I just finished reading an interesting article over at The New Yorker titled The Piracy Paradox (via She's A Betty). The idea here is that many fashion designers want Congress to pass the law to stop fashion knockoffs, however, they don't realize that these knock offs are what actually fuel the industry:
"Copying enables designs and styles to move quickly from early adopters to the masses. And since no one cool wants to keep wearing something after everybody else is wearing it, the copying of designs helps fuel the incessant demand for something new."
Let's pose a hypothetical situation here. If the designs of high fashion designers remained strictly for those who could afford those designs, what would be left for "the masses"? Companies like H&M and Zara would be *gasp* virtually non-existent, right?
Would there be a designer willing to create original designs but offer them at lower prices? Well, yes, we've seen it happen with designers who have made special collections for Target. But what about other designers who haven't yet ventured out into the wild, so to speak. If the copyright law passes, would high fashion designers be willing to offer collections to people who admire them but can't afford their high-end designs?
Speaking of, Christian Louboutin is rallying to get a patent for the red soles he's famous for. Should he be granted the patent?
.jpg)
Comment Preview