tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post2977214024404770569..comments2007-11-04T20:57:01.855-05:00MTTLR Blog Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06708262595265238217noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-68814472300078855092007-11-04T20:55:00.000-05:002007-11-04T20:55:00.000-05:00The topic as you presented had many interesting points and was well thought and written. However, I do not believe that clothing should be copyrighted for a couple of reasons. Our court system is already overburdened with legal matters. The cost of a lawsuit, regardless of whether it’s legitimate or not, is so expensive it would put new designers out of business. To avoid competition, wealthy houses would just keep upstart design houses in the court system. The second problem I see is there would then be a need to copyright fabrics. Fabric houses sell the same patterns to many designers and the designer doesn’t necessarily own the fabric. This is the reason the two dresses in your blog look identical. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in the article, “Check out the new threads,” Italian manufactures have solved this copycat syndrome by commissioning small runs of high-tech new fabrics. These fabrics are too expensive and exclusive for cheap retailers to knock off. In addition to coming up with exclusive designs, there are new blends of synthetic fabrics that contain rubber and nylon with natural fibers. The new fiber combinations drape differently allowing new shapes in clothing that are difficult to replicate. In response to the designer complaint regarding lost sale due to cheap replicas, honestly a Forever 21 customer is not going to buy a Diane Von Furstenberg dress anyway. High-end designer clothing is about creativity and new design. Let’s find creative ways to solve this problem and stay out of the legal system.ADChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04369880064103457557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2707677879553737512.post-52775241134002095322007-10-22T21:49:00.000-04:002007-10-22T21:49:00.000-04:00You argue that knock-offs will "enhance the prestige of and desire for the original high fashion brand." Even if this is overstated, I at least agree that knock-offs don't <I>decrease</I> the prestige of and desire for the original brand.<BR/><BR/>The arguments in favor of copyright protection aren't new, though. In 1997, for instance, a law student named Jennifer Mencken argued:<BR/><BR/>"Fashion designers have always been known for their quality of design, materials and construction. In the race to compete with the design pirates, the apparel industry has continually eliminated these elements." <A HREF="http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1997121201.html" REL="nofollow">link at footnote 138</A>.<BR/><BR/>If Mencken is right that knock-offs decrease "quality of design, materials and construction," copyright protection seems like a fairly logical way to resolve the problem. In addition, it seems that any policy argument against copyright protection needs to address the question of decreased quality.<BR/><BR/>Do you think Mencken is just factually wrong, or do you think she may be right but that, from a policy standpoint, it doesn't matter?Kurt Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10522590544227407684noreply@blogger.com