Re: 9/10 for the Register's final IPRED round-up

Chris Lightfoot wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:43:36PM +0000, James Heald wrote:
>     [...]
> 
>>>kind of counterfeiting, right through to whiskies and textiles. Fake goods 
>>>aren?t just a rip-off, they can be dangerous too.
> 
> 
> people keep claiming this, and it obviously isn't true.
> Fake goods sell because they're good value; if they were a
> rip-off, people wouldn't buy them.

The claim is that a brand has to worry about its quality reputation; a 
counterfeiter doesn't.

Furthermore, if a counterfeit is already illegal, there is no incentive 
for it to worry about troublesome health and safety requirements. 
Hence all the scare stories about lead paint in toys, teddy bears with 
dangerous springs that could put a child's eye out, poisonous "Vi-/[email protected]", 
garments which aren't fireproof; and dangerously under-spec aircraft 
spare parts.

That's why we would have supported the Cappato amendment, limiting the 
directive to intentional commercial copyright and trademark 
infringements.  (although we might have preferred "knowingly intentional").




> 
> For the consumer, they're probably a good thing, at least
> in the short term; in the longer term, it's *possible*
> that counterfeiting will decrease investment in the
> production of goods and cause prices to rise. But that's
> not obvious -- in particular, the manufacturers of the
> fake goods will themselves benefit, perhaps by more than
> the manufacturers of the original goods lose out.
> 
> Let's not mistake the Enforcement Directive for a measure
> intended to protect consumers. It's there to help existing
> manufacturers of `branded' goods.
>