If gun makers can be sued after people commit crimes with guns then why can't hard drive makers be sued too
- Thread starter dahunan
- Start date
Originally posted by: dahunan
It is their fault that people steal movies and mp3's
There is already a tax on writeable media, a large part of which goes directly into the coffers of the record companies. Like it was said in the other thread - best government money can buy!
Originally posted by: Tab
Well, trial lawyers, like any other business men, are always looking for new revenue streams.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
The crux of the argument of those who want to hold gunmakers liable is that there's no legitimate reason for most people to own handguns. So gunmakers are catering to irrational or invalid desires on the part of most of their customers and making available to the general public an inherently dangerous product with no innate justification, out of the desire to make a profit. That is (the argument goes), gun manufacturers who sell handguns to the general public are engaging in a sort of gratuitous business.
I don't see hard drives as being analogous, since hard drives definitely serve a continually useful purpose to almost all those who purchase them. Hardly gratuitous.
A more apt analogy might be: Should automakers be liable for damage caused by cars traveling at speeds greatly in excess of all speed limits. For example, a 2006 Corvette Z06 has a top speed near 200 MPH. No rational person believes that driving at speeds over, say, 90 or 100 MPH in the U.S. (where the highest speed limit is, I believe, 70 MPH) is EVER prudent. So the fact that GM manufactures a car capable of going DOUBLE the maximum rational speed says something about GM. Thus, if a Z06 Corvette traveling at 160 MPH is in a wreck and kills some innocent bystander, should GM be liable?
I think a better way to handle liability for inherently dangerous products is to create some sort of surcharge on the purchase of these products. The surcharges (perhaps 1 to 5% of the retail price, on a sliding scale determined on the basis of just how dangerous/outrageous the product is) would fund a damages "pool" from which victims could recoup losses not otherwise covered by inadequate insurance policies on the part of the purchasers. That way, the burden would be distributed and would fall on those who choose to purchase these products - those who may directly be responsible for negligent behavior.
I don't see hard drives as being analogous, since hard drives definitely serve a continually useful purpose to almost all those who purchase them. Hardly gratuitous.
A more apt analogy might be: Should automakers be liable for damage caused by cars traveling at speeds greatly in excess of all speed limits. For example, a 2006 Corvette Z06 has a top speed near 200 MPH. No rational person believes that driving at speeds over, say, 90 or 100 MPH in the U.S. (where the highest speed limit is, I believe, 70 MPH) is EVER prudent. So the fact that GM manufactures a car capable of going DOUBLE the maximum rational speed says something about GM. Thus, if a Z06 Corvette traveling at 160 MPH is in a wreck and kills some innocent bystander, should GM be liable?
I think a better way to handle liability for inherently dangerous products is to create some sort of surcharge on the purchase of these products. The surcharges (perhaps 1 to 5% of the retail price, on a sliding scale determined on the basis of just how dangerous/outrageous the product is) would fund a damages "pool" from which victims could recoup losses not otherwise covered by inadequate insurance policies on the part of the purchasers. That way, the burden would be distributed and would fall on those who choose to purchase these products - those who may directly be responsible for negligent behavior.
I disagree. I think that a person assumes a certain responsibility when buying a product. That responsibility is to use the product legally, safely, and in accordance with manufacturer guidelines. So long as the product is operating as advertised and within specification, the manufacturer should have no liability for negative results from their product. If the product is defective, that's another story.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
That's only on the "music" media. And it's not a tax it's just a royalty.Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: dahunan
It is their fault that people steal movies and mp3's
There is already a tax on writeable media, a large part of which goes directly into the coffers of the record companies. Like it was said in the other thread - best government money can buy!
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
That's only on the "music" media. And it's not a tax it's just a royalty.Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: dahunan
It is their fault that people steal movies and mp3's
There is already a tax on writeable media, a large part of which goes directly into the coffers of the record companies. Like it was said in the other thread - best government money can buy!
The "piracy tax" is coming. Europe and many other countries have already implemented it.
Originally posted by: dahunan
It is their fault that people steal movies and mp3's
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason. As you have seen the gun cases are not designed to win money for anyone but rather to destroy legitimate businesses through litigation.
