[tompe]

Originally Posted by Roy White

Let's say someone swiped your Ereader or computer you spent hundreds or thousands on, then you spotted your property in the local Coffee shop being used by someone. So you confront that person and they say, "I bought this from a guy on the street! I got a great deal and it's mine becasue I bought it!" So you show him your name on the back and so on, proving it's yours. You go to the police and they say, "Yes that Ereader was once yours and was stolen from you but now since this other fellow "bought it" it's his and you are out of luck! Take a hike!"

I feel certain that you too would FEEL that the morally correct, the RIGHT thing to do would be for the police to forcibly remove your property from the poor sap that "bought it" from the thief and then if possible catch the thief and force the thief to pay back the poor sap that "bought" your property.

Well, I have read so much moral philosophy so I reason about these things and I tend to favor some sort of utilitarianism. The laws in Sweden worked exactly as you describe a couple of years ago and I was not especially upset by this. You have to look at the whole system of laws and cannot morally evaluate one law in isolation.

Question. Who would be morally right? By your answer it would apear that you think BOTH could be morally right.

I do not see how that follows but since I tend toward utilitarianism both cannot be correct.

How can you not see that this is Amazons dilemna on this one? So to avoid the inevitable lawsuit forthcoming from the publishers of Atlas Shrugged they removed the stolen property AND restored the money to the Saps that unknowingly and innocently bought the stolen items.
I think Amazon did the right thing on this one.

From an utilitarian viewpoint it might be the case that a lawsuit is the best thing. It is best for the society.

And I do not think they will loose a law suit since they now have changed their behavior and will not remove books. They would not have done that if they thought they would loose laws suits.