| | |
|
ChristinaYoun-SecondPaper 9 - 20 Apr 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- ChristinaYoun - 01 Apr 2008 | | | Conclusion
The CFDA’s copyright endeavors seem to be shortsighted. It is trying to stretch IP laws in a direction that has traditionally shunned it and has thrived because of its absence. If its motive is truly to protect the “originality” of the Houses, then it should make more effective use of the trademark laws already in place or push for more stringent penalties for counterfeiting or infringing on their logos and prints. | |
>
> |
- "Copyright" here means only a struggle for control. Of course the fashion houses aren't going to kill geese that lay golden eggs: they're going to tax them. You and I may both believe that only a weak form of property right will avoid reducing the overall profitability of the garment "sector" of the economy. But copyright allows the holder to capture the benefit of whatever increase in price the "infringer's" customers would pay without reducing total revenue, even if that reduces the copyists's profitability, so long as it doesn't put them out of business. Working women, unlike high fashion's customers, care what they pay for clothes. So the Houses are trying to "monetize" their designs by forcing up the copyists' prices a little bit and keeping the rise for themselves in license fees. Lots of possible fee structures would "allow young designers to succeed," etc. These guys aren't entirely stupid, and they aren't trying to ruin the industry: they just want to make some more bucks at someone else's expense. I am as much of a copyright minimalist as the next guy, or in fact more, but I can't see why I should care about the outcome of a fight over money between the thugs who run the copyists' and the thugs who run the Houses. If you want to present this as an issue to be concerned about, you need to offer something more ponderable than the prediction of a parade of horribles none of which makes economic sense, and therefore is most unlikely to occur.
| | | | |
<
< |
Hi Christina,
Not sure where you plan to go with the paper but I thought you might want to consult this short article I read this summer. It was either in the New Yorker or The Economist. Don't remember... Anyways, the article argues that copies are actually good for the fashion industry because mass reproduction of trends "forces" fashionable women to buy new Fall, Spring, and Resort lines. They argue that fashionable women don't want to wear, say leggings or florals, once everyone begins to wear them. Stores like Forever 21 are good for higher name brands. | | | | |
<
< | Also there was this article last week in the New York Times (i admit i did not finish reading it) last week about how luxury brands are backing away from branding and moving towards more quiet and classic luxury. Something something recession fashion. The move away from logos is not exactly big news but it's still interesting. Muted luxury is an interesting form of conspicious consumption. Only those versed in the codes can read the outfit. | | | | |
<
< | Just some thoughts. Hope this helps even though I don't really know your topic. | | | | |
<
< | Thanks Thalia, I think I may have read those same articles in the New York Times. The first article you mentioned is actually what inspired this forthcoming paper, so you're right on. The webpage crashed when I was trying to edit so I didn't exactly do a good job of laying out my paper. I'll try to edit again later today so you'll actually have some substantive material to comment on. Thanks for your interest and please leave more comments! | >
> | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |