From: "Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:33:44 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: [off-topic CNN] Stolen Laptops and lame 'solution'
Message-ID: <199706121428.KAA18065@www.video-collage.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 1997 at 09:37:42PM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> [...]
> >The end buyer should not be held responcible for the illegal activities of
> >the seller.
> 
> Regardless of responsibility, if the original owner can prove it is
> stolen goods, the end buyer is out of luck -- clearly the original
> owner should get their goods back.  And if the end buyer provably has
> clear knowledge that it is stolen property, they are an accesssory to
> the crime. 

The question of what happens to property which is bought in good 
faith, but is later discovered to be stolen, is not a clear one,
and is dealt with in different ways in different countries.

In the US, the property nearly always reverts to the original owner,
unless the thief is a government. However, I remember reading 
articles about stolen art which implied that that is not always 
the case in Europe.

When the stolen article is land, or governments and/or national pride
are involved, things get very strange. Greece is still trying to 
recover the Elgin Marbles, which were taken by a Briton from
the Parthenon around 1810, during the Turkish occupation. I'm sure
Egypt would also like the Rosetta stone back - this was taken by
Napolean in 1799, and later captured by the British. Both are now
in the British Museum.

Sometimes the claims go across millenia - the record I can think 
of being that certain specific parcels of land in Israel are 
claimed by modern Jewish settlers on the grounds that their 
purchase from the Philistines is explicitly mentioned in the Old 
Testament, while there is no extant record of their sale to 
the modern (non-Jewish) owners.

[usual disclaimers apply]

Peter Trei
trei@Process.com