So, yes, if the lawyers wanted to destroy any group they could. An example would be the fast food industry
If the gun lawsuits were actually successful then auto manufacturers, drug companies, airlines, hospitals, would very quickly be put out of business. For the sake of the children, of course.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 100,776
- 18,050
- 126
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
That's only on the "music" media. And it's not a tax it's just a royalty.Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: dahunan
It is their fault that people steal movies and mp3's
There is already a tax on writeable media, a large part of which goes directly into the coffers of the record companies. Like it was said in the other thread - best government money can buy!
Nope, on all digital media. They (record companies) tried to push a levy (not royalty, levy) on all mobile digital storage devices but failed. On the other hand, since we Canadians are paying the levy, record companies can't do much about music downloading
Or Internet Providers too, great point.
Gun makers should be in no way liable for what people do with their product.
Gun makers should be in no way liable for what people do with their product.
Maybe I've misunderstood the issue (I haven't followed it very closely) but I thought gun manufacturers were in trouble for selling and marketing guns to groups that they know or should-know are going to commit crimes with them.
Much the same way cigarette manufacturers got in trouble for marketing to minors, and bartenders can get in trouble for overserving alcohal and letting drunk people drive.
Like it or not, you must be responsible when trying to make a profit.
Even the gun lovers must admit that there are too many guns in the hands of criminals, so the question becomes, how do they get there, and how do we stop it. If it's found that the manufacturers are playing a role in that, then they should be liable.
Much the same way cigarette manufacturers got in trouble for marketing to minors, and bartenders can get in trouble for overserving alcohal and letting drunk people drive.
Like it or not, you must be responsible when trying to make a profit.
Even the gun lovers must admit that there are too many guns in the hands of criminals, so the question becomes, how do they get there, and how do we stop it. If it's found that the manufacturers are playing a role in that, then they should be liable.
I'd venture to say that most criminals got their guns illegally anyway...Making guns illegal is pointless.
If I loaded a gun, and cocked the hammer, and set it down, and let it sit for an hour, or a day, or week, or WHATEVER LENGTH OF TIME - it WOULD NOT SHOOT.
It's completely safe, and completely inert, just sitting there. Even with the hammer cocked and safety off. UNTIL SOMEONE PULLS THE TRIGGER.
The person does the shooting. The person is responsible for the consequences, good or bad.
It's completely safe, and completely inert, just sitting there. Even with the hammer cocked and safety off. UNTIL SOMEONE PULLS THE TRIGGER.
The person does the shooting. The person is responsible for the consequences, good or bad.
Yes, but how do they get them illegaly? At some point, the gun passes from the regular market to the black market, and the mechanisms that allow that to happen need to be removed. It's possible that manufacturers play a role.
How do manufacturers benefit from 2nd hand sales to criminals who give their product a bad name? Why would they participate in that?
So do we start suing car companies b/c people run over other people? Do we sue knife manufacturers? How about companies that make baseball bats? How about pillow makers for when someone suffocates someone with it? Where does it end?
Deadly weapon, yes. Tool? Definitely. This country was founded on the blood of patriots and rebels against tyranny.
The example of Corvettes was used before. Lets say, hypothetically, that 10,000 Corvette owners intentionally used their cars to run over and kill someone (The approximate number of firearms homicides in the US in 2003)
As a result, a law is passed that no Corvette will be sold to anyone with more than 5 points on their license. Furhermore, every Corvette owner shall be responsible to ensure that their cars do not end up in the hands of such people.
Case A: A man with 1 point on his license buys a Corvette and mows his wife down.
Case B: A man with 15 points and a vehicular homicide conviction buys a Corvette as the manufacturer and dealer look the other way.
In Case A, I agree that no one should be liable but the killer himself. But don't you agree that in Case B we should try and figure out how this man got a gun and punish whoever let him have it?
This country was founded on the blood of a professional army under the command of officers.
If your reason is legitamate, why can't we carry rocket launchers and drive tanks?
Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence were treasonous. They rebelled from Britain.
Why _CAN'T_ we carry rocket launchers and drive tanks?
IIRC those who wrote the Declaration of Indefpendance didn't fight in the war.
as for that rocket launcher/tank question. It's my question to you since a rocket launcher will do no damage unless someone uses it to launch a rocket.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter