What would you do?

[Chas]

If an advertiser here were using photos from someone else, and it could be proven that no permission was granted, would you feel confidant dealing with that company?
How would I know if permission was granted or not? How can a negative be proved? People who deal in rumour, inuendo and supposition are beneath contempt.

Would you want a company who uses photos without permission to be able to advertise here?
Require all advertisers to supply copyright details for all the pictures, graphics and text that they claim to be theirs. If they can't or won't supply the details, they should be out.

Would you feel confidant buying a Utilikilt knock-off from a company operating in a country not covered by that patent?
Until reading this thread, I was not aware that Utilikilts were patented. I am sure that I am not alone in this. I have seen many utility kilts, but cannot tell one from the other, so how do I know if one is a knock-off or not?

Would you buy products from such a company and would you want such companies to be able to advertise here?
I do not know, what I don't know, so how can I know if I am buying from one of these companies or not?

Would the membership here hold those who advertise here to a higher ethical standard?
I do not know what this means. Higher than what standard or who's standard?

Would you want a company who makes or resells in one country, products that are under copyright or patent in another country, to be able to advertise on X Marks?
Were there not a vast number of sports shoe manufacturers involved in just this scandal about 15 years ago? I am talking about multi-billion dollar companies, but in the end they broke no laws.

Would you buy those products if the price were lower than from the copyright holder?
How would I know who the copyright holder is?

To you, the members of X Marks, is price the overriding factor or do you hold yourselves, and by default this forum, to an ethical, over legal, standard?
Price, linked to quality are the overriding factors. I seek value for money in all things I purchase.

Ethics is an almost impossible thing to pin down - everybody has their own private standards and moral compass and they are far from universal and far from being the same.
Whereas the law is the law. We might not like it, but it is the framework which shapes all our lives. A man can be as ethical as he likes, but what happens when the law requires him to take a contrary action? Does he stick with his ethics or does he follow the law? Would we be happy buying from an ethical criminal?
I think it is a slippery slope setting an artificially high standard that others have to follow.
It is wrong to allow the general membership to be sinners, but insist that the vendors be saints.