Fashion and Intellectual Property: "So Called Piracy, Actually Drives Industry"

[Dauphin]

I think the analogy would be more like paying steak prices for ground beef because it has a label. Why bother? (Is it a fair reflection, I don't know, but that is his position I would guess)

I don't buy 'labelled', and I don't buy flea market or ASDA. I prefer a quality good enough to ensure the clothes last, but won't pay silly money just because it says "GAP". Give me BHS, Marks and Spencer or Next any day.

[Dauphin]

Actually, I just checked BHS

http://www.bhs.co.uk/

Why is Gordon Ramsey designing clothes?

[MRT144]

right, but this isnt about your personal choices, or rich's personal choices and anectdotes about them. its about the general public and the fashion following people who DO pay higher amounts for similar styles, and why the fashion industry is an anamoly in positional goods.

i think a large part of it has to do with percieved value of a product based on its price, scaricity, etc etc and how that is not adaptable to any other form of positional good, which the study aknowledges.

I dont care if anyone and everyone on this board from the commonwealth is cheap and miserly

[Dauphin]

Most people aren't into designer labels, just as most people aren't into fine dining.

Examples:

https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://search.ft.com/searchResults?queryText=value+retailers+grab&x=0&y=0&javascriptEnabled=true&location=http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/686cabde-67bb-11db-8ea5-0000779e2340.html

Value retailers grab larger share of clothes market

By Elizabeth Rigby,Retail Correspondent

Published: October 30 2006 02:00 | Last updated: October 30 2006 02:00

Shoppers are spurning mid-market clothing brands in favour of cheap and cheerful clothing from the likes of Primark, George at Asda, New Look and Florence and Fred at Tesco.

Verdict Research, the retail consultancy, says that more than 98 per cent of growth in the clothing market in 2005 and 2006 will come from value retailers, as price-sensitive shoppers hunt for bargains.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Most people aren't into designer labels, just as most people aren't into fine dining.

Examples:

https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://search.ft.com/searchResults?queryText=value+retailers+grab&x=0&y=0&javascriptEnabled=true&location=http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/686cabde-67bb-11db-8ea5-0000779e2340.html

Value retailers grab larger share of clothes market

By Elizabeth Rigby,Retail Correspondent

Published: October 30 2006 02:00 | Last updated: October 30 2006 02:00

Shoppers are spurning mid-market clothing brands in favour of cheap and cheerful clothing from the likes of Primark, George at Asda, New Look and Florence and Fred at Tesco.

Verdict Research, the retail consultancy, says that more than 98 per cent of growth in the clothing market in 2005 and 2006 will come from value retailers, as price-sensitive shoppers hunt for bargains.

im shocked! is there such thing as value music? and value movies?

[Dauphin]

It was a response to this rather derogatory comment....

I dont care if anyone and everyone on this board from the commonwealth is cheap and miserly

It's not about being cheap and miserly is my retort.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've no interest in defending the music industry, but this is not a fair comparison, because music is digital and clothing is, well, analog. With digital piracy, the pirated version is indistinguishable from the original; 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's. But with fashion piracy, the pirated copy is almost always inferior in quality, if only slightly. Pirated Versace is distinguishable from real Versace, to the trained eye; pirated cd's and mp3's are generally not distinguishable from the "originals."

So this works well for the fashion industry; someone who buys fake Versace helps spread the name and whet the appetite for the real thing. But there is no "real thing" in digital media, so that dynamic doesn't work the same way.

[Fake Boris]

I was about to answer something to that order, but the conclusion seems reasonable to me and not far-fetched:

Nonetheless, the paper may be a good first step in moving beyond traditional, blanket assumptions about the relationship between copying and innovation, and it may spur legal scholars to develop more detailed models of intellectual property that fit specific industries. The paper also suggests that when technological and market conditions change dramatically, as they have in the wake of the P2P revolution, the relationship between unauthorized copying and incentives to create may change dramatically as well.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Why is Gordon Ramsey designing clothes?

Is the advertising slogan something like 'You can f**king f**k off c**t if you don't like them, c**t!'

