$7,000 fine for sharing / pirating an ebook

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Economic models usually assume that people are rational maximizers, but paying a premium for a handbag, not because it is a better handbag, but for the name on it isn't rational.

I am not an area (economic modeling) expert, but it seems to me that the list of "irrational" behaviours is rather long. With a very few exceptions (basic food, heating/cooling, lodging) practically everything about the consumerism is irrational. We throw out (give away) perfectly serviceable clothes when they go out of the fashion, we buy an ebook when our TBR list is already too long, and the list goes on and on and on...

The handbag might be on the extreme side, but in essence, it is impossible to criticize it without taking vow of poverty first. I am, definitely, not worthy.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by teh603

The difference is that the "fake" watches and handbags are often the same quality as the expensive ones. The added cost is just to pay some over-priced designer whose stuff looks the same as that from every other over-priced designer.

It also illustrates one of the bigger lies of capitalism, that in a free market the cost of purchase will approach that of production.

You are so wrong as far as watches go. "Fake" watches have extremely cheap movements and other parts. The quality of the metal is cheaper. Most are fold plated and the plating is so thin it might last a couple of months. The pins holding the links together are also inferior and the bands tend to fall apart after a short period of time. If they are copying a Rolex or one of those they are not even in the race as far as anything goes. And I do not like Rolex personally.
Back in the 1990's Hong Kong passed a law stating that watches assembled in Hong Kong, assembled from 100% Swiss parts could legally be called Swiss Watches.
Apache

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Economic models usually assume that people are rational maximizers, but paying a premium for a handbag, not because it is a better handbag, but for the name on it isn't rational.

You are getting it wrong. A rational maximizer means he tries to obtain the maximum benefit in term of his expectations, it doesn't mean those expectations are rational.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Apache

You are so wrong as far as watches go. "Fake watches have extremely cheap movements and other parts. The quality of the metal is cheaper. Most are fold plated and the plating is so thin it might last a couple of months. The pins holding the links together are also inferior and the bands tend to fall apart after a short period of time. If they are copying a Rolex or one of those they are not even in the race as far as anything goes.

Actually, you're the one who is wrong as far as watches go. Sure, the vast majority of fakes sit somewhere between utter crap and substandard, but fake watches featuring genuine or duplicated ETA movements are easy to come by. There's really no need to use cheaper metal, because the correct grade of steel is cheap to begin with. Plating will vary of course, but again it's often just as thick and just as durable as the genuine article. In fact, some fake watches today are so well made that all parts are interchangeable with real parts and only a watchmaker with extensive brand experience will be able to identify it as fake with certainty.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

You are getting it wrong. A rational maximizer means he tries to obtain the maximum benefit in term of his expectations, it doesn't mean those expectations are rational.

I understand the concept of the rational maximizer quite well. A person who spends a fortune on a bag just for the name on it isn't making a rational caluculation from flawed premises. If there was some tangible benefit to the designer bag, such as being seen with it could lead to higher status, and result in benefits such as getting promotions at work, better service in stores etc., that might be a possibility. But even if there were such benefits, the rational maximizer would be buying the knock off. You get the same benefit of being seen with the expensive brand name, the only person that knows the difference is you.

[MikeOxlittle]

This means that aside from the $7,000 in damages from Carpenter, the book publisher may have raked in more than a million dollars though private settlements. Private settlements are usually around $3,000 per person, which quickly adds up with hundreds of defendants.

Lots of lawyers are taking advantage with these 'easy' lawsuits.

They don't charge their clients any fees, they just get a portion of the settlements which still ends up being a lot of money ... especially when they do stuff like this lawyer.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Actually, you're the one who is wrong as far as watches go. Sure, the vast majority of fakes sit somewhere between utter crap and substandard, but fake watches featuring genuine or duplicated ETA movements are easy to come by. There's really no need to use cheaper metal, because the correct grade of steel is cheap to begin with. Plating will vary of course, but again it's often just as thick and just as durable as the genuine article. In fact, some fake watches today are so well made that all parts are interchangeable with real parts and only a watchmaker with extensive brand experience will be able to identify it as fake with certainty.

I think you might be misunderstanding the difference between generic parts for high-line watches and knockoff watches of major brands. Have you ever opened up both knockoff watches and compared them to the real watch? Or taken the bands apart and compare them? I do this all the time and have yet to see a knockoff that uses high quality parts. Most of the knockoff copies are not even water resistant at all. They use pot metals that are soft and corrode when in contact with perspiration. Knockoffs do not even use stainless steel cases. And no you can not take parts from a knockoff and use it interchangeably with a genuine watch. Or visa versa.
Apache

[AndrewH]

Can one really call an ebook, regardless of origin, a knockoff?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Apache

I think you might be misunderstanding the difference between generic parts for high-line watches and knockoff watches of major brands.

