Re: Why do people buy fakes and what does it say about them?

You're right that I'm playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent.
But it's not as clear-cut a "good guys/bad guys" fight as you make it out to
be either and it's not enough to say "piracy is illegal, therefore it is
wrong and you should never do it." Whenever you have a situation where the
morality of the general public (or a very substantial percentage of the
public) is out of line with the law ( alcohol Prohibition, marijuana laws,
music downloading, and even buying "replica" watches) you have to wonder why
it is that so many otherwise law abiding people are willing to defy the
law - you say that the laws against murder and burglary are also man-made,
but most people who buy counterfeit watches would never dream of killing
someone or breaking into their neighbors house to steal their watch, so
their must be some fundamental difference here.

I was not using "people's" in the Marxist-Leninist Alice in Wonderland
sense where a people's democracy is no democracy at all. Perhaps I should
have used the word "folk" although the National-Socialists messed with the
meaning of that word also. Perhaps the word "popular" is right. The point
is that there are certain laws and customs which a large percentage of the
population have always honored in the breach from time immemorial (e.g.
laws against pre-marital sex), and violating these rules does not bring the
same (or any) moral opprobrium from your friends that you would receive if
for example you were seen kicking a dog. People (even cops sometimes) walk
by the fake watch dealers on Canal Street in NY and do not give the vendors
a second glance. If those same watch vendors were selling crack cocaine to
children they would not be allowed to operate openly for five minutes.

Patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. are all forms of government granted
monopoly - only the government designated "holder" has the exclusive right
to use the mark, produce the invention or copy the film, etc. We know that
there are valid reasons for granting monopolies but that they should be
limited to a certain extent because they cause economic distortion and hurt
consumers - for example we grant patents and copyrights for a "limited time"
only (trademarks are perpetual). In certain cases we balance the government
granted monopoly with regulations against gouging. For example, we give
utility companies the monopoly right to string electrical wires down the
street, but in return we regulate the amount of money the utility may charge
for their power. Now the monopoly that Montres Rolex SA has on the
production of "Rolex" watches is different than that of an electric
utility - if you don't want to deal with the electric utility your only
other choice is to sit in the dark, while no one HAS to buy a Rolex. But
still the point of granting a monopoly is to benefit the public
, not just to make monopoly holders rich, as I said before. The monopoly
holder is (or should be) expected to have certain counterbalancing
obligations to the public and is not free to regard the monopoly as "his"
property to do with as he wishes, limited only by greed and the market. We
accept that even in cases of traditional property (land) you can't just do
whatever you want - there are zoning laws, etc. If you own a cow, you are
not allowed to torture it. Now in the case of IP rights, I think the
pendulum has swung too far in the direction of looking only at the rights of
the monopoly holder and not at the rights of the public. I don't know the
answer to how to swing the pendulum back without setting up some ugly and
even more undesirable government bureaucracy, but I do know that the current
system does not feel "right" to a lot of people and this is why piracy is so
prevalent.






