Stealing

[Mike1234]

Thanks, I'm sure that I appreciate that. I never saw the harsh version, but fully understand and accept your edited version.

Ehh... it wasn't that bad... not good either. :rolleyes:

 

[Dave Pritchard]

There is nothing unethical about paying the asking price for a camera.
There is also nothing wrong with asking if they will take less for it.

This assumes that the seller set the price without your expert help.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is nothing unethical about paying the asking price for a camera.
There is also nothing wrong with asking if they will take less for it.

This assumes that the seller set the price without your expert help.

 

[Mike1234]

Being "ethical" and being "decent" are two very different things. Most lawyers are "ethical" though they're often very "not right" or "decent". Just remember that when you're at the right end of the stick and up against an "ethical" but "indecent" lawyer. Turn-about is fair play, no?

 

[Dave Pritchard]

Being "ethical" and being "decent" are two very different things. Most lawyers are "ethical" though they're often very "not right" or "decent". Just remember that when you're at the right end of the stick and up against an "ethical" but "indecent" lawyer. Turn-about is fair play, no?

So, do you buy a lot of photo gear from lawyers?

 

[MattKing]

Being "ethical" and being "decent" are two very different things. Most lawyers are "ethical" though they're often very "not right" or "decent". Just remember that when you're at the right end of the stick and up against an "ethical" but "indecent" lawyer. Turn-about is fair play, no?

sigh

Matt

 

[Erik Petersson]

Being "ethical" and being "decent" are two very different things. Most lawyers are "ethical" though they're often very "not right" or "decent". Just remember that when you're at the right end of the stick and up against an "ethical" but "indecent" lawyer. Turn-about is fair play, no?

Myself I try to combine law and photography, and I would be very sorry if no-one would sell photo gear to me.

 

[Jesper]

Ethical and decent usually amounts to the same thing, sometimes opposed to what is legal.
Taking advantage of somone's lack of knowledge, mistake or even theft, may be legal but it is neither decent nor ethical.

If a man wearing a ski mask in a back alley would offer you a Leica at $25, would you convince yourself that he's is just a frozen and lost tourist down on his luck and pay the price and walk away with the camera?
In some countries this might be legal (as long as it cannot be proven that you knew it was stolen it is just a bargain, right?) but I very much doubt that anyone would consider it ethical or decent.

Would anyone buy stolen equipment just because the price was right and by not asking any questions they could pretend that it wasn't stolen?

 

[Jim Chinn]

An interesting discussion. Let me give you two scenarios.

#1 You go to an estate sale at a very modest house. You find out that the woman recently lost her husband to cancer and has two small children and lots of bills. Among the stuff for sale you find a mint, never used first edition Leica M in a Leica case with extra lenses, view finders, hoods etc. You ask her about it. She says her husbands father picked it up in Germany while stationed there after WW2. Thinking it is just an old obsolete film camera she asks $200 for it. Do you pay the $200 dollars and leave with a camera kit worth probably close to $10,000?

#2 You go to an estate sale at a very nice house. 5000sq ft plus, hummer and lexus in the garage. you ask around and the wife says they are clearing out stuff before they move, her husband works for Goldman Sachs and just got a promotion so they want a bigger house on a few acres. you see that same leica on a table. The woman has no idea what it is worth but says it is for sale. She found it in the attic at her father's house with a bunch of other "junk" he brought home from the war. She asks $200 for it. Do you grab it in this scenario?

A friend of mine actually had the above leica kit that his father did bring back from Germany after being a dentist stationed with the army air force first in Tunisia then Germany after the war ended. He asked me if I had any idea its value so I did some research on the web and contacted a dealer in Chicago and gave him serial numbers. Internet sources seemed to give a value of between $8000-$10,000 (this was 10 years ago). The dealer sensing a chance to make a killing, as I did not let on that I knew anything about the kit, offered $2500. My friend still is holding on to the camera and no, he does not use it.

In the above two scenarios I could not take advantage of the first woman's ignorance as the the value of the camera. I would tell her it's potential worth. In the second scenario I would stick it to those bourgeois bastards then sell the camera and give the proceeds to a homeless shelter. Well, maybe give half the profit to the homeless shelter.

 

[bdial]

In terms of plain ethics, there is no difference between the scenarios. Either way, you need to make a decsion you can live with.

The information as to the value of a given camera is around, and more available now than ever, but not everyone has the same ability or resources available to them to find that information. Pratically every week, people with access to computers post questions here asking how much a such and such camera kit is worth.
Even though there is lots of info on the web, information from sources like camera stores is more scarce now that it has ever been.

I would probably tell the widow she should pack up the camera and contact someone who can help her with a proper valuation, and sale. If she said the camera had to sell that day, I'd offer as much as I could afford.

I'd probably tell the wife that the camera might be worth quite a bit more than her asking price. Likely as not, she'd value her time more than than the camera. I'd also offer her the 200.

 

[Mike1234]

So, do you buy a lot of photo gear from lawyers?

Heh... you're funny.

 

[lns]

In terms of plain ethics, there is no difference between the scenarios. Either way, you need to make a decsion you can live with.

The information as to the value of a given camera is around, and more available now than ever, but not everyone has the same ability or resources available to them to find that information. Pratically every week, people with access to computers post questions here asking how much a such and such camera kit is worth.
Even though there is lots of info on the web, information from sources like camera stores is more scarce now that it has ever been.

I would probably tell the widow she should pack up the camera and contact someone who can help her with a proper valuation, and sale. If she said the camera had to sell that day, I'd offer as much as I could afford.

I'd probably tell the wife that the camera might be worth quite a bit more than her asking price. Likely as not, she'd value her time more than than the camera. I'd also offer her the 200.

Well said. I would do the same. And have.

On the other hand, it's curious, because I would feel only contempt for anyone who took advantage of the widow by paying her asking price, but I would not be so scathing if someone silently paid the asking price in the second situation. I wouldn't do it myself, but I wouldn't lose any sleep about someone else doing it.

That said, most sellers look at me and increase their prices. I don't have that hard-bargaining demeanor. Which isn't exactly ethical on the seller's side either.

-Laura