[Brownbear]

I'm talking about people who sell not similar, but identical, branded, fake, counterfeit products, to sell Louis Viutton handbags that you know aren't. And to buy such items, knowing that they're pirate copies. Given that the goods are a rip-off in the first place (IMO), I can't get very het up about people trading pirate copies for far less.

[cab]

I agree. But then again, its also wrong (in my opinion) for firms to compete on the false perception of quality maintained through aggressive advertising and high prices rather than through actual quality, service or price.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but to an extent is this kind of thing as much 'direct action' or 'civil disobedience' as simple criminality? Guess I'm probably giving too much credit to simple thieves, though

[twoscoops]

Absolutely, and if people want to buy the brand products then let them spend thier money the way they want to. People who knowingly buy snide handbags are fooling themselves.

[cab]

Are they really though?

Take, say, sports shoes. Do you think that they're manufactured in better run factories with higher standards of staff welfare? Do you believet they're more 'ethical' than the knock off copies? Are they even of a better quality than the copies?

Suppose someone buys fake ones knowing that they'll fool others but not themselves. Is that not simply taking the mickey out of fools who pay over the odds for goods that simply aren't any better?

I accept that theft of a persons or a companies IP is, very simply, wrong. But also theres something quite shameful about being the driving force in pushing a false perception of value; I'm not sure why thats considered ethically acceptable, its simply exploiting a psychological flaw that many (most?) people have. Two wrongs do not make a right, of course, but where it comes to some of the big international brands selling tat with a label on it, I'm not clear why the fraudsters are any worse than those who produce the 'genuine article'.

[twoscoops]

I think they are, as If you want to wear clothes or handbags with an inflated price tag because of its label that's fine, but you may as well buy one decently made by M&S than buy fake ones.

As for better run factories with better welfare standards, or more ethical, certainly not. But that isn't the issue. Sports shoe aren't a good example, as the top brands invariably are of better quality because of the R&D that goes into producing them. However, I do think that designer label product usually are of better quality re stitching and fabric, but I choose not to buy them.

Designer handbags or clothes are expensive. They choose to market themselves in expensive ways and keep prices very high to maintain an air of exclusivity.

Branded painkillers such as Anadin are expensive, they are no different to chemists cheap painkillers but they have huge marketing budgets to achieve market share.

Branded trainers are expensive, they sponsor events and sports people and have big marketing budgets.

It is up to us to choose what we feel is value for money and what is not. Ripping off brand owners is wrong, be it an international fashion house or a westcountry farmhouse cheesemaker. Someone has worked hard to develop a brand and they should be allowed to reap the benefits.

[cab]

Don't get me wrong, for the most part I agree with you here. But there comes a point where you have to question the morality of an orgnisation; that doesn't mean that you can, singlehandedly, decide to rip them off. But it does mean that very often I, as an individual, simply don't care that they're being robbed. If they're offering no actual quality improvement for the purpose to which the product is being put (like, say, sports shoes, which are great for actually doing sport but not for the most part for the daily wearing they're being sold for any better than the copies) and they're marketing based on brand image, thus exploiting well characterised psychological trickery (which is itself of dubious morality) then I'd be more willing to cut them some slack after they've put their own 'moral' house in order.

As I've said, two wrongs dont make a right.

[vegplot]

I've heard of the last two but not the first. However, I could hardly be described as a fashion guru or even follower.

[tahir]

But are there people that buy dodgy LV bags and organic/fair trade veg?

[vegplot]

Because they commit fraud. A legitimate company using third world labour can offer a better employment opportunities than an equivalent fraudulent company who operate outside the laws of their country.

[tahir]

Because they commit fraud. A legitimate company using third world labour can offer a better employment opportunities than an equivalent fraudulent company who operate outside the laws of their country.

[cab]

That doesn't mean that they do though, and as the laws of many states where such goods are manufactured are so lax, it isn't clear that there is always an advantage in buying 'name brand' over cheaper goods or counterfeit goods.

And really, isn't an organisation spending money on brand identity such that the mere appearance of a logo makes people believe that a product is better than it really is actually, morally, better? Legally, you're right, but morally? Is it not simply exploitative to advertise aggressively to create a brand perception that may be unrelated to the real properties of the product? There has been plenty of psychological research done on this; its blatant exploitation of a well known phenomenon to sell a product based on perception rather than any real quality or value. I'm not convinced that such is even vaguely ethical.

But, again, two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd be quite conflicted if someone was defrauding such a company with the stated aim of eliciting change in the companies policy; such civil disobedience could well have a strong moral and ethical basis. But as the reality is that these fraudsters aren't doing that, I don't have to resolve that conflict and decide where I'd stand on that...

[cab]

Granted, they're operating outside the law and much of how they operate is unacceptable. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

[Jonnyboy]

Because they commit fraud. A legitimate company using third world labour can offer a better employment opportunities than an equivalent fraudulent company who operate outside the laws of their country.