"Olaf Peuss" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dcq9n5$sor$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Jack Denver" wrote:
>
>> I am no fan of fakes, but I think that the "name brands" are in effect
>> asking for this by emphasizing the trademark over the product -
>> sticking their trademark on every conceivable type of goods, some of
>> very poor quality.
>
> Objection your honour! :-) That is by far too much generalisation.
> Not every brand name is just a scam with the sole intention of ripping
> their customers off.
> And apart from everything else, people are free NOT to buy a certain
> brand if they feel overcharged or simply don't have enough money. The
> fact that some brands are very dear, and probably beyond the financial
> means of an average salary receiver, does not entitle such people to
> wear fakes instead of the genuine product. The only one who wins in such
> a bargain is the faker who sells an inferior product and makes a
> financial killing in the deal. Sold without the faked brand name on
> them, most of such items would not even be listed at Walmart's outlets
> in the jumble sales due to their inferior quality.
> Please note that I'm not saying anything about labels such as Marcello
> C. although their diver watches look like Rolex knock-offs. At least
> they offer high quality watches and sell them under their own name, not
> under "false flag."
>
>
>> If the brand owners are themselves guilty of extreme greed,
>> in what way are they different than the fakers from the consumer's
>> point of view? The "crimes" of which you accuse the fake wearer
>> - lack of integrity, weak ethics, etc. could just as well be applied
>> to some trademark owners.
>> If a trademark is nothing more than a decal stuck on any old junk, who
>> can blame people for applying their own decal?
>
> See above: Only very few brand owners are really dishonest, and I would
> sincerely argue that Rolex would have to named as one of them. They
> charge what the market bears, and who can blame them for that?
> But even if they were crooks, we shouldn't forget that name that fakers
> put on their "products" is not their own brand name but somebody else's.
> This "somebody else" is stuck with all the cost of promoting the name,
> the fakers only reap the harvest by following in their tail. So who is
> dishonest here?
>
> Imagine that you were a well-known architect whose professional
> reputation would be recognised at the same level with that of Sir
> Norman Foster. Then you learn that some unkown third-rate architect took
> part in invitations to tender, trying to sell his own poor copy cat
> concepts, drafts and drawings with the statement "developed in
> co-operation with J.D., Master Architect." Of course he'd been doing so
> without your knowledge, consent or any other form of contractual
> agreement, just so as to take personal profit from your name. How would
> you like that? - I don't think that I'd be giving away a personal secret
> of yours when I say that you would drag that person in front of a court
> of law straight away, take the best lawyers that money can buy and do
> everything you can to make sure that the court decides to stick the
> copyist with a very heavy fine, not to speak of your compensation claims
> that will follow. In other words, you would try to ruin that person's
> business once and for all, not out of spite but also in order to protect
> your own name, reputation and business by deterring others from trying
> the same thing ever again.
> Why then do you blame the brand owners for trying to do the same thing?
>
>
>> Does defending the trademark system protect the consumer from getting
>> inferior goods (its true purpose) or is it just another type of
>> legally enforced injustice by which the lords (the trademark owners)
>> can exact tribute from their vassals (we, the public) while fighting
>> off other lords or their raiding parties (the counterfeiters)?
>
> If you believe that a law is unfair or has become unfair in the process,
> you're free to fight against it with all legal means. If you find enough
> people who follow your idea, you might get into a position to change or
> amend those parts that hinder a fair competition. But advocating to
> break the law can never create a situation that is accepted as "fair" by
> all parties. And that picture that the fight between brand owners and
> fakers is like a Medieval feud is entirely wrong. It's more accurate to
> say that the brand owners are the merchants whereas the fakers are the
> pirates who try to raid and sink the merchants ships. And now tell me
> what is wrong with fighting pirates?
>
>
>> You have to understand that intellectual "property" does not exist
>> naturally
>
> No man-made law exists by nature. The laws that forbid everybody to
> kill, rape and steal are also man-made but nobody would ever try to
> argue that they should be done away with just on the grounds that they
> are "artificial." You don't really have to be explained why laws are
> necessary, you're old enough to know yourself.
>
>
>> and the only reason for getting the muscle of government to enforce IP
>> rights is that the public gets some benefit out of the system - that
>> the system makes some IP owners rich is just a side effect, not the
>> purpose of the game.
>
> You're right with your analysis but entirely wrong with the conclusions
> that you draw from that (see below).
>
>
>> Unfortunately, the system has made some IP owners so rich that they
>> can afford to literally buy Congress and other government agencies.
>> In this context, downloading music, wearing a fake Rolex, etc. is
>> just "people's justice" and is understandable in that context and
>> calling the violators insulting names is not helpful -
>> for the most part they are your neighbors and not unlike you.
>
> You cannot possibly be serious about that, Jack Denver!
> At least in the country where I was brought up pirate-copying music or
> movies is called theft (and has always been) and is punishable by law.
> Calling perpetrations like that "people's justice" is very euphemistic
> and sounds like quite in line with Communist dictators calling their
> form of tyranny "people's democracy", the country was labeled a
> "people's republic" and so on.
>
>
>> In order for a truce to be declared in this "war" there have to be
>> concessions on both sides and not just a surrender by the consumer
>> enforced by the goons of government.
>
> You're mixing up the sides here. It's not "the people in alliance with
> the right honorable product pirates" versus "the greedy and deceitful
> conspiracy of brand owners and the government" but "all honest people,
> brand owners and consumers alike" versus "the thieves and blatant
> product pirates." At least I know whose side I'm on, and I hope you know
> that, too, and have only - as almost ever - played the devil's advocate
> with your posting.
>
> Best regards,
> OP
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • MMR Killed My Daughter
    ... and the UK government LIE when they claim it is safe and doesn't kill. ... admit liability in law. ... You can see how the monopolies control the law and government: ... If they battled on without legal aid, ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Fairness Doctrine -- yes or no?
    ... since they all "make you end up in court". ... for violating the law, not some nebulous and ill-defined "spirit" of the ... that doesn't automatically make it hate. ... and form of government is that rights are inherent." ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Those who doubted Iraqis
    ... That type of surveillance is reserved for criminals in my ... > who have been protesting the government for longer than you've been ... we are likely to get right now of the outlines of the new Homeland Security ... and heavy-handed federal and local law enforcement ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: Why Are You So Bodoh, Nazri?
    ... Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz says the Cabinet ... videoclip on video-sharing web portal YouTube." ... He says the government wants "the law. ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Licensing (open-source)
    ... them legal "rights" to control the usage of their works... ... But, elsewhere, we see concepts of "open government" where it's a public ... public libraries where, for no cost (so long as they return it by the "due ... granted to you by law that it may not be legally denied to you...a kid ...
    (alt.lang.asm)