Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Fashion industry design protection

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston
    ... There is a huge difference: your claim was that the fashion houses relied on these one-off sales to the uber-rich/famous for their profits. They don t.
    Message 1 of 7 , May 1, 2013
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > @RLI say that the big fashion houses sell products with an exclusivity premium to uber rich customers: you contradict this by saying they sell to the "rich and famous". There is no difference.

      There is a huge difference: your claim was that the fashion houses relied on these one-off sales to the uber-rich/famous for their profits. They don't. Sales to the uber-rich/famous are just how the fashion houses demonstrate that they are indeed fashionable.

      > Your other point is that the fashion houses may not like copying but they can't do anything about it. In the UK they can.

      No, they can't. Why would you even bother to contradict me? You already know that I am just going to prove you wrong.

      > Here local authorities all have Trading Standards officials ,organised nationally into their professional body the Trading Standards Institute
      > (website on Net), who compete to run in fakers and counterfeiters with big stories in the papers about the latest busts. Wandsworth Trading Standards always attracts a lot of publicity.

      Those busts are for COUNTERFEITING TRADEMARKS, not violating non-existent copyrights.

      > Counterfeit videos were a major concern: at one time videos were being sold at unregulated car-boot sales even before hit films had finished their theatrical runs .All a projectionist had to do was run an off -schedule screening (in the morning) and copy it with cheap equipment for resale as a knock-off. dotCommunist Utopia?

      I am unable rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could mistake grainy, inferior copies of movies for garments.

      > As the Dhaka factory collapse has shown, the copying industry has its problems;

      No, it has only shown that Bangladesh -- one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world -- has its problems. As does any country where private landowning is well established, but government does not intervene massively on behalf of the landless to rescue them from the inevitable economic and societal effects of forcible removal of their rights.

      > most fashion copying comes from poverty stricken countries where the wonders of 19th century laissez faire revivalism mean that people get to make things at the kind of wage levels those British laissez faire pioneers paid child labour.(Not that they paid all the children: kids from the workhouse were drafted in for nothing=slavery).

      No, that has nothing to do with the copying industry. The condition of the landless is indistinguishable from the condition of slaves in ALL countries where private landowning (let alone other privileges like private bank debt money issuance and IP monopolies) is well established (i.e., the liberty rights of the landless to support themselves by their own labor have been forcibly removed), but government does not intervene massively on the landless's behalf to rescue them from its inevitable effects. There is no relationship between the copying industry and low wages, as the wages are just as low and working conditions just as bad in industries in those countries that don't involve copying.

      > The historical perspective is rather will presented by Deborah Orr in this week's Observer "From Texas to Dhaka....'' "The everyday horror of post -industrial society is that it deskills and makes passive the people who would once have been making the things that they are now buying in the shops instead - - - -People purchase these products because they're at the cheap price that became the nemesis of the former workshop of the world - - - In fact ,its a fiendish process that rewards an exploitable population until it get too big for its boots ,then leaves it high and dry with only the produce of the next group of victims to keep it afloat". Fashion copying (let alone straight counterfeiting) becomes a race to the bottom in a market so unregulated that workers are systematically exploited and sometimes killed by negligence. Once their labour becomes too expensive (ie. internationally comparable), Capital is off.

      But it is just the same in other industries in those countries that don't involve fashion copying or any other form of violation of IP monopolies. Hundreds of factory workers being killed all at once is a huge international story. But THOUSANDS of landless farm workers being killed over the course of a year by similarly dangerous and exploitative conditions in the agricultural sector is not deemed newsworthy.

      So you are proved wrong, as we both knew would happen all along.

      -- Roy Langston
    • David Reed
      @TRJ Whether something is protected by copyright or trademark is neither here nor there: your faction is against intellectual property rights per se . So
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2013
        @TRJ
        Whether something is protected by copyright or trademark is neither here nor there: your faction is against intellectual property rights per se . So people with trademarks are to be protected  and  people with copyrights not : is that the new revised  battle cry?(Constant revision, as with the LVT exemptions, being the order of the day)  . In British law, where they talk in homely language of the wrongness of " passing off" things which are not authentic, this purely arbitrary distinction is going to be mincemeat. How is JK Rowling going to trademark her books (except by copyright) ? How is Beyoncé Knowles going to trademark her recordings?  
        BTW Trading Standards in the UK are trying to clamp down on fake laser pens -which scar the retina. Is "laser pen" a designated trademark? In your system this is the only desideratum.
         