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've no interest in defending the music industry, but this is not a fair comparison, because music is digital and clothing is,

Doesn't matter. The point is that by ignoring "intellectual property" artists can use existing designs in new and original ways. Copyrights actually stifle innovation, because it limits what you are able to do. Anyone who thinks that artists won't produce new works of art if their works aren't protected doesn't know many real artists.

Art isn't done for money. It's a drive, a compulsion. Artists make new art because they have to make art. Okay, maybe we'd have a few less Metallica tunes or Steven King books, but those guys stopped being original long ago.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MRT144
also a product in fashion is usually priced according to its quality, raririty, etc etc, whereas music and videos have a standardize price in spite of quality

That's partially true. Then again there are lots of designer jeans selling for $150 per pair which use the same material and style as the $29 pair at the discount store.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Doesn't matter. The point is that by ignoring "intellectual property" artists can use existing designs in new and original ways. Copyrights actually stifle innovation, because it limits what you are able to do. Anyone who thinks that artists won't produce new works of art if their works aren't protected doesn't know many real artists.

Art isn't done for money. It's a drive, a compulsion. Artists make new art because they have to make art. Okay, maybe we'd have a few less Metallica tunes or Steven King books, but those guys stopped being original long ago.

IP protection both stifle innovation, and support it. This has always been true, and will continue to be so It stifles it (by limiting the re-use of themes, limiting the viral popularity factor (ie, youTube generated popularity), etc.; it enhances innovation by ensuring a monetary payoff to the creator, and ensuring the creative work is not changed without the creator's permission (ie, star wars/george lucas). That's why copyright is important, but not giving it too much power (as it has now) is also important.

The important thing I think is the owner of the copyright. A musician may well have a substantially different incentive to permit use of his/her copyrighted materials than a record label. Being realistic, and not idealistic, given that record labels own most copyrights in the music industry, it is substantially less in their interests to permit more widespread sharing... they don't really care about true creativity, as there's a fairly set available market for music which will be fulfilled regardless of how good the music is (within limits).

Thus, the question is how do we show record labels that copyright as it currently stands is not benefiting them? More than likely it will take a combination of legal actions (either changing the laws, removing some of the protections and shortening copyright, or the courts changing their interpretation of such) and the existence of new licensing schema (in the sense that the new Napster is a new licensing sceme) that permit more aggressive sharing or remove restrictions in a way that financially benefits the recording industry, either by increasing sales through a new distribution channel or by providing a more stable income stream (like napster does).

It's when we stop thinking about intellectual property from the point of view of the creator, and start thinking from the point of view of the businessman that actual progress can happen in the IP arena...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That's partially true. Then again there are lots of designer jeans selling for $150 per pair which use the same material and style as the $29 pair at the discount store.

That's of course because of 'name brand' price, which is the rarity aspect. That's the point of the above article, really - people buy clothes because of the status the name brand conveys on them, which is not (as) true in other arenas such as music.

Though I would ask whether that's entirely true - certainly people listen to certain performers, especially in arenas where others can hear what they listen to, because of popularity and status ... more so in the young (<21) than in older adults, but still present.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Doesn't matter. The point is that by ignoring "intellectual property" artists can use existing designs in new and original ways. Copyrights actually stifle innovation, because it limits what you are able to do. Anyone who thinks that artists won't produce new works of art if their works aren't protected doesn't know many real artists.

And anyone who thinks that artists will only produce art if they have absolutely free access to the works of their contemporaries also doesn't know many real artists, or much history. Let's just stipulate that that doesn't apply to either of us.

That's a good argument to remove copyright protection from practices like sampling. But most intellectualy property violation isn't about artists using existing designs in new and original ways; its about suburban kids who can well afford the music (check out their computer setups and ipods) downloading unauthorized copies. Come to think of it, the argument for enabling artists implies that there should have been an explosion of creativity in music and movies in the age of the download; gotta say, I haven't noticed that.

Again, I care not one whit about the pissing and moaning of the music and movie industries over this issue; I just think the comparison to fashion is intellectually dishonest.

[Sava]

Originally posted by snoopy369


IP protection both stifle innovation, and support it.

YOUR FACE both stifles innovation and supports it