verticalhorizon
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 840
Ok, I lied... here's my continued input...
When you're dealing with anything so original that it requires protection of any type, part of the profit margin and pricing structure is to cover a certain level of anticipated loss.
When a shoplifter steals a $40 dollar shirt, it will eventually cost everyone an extra $0.15 somewhere down the line in increased prices elsewhere in the store. This is most apparent in computer software, where it has been a problem ever since... well, since computer software's been around. Part of the exorbitant price of MS Office is development, anticipated loss (as in piracy), overhead, and general Bill Gates greed/monopoly.
This markup is factored into the price before it ever hits the public. Does it make it right to profit from someone else's hard work? No. But does it mean a young couple, starting out early in life are criminals b/c they wanted to have something similar to Tiffany's without the pricetag? Hardly.
Again, the tipping point here is that if one person asks their favorite jeweler to work with them to design something similar to a famous designer for their own use. The jeweler has the right to say they are not comfortable with that project.
Where it becomes unethical is when you conspire to copy designs for profit or deception. This would entail if the couple wanted to copy a famous design to sell on eBay under the false pretense of the Tiffany brand name (for Tiffany like prices).
Patent holders and copyright holders can complain all they want (it's their right to do so) if someone is benefiting from their work. I certainly would be upset if someone was duplicating my hard work. But don't tell me they don't know ahead of time that copies are a part of the 'game.' You have to pick your battles.
Would Vera Wang rather chase a 22 year old bride down the street b/c she had enough talent to sew her own similar version of a bridal gown for herself or instead set her lawers out to get some basement company in Hong Kong that is producing SHODDY knock-offs with Vera's actual name on them for a profit and public deception?
I believe there is a difference and it's intent.
PS: If you choose to quote me, quote the whole post.
When you're dealing with anything so original that it requires protection of any type, part of the profit margin and pricing structure is to cover a certain level of anticipated loss.
When a shoplifter steals a $40 dollar shirt, it will eventually cost everyone an extra $0.15 somewhere down the line in increased prices elsewhere in the store. This is most apparent in computer software, where it has been a problem ever since... well, since computer software's been around. Part of the exorbitant price of MS Office is development, anticipated loss (as in piracy), overhead, and general Bill Gates greed/monopoly.
This markup is factored into the price before it ever hits the public. Does it make it right to profit from someone else's hard work? No. But does it mean a young couple, starting out early in life are criminals b/c they wanted to have something similar to Tiffany's without the pricetag? Hardly.
Again, the tipping point here is that if one person asks their favorite jeweler to work with them to design something similar to a famous designer for their own use. The jeweler has the right to say they are not comfortable with that project.
Where it becomes unethical is when you conspire to copy designs for profit or deception. This would entail if the couple wanted to copy a famous design to sell on eBay under the false pretense of the Tiffany brand name (for Tiffany like prices).
Patent holders and copyright holders can complain all they want (it's their right to do so) if someone is benefiting from their work. I certainly would be upset if someone was duplicating my hard work. But don't tell me they don't know ahead of time that copies are a part of the 'game.' You have to pick your battles.
Would Vera Wang rather chase a 22 year old bride down the street b/c she had enough talent to sew her own similar version of a bridal gown for herself or instead set her lawers out to get some basement company in Hong Kong that is producing SHODDY knock-offs with Vera's actual name on them for a profit and public deception?
I believe there is a difference and it's intent.
PS: If you choose to quote me, quote the whole post.
300x240.png)