        Your coda about competition as the great moderator of all things laissez faire is more to the point in the larger aspect of things.
        As JK Rowling  does not have a monopoly of children's fiction ,there is nothing to stop people competing to sell books to children : just not Harry Potter knock-offs. ( BTW copying does not increase the stock of books produced) Similarly Beyoncé does not have a monopoly of her kind of R'n'B; others compete ,but are generally nowhere near as good.
        With computer systems, which  this anti--copyright/monopoly angst seems all about, there is nothing to stop other companies competing with alternative systems. If they don't ,it may be their fault or, as in the case of the Betamax vs VHS  face-off, (where the better system lost out) it is a matter for  enhanced competition law perhaps. (Or you nationalise the lot because its a natural monopoly! Not entirely serious suggestion BTW)
         
        Where competition does lead to a race to the bottom is where the competition is to pay the lowest wages. You evince total confusion when I suggest the producer interest,(presumably more than the consumer interest ) should be protected. But being part of the productive class also makes you a consumer. You cannot produce stuff unless there is enough demand for people to buy them. And they can only buy them if they get proportionate wages. The numbskull British government is headlong in cutting demand and wonders why production has dropped. Even German industrialists are wondering if their opposition to bailing out the Euro Zone is sustainable with 12% unemployment across the region and nobody to buy their exports. The case of Dhaka shows what happens when production is off-shored from places like the UK which have higher wages and better health and safety regimes.
        Your references to the Corn laws & RPM seem out of place in an argument which is already out of place in trying to foist an anti-copyright campaign onto land taxers. For the record, abolishing the Corn laws was an attack on UK corn production in the interests of manufacturers who wanted to pay rock-bottom for imported grain (and as Marx said lower wages). They should have gone for land values then wages would have translated straight to demand in the shops instead of being reduced by rents ( real rents paid for cottages, not the metaphor routinely misused by land taxers).As for RPM: it is pure laissez faire being an agreement between manufacturers and retailers to stop the big retail cartels using predatory discounting which would small shops out of business and interrupt forward planning by manufacturers.  
         

        To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        From: kjetil.r.johansen@...
        Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 07:54:59 +0000
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Fashion industry design protection

         


        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
        >
        > @RLI say that the big fashion houses sell products with an exclusivity premium to uber rich customers: you contradict this by saying they sell to the "rich and famous". There is no difference. Your other point is that the fashion houses may not like copying but they can't do anything about it. In the UK they can. Here local authorities all have Trading Standards officials ,organised nationally into their professional body the Trading Standards Institute
        > (website on Net), who compete to run in fakers and counterfeiters with big stories in the papers about the latest busts. Wandsworth Trading Standards always attracts a lot of publicity.<

        Here you are mixing up trademarks with copyright again. With few exceptions, fashion producers can copy designs, but not labels, counterfeits in fashion are trademark-infringements.

        >Counterfeit videos were a major concern: at one time videos were being sold at unregulated car-boot sales even before hit films had finished their theatrical runs .<

        This however, is copyright infringement.

        >Fashion copying (let alone straight counterfeiting) becomes a race to the bottom in a market so unregulated that workers are systematically exploited and sometimes killed by negligence. Once their labour becomes too expensive (ie. internationally comparable), Capital is off. <

        Explaining the Dhaka factory collapse as a result of the lack of copyrights in fashion is even beyond rational arguments. So any economic activity that is not subject to some sort of monopoly protection, will inevitably lead to a race to the bottom then? I don't even know what to give as an answer. Being that I am brainwashed by the view of markets where competition is the moderator of all non-land economic rents, this whole world of yours, with RPM, corn laws, protection for this and that, is puzzling to me to say the least. Yes there is such a thing as market failures in the short term, that may or may not be smart to correct, but placing producer interests over anything in all policy decisions? No.

        Kj

        Kj


        d
      • roy_langston
        ... Wrong. It is here: copyright reduces production to force up prices for the profit of rent seekers; trademark certifies authenticity of a product s source
        Message 3 of 7 , May 4, 2013
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

          > Whether something is protected by copyright or trademark is neither here nor there:

          Wrong. It is here: copyright reduces production to force up prices for the profit of rent seekers; trademark certifies authenticity of a product's source for the protection of consumers.

          Claiming that the facts that prove you wrong are "neither here nor there" is not much of an argument, sorry.

          > your faction is against intellectual property rights per se .

          Right, because "intellectual property" is a government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege, not a right. Because trademark privileges increase overall utility in the economy, like exclusive land tenure, it would be best to adopt an analogous approach to them: extend the privilege only on the condition that those who receive it repay the publicly created portion of the value they are receiving to the government and public that create it. I don't have any ready-made way to measure that value, but a good enough method could be devised.