[cab]

No, it doesn't excuse or condone fraud; but it does make me care rather less about it.

Or, to put it another way, suppose company (x) is selling a product that is in no way very special. Yet they're spending millions on advertising, celebrity link ups, and on supporting their brand. As such, their product has a higher perceived value, and people are paying more money for it than they otherwise would. Its how brands are used to sell, and its a form of legalised confidence trick.

Now, if this brand is being counterfeited, obviously neither you nor I would condone that because such fake goods are being made illegally and without paying taxes on sales, etc. Thats all bad. But do you, personally, care that company (x) is losing out? The practice of selling based on perceived value, on creating a valuable 'brand' without any real quality or value to validate that, does that not in any way make you care less about knock off goods?

Lets make it more real, lets go back to sports shoes. Most of them aren't sold for track running or doing sports in, they're sold as every day wear, and people buy branded goods not because they're better for purpose, harder wearing or more comfortable but because they're perceived to have greater worth and status, and that comes from advertising and cost. A lot of schoolkids wouldn't be seen dead in non-branded trainers. Now I, personally, wouldn't condone pirating these items. But I also don't see the crime of doing so as much worse than the ethically dubious practices of those companies marketing these products the way they do. Like I keep saying, two wrongs don't make a right, but I might not personally care so much if some organisation that is always in the wrong is getting ripped off.

[twoscoops]

I don't think that it is acceptable for somebody to either buy or sell them.

Selling dodgy Prada purses out of a suitcase on Regent Street or in a pub puts genuine traders at a disadvantage. They have to pay rent, business rates and VAT. They offer employment to many people and these are things that drive our economy and provide services.

[Jonnyboy]

And such companies employ people according to current legislation, pay tax, and employ a whole plethora of people in the supply chain, both directly and indirectly. So they have a cumulative economic effect. If people choose to spend their disposable income in such a way it is their right. And illegal operations which jeapodise that take money away from the economy. If louis vitton goes bust because their brand image is damaged to a degree that the product no longer has any perceived image then it's easy to see the harmful effect it has on employment.

[cab]

Counterfeit goods are sold far more widely than that. A proportion of good sold at 'reputable' highstreet stores also turn out to be be fake; very often the entry of fake goods goes on quite a long way up in the supply chain, this can be especially true for pharmaceuticals (leading to big drugs companies tearing their hair out looking for ways to stop what is a costly and potentially dangerous practice). None of thats good, but it does hilight that the issue is more complex than you portray; it ain't just Del Boy selling dubious products on the market, this is a problem that so deeply permeates many sectors of retail that it is very hard to really measure the negative (and positive) impacts it has on the economy.

But again, I doubt whether anyone would disagree with the points you're making, I certainly wouldn't. Its the wider ethical position of the companies that cry foul over this issue that interests me here.

[vegplot]

I don't see it as a moral issue but a business and legal one.

Neither do I make the distinction between brand x and brand y on moral grounds both of whom may have their goods produce in low cost labour markets with brand x making a much larger profit margin. I feel sorry for the fools who buy into brands just for the name.

[Rob R]

food too

[Maxwell Smart]

My impression is that the issue that you are trying to raise is whether or not there is a place for luxury goods in a sustainble/downsizery world rather than whether ripping them off is good or not.

And here I would argue that not only is there certainly a place for such goods but that in many cases they are more sustainable choices than mass produced options.

But perhaps first and foremost is what is your definition of a luxury good? The problem is that the luxury goods industry has evolved into two very different streams of goods.

The first is that which most consumers now associate with being luxury goods and are really no more than branded goods which are trading on their name. This is particularly true of companies such as Prada. Here I would agree that the companies are taking advantage of the consumer’s need to have a fashionable and hence covetable item at any price. However you need to remember that they are also selling dreams – and if you want that dream you will buy their goods.

However I think it is important to realise that not all luxury good companies are the same. It is this second, or “Authentic Luxury,” which is the sustainable choice and was the predominant luxury up until the latter half of the last century.

This luxury is about creating goods which are better made, often in small workshops, and of better materials. This makes the goods more durable and longer lasting than "inferior" goods. These products are often made using traditional techniques which would otherwise be lost as they are too time consuming and hence costly to use on mass produced goods. It takes about a day to produce a typical LV bag.

Remember that many luxury goods companies, particularly in the baggage industry since LV has been mentioned, came about because they were creating a better product more suitable to the hardships of long distance travel.

Most French luxury good companies produce their goods in small ateliers in France - so no they do not use the same sweatshops that the imitation goods use. Half of the cachet in buying a luxury good item is the fact that the label says "Made in France" or "Made in Italy". LV when I last checked produced all their bags in developed countries and in their own factories.

