Re: Fashion industry design protection
- --- 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