Hypothetical Situation Used For Comparison Purposes

Off Topic
1

Say there is a business that sells weapons to individuals. This business has the ability to track to whom the weapons are sold to, but legally they are not required to do so for the most part.

Also, for the most part the said weapons are non-traceable. Now say 80% of the individuals use the weapons to rob rich people and then share the belongings of the stolen goods with other less prosperous people. In fact, the robber makes no profit in this situation. The only real business transaction occurring is when the weapon is sold. It is also known by the business selling the weapons that they are used in this manner. They say they are not responsible for how the weapons are used.

Now three questions I would like to ask:
1)Is the robbing a crime or is it not due to the fact that there is a robin hood effect?
2)Even though it is legal for the business to operate in this manner, is it ethical?
3)Should laws be changed to prevent the business from operating in this manner?

Also, can anyone guess what this is about? I may have made it too obvious, but here is a hint anyways: this is not about gun control.

I am interested in what people think about this situation so thanks in advance for any input.

2

[quote]ComixGuy wrote:
Say there is a business that sells weapons to individuals. This business has the ability to track to whom the weapons are sold to, but legally they are not required to do so for the most part.

Also, for the most part the said weapons are non-traceable. Now say 80% of the individuals use the weapons to rob rich people and then share the belongings of the stolen goods with other less prosperous people.

In fact, the robber makes no profit in this situation. The only real business transaction occurring is when the weapon is sold. It is also known by the business selling the weapons that they are used in this manner. They say they are not responsible for how the weapons are used.

Now three questions I would like to ask:
1)Is the robbing a crime or is it not due to the fact that there is a robin hood effect?
2)Even though it is legal for the business to operate in this manner, is it ethical?
3)Should laws be changed to prevent the business from operating in this manner?

Also, can anyone guess what this is about? I may have made it too obvious, but here is a hint anyways: this is not about gun control.

I am interested in what people think about this situation so thanks in advance for any input.
[/quote]

There has been a thread like this but I’ll post.

  1. Is that a serious question? Is ROBBING a crime? HMMMMM I don’t know man, you might have to study for such a broad question. Now morally, it can be right, but your situation doesn’t sound like it.

2 Ethically no!!!Hell no! It is a crime.

  1. I think youcan make out what I’m getting at.
3

[quote]Stength4life wrote:
ComixGuy wrote:
Say there is a business that sells weapons to individuals. This business has the ability to track to whom the weapons are sold to, but legally they are not required to do so for the most part.

Also, for the most part the said weapons are non-traceable. Now say 80% of the individuals use the weapons to rob rich people and then share the belongings of the stolen goods with other less prosperous people.

In fact, the robber makes no profit in this situation. The only real business transaction occurring is when the weapon is sold. It is also known by the business selling the weapons that they are used in this manner. They say they are not responsible for how the weapons are used.

Now three questions I would like to ask:
1)Is the robbing a crime or is it not due to the fact that there is a robin hood effect?
2)Even though it is legal for the business to operate in this manner, is it ethical?
3)Should laws be changed to prevent the business from operating in this manner?

Also, can anyone guess what this is about? I may have made it too obvious, but here is a hint anyways: this is not about gun control.

I am interested in what people think about this situation so thanks in advance for any input.

There has been a thread like this but I’ll post.

  1. Is that a serious question? Is ROBBING a crime? HMMMMM I don’t know man, you might have to study for such a broad question. Now morally, it can be right, but your situation doesn’t sound like it.

2 Ethically no!!!Hell no! It is a crime.

  1. I think youcan make out what I’m getting at.
    [/quote]

Let me add something:
Rich Person = Media Conglomerate
Seller of Weapon = P2P or Usenet Service
Robber = Uploader of Pirated Media
Person Benefitting From Robber Sharing = Downloader of Pirated Media

4

The big flaw in your logic is that nobody, ever, in history, has had an absolute need for music to survive.

Even using different examples…

Multi-Billion Dollar Farming Industry
The local Hunting/Sporting goods store
Disgruntled Farm Workers
Starving poor children.

Is it still a question? Does the fact that the farms charge for their product, just like the “Media Conglomerate” make it OK to steal from them too? In this case, the people benefiting actually need the food to live.

New music at the tip of your fingers in basically a few minutes from when you decide you want it is simply a luxury, one that 90% of the world does not have or need. I say that as I zip through my playlist of over 8000 songs, music which I did not pay anything for.

The real question shouldn’t be “Is it ok to steal music?” but, “Why hasn’t the music industry adjusted their business plans to make real headway?”

I would be much, much more inclined to buy a CD from a band I like if it was $7-8 instead of nearly $20. I’d be willing to bet that at least half the people who completely avoid buying hard copies of albums would consider it if the prices came down, meaning more units sold, a more sound customer base, and ultimately a healthier industry.

Spending millions of dollars to sue people who just cost you millions of dollars (with no hope of collecting, these are college kids for the most part getting sued) if counterproductive and wasteful.

5

[quote]Jeffe wrote:
The big flaw in your logic is that nobody, ever, in history, has had an absolute need for music to survive.