          > So people with trademarks are to be protected and people with copyrights not : is that the new revised battle cry?

          Consumers are to be protected, rent seekers no longer privileged.

          > (Constant revision, as with the LVT exemptions, being the order of the day).

          Fabrication.

          > In British law, where they talk in homely language of the wrongness of " passing off" things which are not authentic, this purely arbitrary distinction is going to be mincemeat.

          It's not arbitrary in the least, and far from being "mincemeat," the distinction has been well established for centuries.

          > How is JK Rowling going to trademark her books (except by copyright) ?

          Her name is her trademark. You can't put it on something she didn't write, except by saying "based on" or something like that.

          > How is Beyoncé Knowles going to trademark her recordings?

          They are already trademarked by the record company.

          > BTW Trading Standards in the UK are trying to clamp down on fake laser pens -which scar the retina.

          They aren't fake laser pens. They are overpowered and unsafe laser pens. Lots of unsafe products are kept off the market without resort to copyright, trademark or patent law. You know this. Why pretend you do not?

          > Is "laser pen" a designated trademark? In your system this is the only desideratum.

          Fabrication.

          > Your coda about competition as the great moderator of all things laissez faire is more to the point in the larger aspect of things.As JK Rowling does not have a monopoly of children's fiction ,there is nothing to stop people competing to sell books to children : just not Harry Potter knock-offs.

          And what constitutes a "Harry Potter knock-off" is determined by the courts based on rubber criteria. Rowling's aggressive wielding of her monopoly privilege even prevents the production of books about boy wizards who aren't Harry Potter and aren't mentioned in Rowling's books.

          > (BTW copying does not increase the stock of books produced)

          Self-refuting absurdity. No book but an original manuscript has ever been produced by any means OTHER than copying. The notion that producing an additional copy of a book does not increase the stock of books produced is self-evidently absurd, and astoundingly anti-rational.

          > Similarly Beyoncé does not have a monopoly of her kind of R'n'B; others compete ,but are generally nowhere near as good.

          But no one is allowed to take Beyonce's recordings and remix and augment them to make them even better without paying her off.

          > With computer systems, which this anti--copyright/monopoly angst seems all about,

          Fabrication.

          > there is nothing to stop other companies competing with alternative systems.

          False. Alternative systems that use more than a microscopic amount of copyrighted code or ANY patented technology without paying off the "owners" are banned. It doesn't matter how much better they are, or how much more code and technological innovation has been added, or how small the fraction of copied code or technology is: IP monopoly privileges prohibit their production by force.

          > If they don't ,it may be their fault or, as in the case of the Betamax vs VHS face-off, (where the better system lost out) it is a matter for enhanced competition law perhaps. (Or you nationalise the lot because its a natural monopoly! Not entirely serious suggestion BTW)

          It's more of an absurd suggestion, as there is no natural monopoly involved, nor anything remotely close to one.

          > Where competition does lead to a race to the bottom is where the competition is to pay the lowest wages.

          There is no such competition. Wages are reduced by the Law of Rent, not some fancied competition among employers to pay workers the least. Anyone can offer lower wages. The trick is to get productive workers for those wages.

          > You evince total confusion when I suggest the producer interest,(presumably more than the consumer interest ) should be protected.

          <sigh> Simple question: is it better for society if potatoes sell for $1/kg or $2/kg? Producer interests say the latter price.

          > But being part of the productive class also makes you a consumer.

          Wrong. You are already a consumer whether or not you are part of the productive class.

          > You cannot produce stuff unless there is enough demand for people to buy them.

          False, as proved by all the stuff that has been produced and then languished unsold.

          > And they can only buy them if they get proportionate wages.

          False, as proved by all the rich people who buy lots of stuff without ever earning a wage at all.

          > The case of Dhaka shows what happens when production is off-shored from places like the UK which have higher wages and better health and safety regimes.

          So you do understand that it has nothing to do with clothing designers not having IP monopoly privileges. Good.

          > Your references to the Corn laws & RPM seem out of place in an argument which is already out of place in trying to foist an anti-copyright campaign onto land taxers.

          The discussion was initiated by Walter with a pro-copyright piece.

          > For the record, abolishing the Corn laws was an attack on UK corn production in the interests of manufacturers who wanted to pay rock-bottom for imported grain (and as Marx said lower wages).

          Marx was wrong about nearly everything. So, it's not surprising that you so often refer to him approvingly.

          -- Roy Langston
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.