Most people I know with “luxury goods” bags have had them for many many years if not decades. The same can not usually be said of cheaper bags. The fact that the goods are handmade, last longer, and are made in the EU makes them a lot more sustainable than a cheaper good which is made in China, shipped to the UK and then replaced in a year or two.

And of course there is a price premium for something which not everyone has access to as well. Of course this price premium is what allows the second type of luxury company to use more skilled labourers and create more ethically produced goods.

And "legal" imitations do exist in the form of most high street variants which copy whatever the leading fashion houses are doing. After all it is these luxury companies which are pushing the boundaries of fashion and evolving what everyone wears – whether or not they purchase luxury goods.

[vegplot]

A good example is the flood of dangerous chargers which recently found their way into the UK.

[cab]

I don't see it as a moral issue but a business and legal one.

Neither do I make the distinction between brand x and brand y on moral grounds both of whom may have their goods produce in low cost labour markets with brand x making a much larger profit margin. I feel sorry for the fools who buy into brands just for the name.

[cab]

(remainder cut, not 'cos it is any way poorly argued, it isn't, its just not really the point I was raising).

Your impression is incorrect

I think that mass production and big business are perfectly compatible with 'downsizery' concerns; some things are more financially and environmentally efficient if done in large bulk, and of course the simple economies of scale and free market competition mean that all of us save a bob or two on all sorts of essential goods and services that we need if we aspire to live on (or with) less.

My question here is not even about luxury goods (hence the example I've used, sports shoes). The issue I've raised here is exactly as I've stated it; I don't believe that the creation of brand value as a tool to allow a manufacturer to maintain a higher price (utilising really simple and now well characterised psychology to do so) is always ethical. Trading on real value and quality is. Where those companies who spend vast amounts on such brand identity complain about fraudsters ripping them off, well, yes, they have a point, the fraudsters are in the wrong. I don't seek to justify such fraud, but I would call into question the ethics of companies who end up in that position. And as for those products which show little benefit over cheaper (and knock off) versions, it is in part the very creation of such brand images that leads to their brands being the targets of fraud; so I think that a valid ethical stance is to be against such branding (and big business advertising and the psychological confidence tricks this entails) and against the fraudsters.

[cab]

They are indeed... Sort of.

Put two cans of cola in front of someone. Let some people see the labels. More will choose the 'branded' one if they can see the brand. Certain parts of the brain light up when brands are recognised, and advertisers know this, which is why adverts are as much about brand recognition as about products. While you're right, people can spend their money on whatever they wish, you must also factor in that at the point of sale they've already been exposed to quite manipulative advertising treatment. Their choice to buy something, to call it a free choice may be naive.

[Maxwell Smart]

Ah I wrote it while the rest of the thread continued. It is clear now.

Have you read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein?

[cab]

No, is it good?

[vegplot]

Put two brands of Cola in front of me and I'll choose neither.

There's always a third choice.

[Brownbear]

No, is it good?

[Shane]

I think that where your argument falls a little flat is that some people attach great importance to perceived value, especially when it comes to what they wear. The whole point of fashion is creating a look. The function of what you are wearing is secondary - indeed, you could argue that the primary function of many items of apparel is the look. The brands that you accuse of exploiting the public are the brands that have become desirable, either by mass advertising or by reputation. How they have become desirable is irrelevant; the fact that some people feel better about wearing certain marques above others is what the counterfeiters are cashing in on.

I should probably add that, being a bloke, I've got one pair of jeans and two pairs of shoes - one for work and one for everything else
Okay - I'm exagerating

[Maxwell Smart]

No, is it good?

[cab]

Put two brands of Cola in front of me and I'll choose neither.

There's always a third choice.

[cab]

I don't miss those points at all; mass advertising and generation of reputation ('viral advertising', a horrible term but a method intentionally applied by companies) is part of the problem. Yes, it makes people feel good to light up the part of the brain with positive feedback when they buy or use branded goods... Is it good that we allow companies to exploit something as fundamental as human neurology to sell product?

[vegplot]

I agree.

[Shane]

I see where you're coming from, I really do, and maybe it is a form of exploitation.

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that humans are an aggresive, territorial species and it's in our nature to want what our neighbours have - it's what being territorial is all about. It makes some people want to crush all others in business, it drives others to excel at sports, it makes teenage boys with small trousersnakes cover their cars in plastic and paint them bright purple, it's what causes others to want to dress more smartly or more fashionably that the guys around them and it's also responsible for many of the ills in the world.

Obviously this affects different people to different degrees, and some genuinely aren't driven by such competitiveness, but I'd suggest it would be a rare person that buys a brand new item of clothing and doesn't feel just a little bit good the first time that they wear it. That's what these companies are pandering too, and I think that we both recognise that. And maybe it is a form of exploitation, but the thing is, human nature being what it is, if these companies didn't do it, someone else would. I think that human nature almost demands it, in fact.