Sorry, no.

Have you ever opened up both knockoff watches and compared them to the real watch? Or taken the bands apart and compare them?

I have. I own several genuine watches, some of which I service myself when needed (the manual ones; I am not confident enough to touch the automatics). I have also sat through several full services of my other watches. The watchmaker who services my automatics has a small selection of "high-end" fakes lying around his workshop, which for all intents and purposes are indistinguishable from the real thing. They are correct in all markings and measurements and for that reason do indeed accept the genuine parts without modification. Basically they cannot be told apart from the real thing without opening the case, at which time they are only distinguishable because the inside finishing is substandard. This according to my watchmaker, not me, since he's the guy with 30+ years of experience. They also have genuine ETA movements, or very competent copies, and are basically identical to their real siblings in all respects other than price and interior finishing.

So yes, such watches do exist regardless of the fact that you have not seen any.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98907191/Defauly-Dummy

"Counterfeiting" seems to be a new charge for this sort of thing, I don't think I've seen that one before. Usually that is reserved for people creating something with the intention of fooling people into thinking it is the real item. Like a fake handbag or something.

Have you got a link for the rest of this case?

I think I'd like to see some more background info before I come to some sort of appreciation of the issues at stake.

Thanks.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Sorry, no.



I have. I own several genuine watches, some of which I service myself when needed (the manual ones; I am not confident enough to touch the automatics). I have also sat through several full services of my other watches. The watchmaker who services my automatics has a small selection of "high-end" fakes lying around his workshop, which for all intents and purposes are indistinguishable from the real thing. They are correct in all markings and measurements and for that reason do indeed accept the genuine parts without modification. Basically they cannot be told apart from the real thing without opening the case, at which time they are only distinguishable because the inside finishing is substandard. This according to my watchmaker, not me, since he's the guy with 30+ years of experience. They also have genuine ETA movements, or very competent copies, and are basically identical to their real siblings in all respects other than price and interior finishing.

So yes, such watches do exist regardless of the fact that you have not seen any.

I do this for a living and the majority of these are very substandard, especially the movements. High end knockoffs are extremely rare in the watch business. Don't get me wrong I think most high end watches are over priced. But, most people are not willing to pay the extra dollars a high end knockoff costs.
Rolex and Movado are some of the worst. I have seen Movado refuse to work on one of their watches because the leather band was not theirs. To get warranty work done the owner had to buy a Movado Band.
Apache

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

A person who spends a fortune on a bag just for the name on it isn't making a rational caluculation from flawed premises.

A prominent Venusian in my life has read a riot act to me long time ago on that particular issue. From what I learned that day, a Venusian never-ever dresses up for a Martian, we are hopeless when it comes to noticing the difference. It is all done against other Venusians. And that poor watchmaker from Belfaborac post is but an amateur when it comes to Venusians' ability to spot imperfection or simply feel a knockoff.

Flawed premise?

[Edward M. Grant]

Originally Posted by teh603

It also illustrates one of the bigger lies of capitalism, that in a free market the cost of purchase will approach that of production.

A free market doesn't have patents, trademarks and copyrights. You can see that a free market ensures the cost of purchase approaches the cost of production because the people who ignore those government-mandated monopolies are often selling the same product from the same factory for a fraction of the price.

You can certainly argue that patents, trademarks and copyright are beneficial, but you can't blame the free market when government intervention pushes prices up.

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

A free market doesn't have patents, trademarks and copyrights.

Actually, the free market is a bit of a contradiction in this respect. You are right: a free market doesn't have artificial restrictions like patents, copyrights, or trademarks. On the other hand, the free market also depends upon property rights. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are exactly that -- property rights. Unfortunately, this contradiction is going to become more and more acute as these intellectual properties (and yes, I hate that term) become less and less entangled with their physical counterparts.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant

A free market doesn't have patents, trademarks and copyrights. You can see that a free market ensures the cost of purchase approaches the cost of production because the people who ignore those government-mandated monopolies are often selling the same product from the same factory for a fraction of the price.

You can certainly argue that patents, trademarks and copyright are beneficial, but you can't blame the free market when government intervention pushes prices up.

Property rights are basically the same whether you are talking about intellectual property or real property (i.e., real estate). Land would also be a lot cheaper if the government didn't declare one person to be the "owner" and provide remedies for that person to defend his property against encroachment.

For that matter, stolen cars are usually cheaper than the equivalent car bought from the actual owner with a government enforced monopoly on the use of that car.