc are not an area they enforce, etc. Fox could send threatening letters, etc.. but reaching into someone's home is not trivial.
It's not a crime to buy a counterfeit good or knockoff.. but it is illegal to produce or traffic them.