Even using different examples…

Multi-Billion Dollar Farming Industry
The local Hunting/Sporting goods store
Disgruntled Farm Workers
Starving poor children.

Is it still a question? Does the fact that the farms charge for their product, just like the “Media Conglomerate” make it OK to steal from them too? In this case, the people benefiting actually need the food to live.

New music at the tip of your fingers in basically a few minutes from when you decide you want it is simply a luxury, one that 90% of the world does not have or need. I say that as I zip through my playlist of over 8000 songs, music which I did not pay anything for.

The real question shouldn’t be “Is it ok to steal music?” but, “Why hasn’t the music industry adjusted their business plans to make real headway?”

I would be much, much more inclined to buy a CD from a band I like if it was $7-8 instead of nearly $20. I’d be willing to bet that at least half the people who completely avoid buying hard copies of albums would consider it if the prices came down, meaning more units sold, a more sound customer base, and ultimately a healthier industry.

Spending millions of dollars to sue people who just cost you millions of dollars (with no hope of collecting, these are college kids for the most part getting sued) if counterproductive and wasteful.
[/quote]

That is why they are trying to turn the isp’s into net nannies.

Assuming you didn’t upload media, that just makes you the receipient of stolen goods. I think that is lesser offense here with the P2P, Usenet and the uploader of the pirated media being the main offenders.

Why does the medium of where and how these actions change people’s answers when they are very similar at their core?

6

Hell, just follow the blue print of the government. Rob from the rich and give to the poor.

7

[quote]Let me add something:
Rich Person = Media Conglomerate
Seller of Weapon = P2P or Usenet Service
Robber = Uploader of Pirated Media
Person Benefitting From Robber Sharing = Downloader of Pirated Media
[/quote]

Unfortunately, this makes the previous exercise redundant, since it is a different question.

8

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
Let me add something:
Rich Person = Media Conglomerate
Seller of Weapon = P2P or Usenet Service
Robber = Uploader of Pirated Media
Person Benefitting From Robber Sharing = Downloader of Pirated Media

Unfortunately, this makes the previous exercise redundant, since it is a different question.[/quote]

How is it a different question? A crime has occurred. The actions are the same. The medium is different. How does the internet not make it a crime?

9

[quote]hoosegow wrote:
Hell, just follow the blue print of the government. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. [/quote]

then move out of america, dickbag.

10

No one wants to do your intro to philosophy homework for you.

11

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
hoosegow wrote:
Hell, just follow the blue print of the government. Rob from the rich and give to the poor.

then move out of america, dickbag.[/quote]

that type of philosophy is inheritly unamerican.

someone on this forum said “kleptocrat” recently and I thought it was brilliant.

quit voting kleptocrat.

12

Is this about Obama?

13

[quote]ComixGuy wrote:
duffyj2 wrote:
Let me add something:
Rich Person = Media Conglomerate
Seller of Weapon = P2P or Usenet Service
Robber = Uploader of Pirated Media
Person Benefitting From Robber Sharing = Downloader of Pirated Media

Unfortunately, this makes the previous exercise redundant, since it is a different question.

How is it a different question? A crime has occurred. The actions are the same. The medium is different. How does the internet not make it a crime?[/quote]

Impersonal. Does not cause lasting trauma for the victim. Vast difference in those who can be considered “rich” people and multinational, almost certaintly unethical music companies.

The situation is not the same even in the eyes of the law; hence the difference in prison sentence between those who commit armed robbery and those who downlad illegally.

I dislike the Socrates style of argument intensely. Analogies should not be taken past their logical extremes.

14

Uploading/downloading of pirated media isn’t theft, it is copyright infringement which is quite a different offense so theft isn’t a very good analogy. Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter either way, just sayin ;).

Whether it is ethical or not to store information who knows but you ought to be aware that every bit of data you send or receive has the potential to leave an electronic trail and you might even be surprised as to what extent. It is up to you to be knowledgeable enough to obscure your trail or accept that someone can trace it. You are ultimately responsible for your own actions even if you don’t agree with the consequences.

15

[quote]debraD wrote:
Uploading/downloading of pirated media isn’t theft, it is copyright infringement which is quite a different offense so theft isn’t a very good analogy. Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter either way, just sayin ;).

Whether it is ethical or not to store information who knows but you ought to be aware that every bit of data you send or receive has the potential to leave an electronic trail and you might even be surprised as to what extent. It is up to you to be knowledgeable enough to obscure your trail or accept that someone can trace it. You are ultimately responsible for your own actions even if you don’t agree with the consequences.[/quote]

Okay. I agree with the last paragraph wholeheartedly. And I do agree that the crimes are different and the punishments are different. But do you agree that they are both legally wrong? Can you come up with a different analogy? I tried to think about patent law and with Apple winning the recent verdict on the touchscreen.

16

[quote]hoosegow wrote:
Hell, just follow the blue print of the government. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. [/quote]

More accurately, rob from everyone giving the bulk to a small handful of wealthy families and companies, with peanuts for everyone else.