is copy wright infringement moraly corrupt if it conflicts with ethics ?

knock offs & price gouging cheaply made expensively sold

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-5340...luencers-warned-against-promoting-fake-brands

(i completely agree)
NOTE that's really clever to send free samples to social media celebrity's to advertise for free
...

paying 4000.00 pounds for a hoody ?
when its made by people being paid about 3 pounds
ethics ... copyright infringement ?

this point !
we see organizations trying to attach working class morality to their luxury brands
when their luxury brands are not profit shared in moral equity to those same morals, attached to copyright infringement

and THIS point
The Luxury Brand is not paying the police cost to perform the investigations or raids
the people paying the police bill is the low income working class who cant afford to buy the product which is deliberately priced well out of their price reach
ethics
morality
justice


what is the psychological social value ?
lack of self identity ? so you covet brand identity that appears high in material value ?
to trade off against a lack of personal self worth ?

it does seem even more public now with vaccines being sought for a kill rate that predominantly kills those who wont be able to afford the vaccine

so who will be paying for the vaccines ?
who will be getting them ?

is this a turning point or a rocket boost off the cliff for modern society morality ethics and business

discussion and thoughts on the subject welcome

what do you think about knock off clothing ? does it make you a criminal if you buy it or wear it ?

i hope all the clothing seized in raids is given to homeless shelters and domestic abuse networks

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great idea as it demonstrates the stupidity of paying thousands of dollars more for a similar product and no doubt even the knock off is way too expensive when related to costs of production etc. Shows up the stupidity of fashion and many humans thinking fashion is important.

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's spelt copyright, as in a right to copy.

Copyright has nothing to do with vaccines. Vaccines might be covered by patents, but those are something else.

Copyright has nothing to do with trade mark infringement. Trade marks are something else, too.

Copyright relates to the copying of a creative work, such as a piece of writing, music or art.

From your post it looks as if you are interested in trade mark infringements on clothing, though it is hard to be sure. Misrepresenting goods as having been made by a brand, when they have not, would be trade mark infringement if the mark is registered. If it is not, it will still be illegal under the law concerning "passing off", which is broader and does not relate only to registered trade marks.

For the consumer there is not really an issue, as the illegality consists in the misrepresentation by the manufacture or seller of the goods.

It is most definitely right and proper for manufacturers who do this to be prosecuted. They are parasites on the good name of the brand and may well damage the brand reputation by selling goods that are substandard or otherwise not consistent with the brand. Band reputation is valuable, expensive and time-consuming to build up, and can be destroyed overnight.

One example: when I worked for Shell, we used to mount actions all the time against people making fake engine lubricants with the Shell emblem on them. Often they were charging a lot of money for crap that would ruin your engine. You don't need to be a wizard to see why Shell would be unhappy with that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

morals ?
business has no morals
it just has profit and loss legal and illegal(regulations)
compliance to laws

ergo when a business declares it has a set of morals, do those morals state paying thier fair share of tax ?
no ! that is called compliance

interesting how compliance and regulations is something some business choose to try and fight to remove
but that's a slightly different subject
but not when it drives the public expectation of a moral value

should non customers be forced to comply with business morals ?
the business is not giving them any money
they are not employed by the business
the business is in it for profit

how do public morals interact with business compliance
should public morals dictate business pricing (for example)

keeping in mind i have worked with some businesses that are light years ahead of mainstream business in some countrys
they have missions policy code of conduct compliance regulations
company culture directives
etc etc
the ones i have worked with that i like are extremely good

charging massive prices for a vaccine(moral issue?)
charging massive prices for a clothing item(moral issue?) mostly not because they do not have to buy it

i understand and support countrys tackling illegal business and business that take jobs off their own citizens
spending massive resources on luxury brand clothing raids doesn't seem like an efficient use of resources that could be mounting massive public door to door anti domestic abuse campaigns and work start and re training for unemployed etc
unless its terrorist funding then good stuff.

UK for instance could have amnesty knife bins distributed
which is whom i am talking about
just a passing thought
might help to get more knifes off the street

but now realizing there are no Britons on this board
probably a waste of time
clothing manufacturing in the uk is non existent

 

I am a Londoner and trained for a while to be a UK Patent Agent, before joining Shell, which is Anglo-Dutch. Not that it matters.

Stealing somebody's good name to make money out of it is parasitical and immoral.

 

business is not concerned with morality
only profit and loss

parasitical is the nature of business relationships

example
data allocation sales to cell phone users

your not stealing their name
your just writing it expressing free speech in a capitalist system

...

this is the point of my thread
to discuss the dynamics of applied morality

is it immoral for a business to pay only 5% income tax and not pay goods and services taxs
while employee wage earners must pay 20% income tax plus 20% sales and service tax ?
that means wage employees are being taxed 40%
while business are only being taxed around 7 or 8 %

surely that is immoral ?

is that immoral ?

whos version of morals is being applied and is it an equitable version of morality ?

is it actual morals ?

as for the fake clothing people

• not paying sales tax
• not paying health and safety costs
• not paying retirement savings
• not paying sick pay
• not paying maternity leave
• probably massive money laundering
• employ illegal fence jumpers (no work visa and all under the table cash paying to illegal immigrants who pay no tax and all the product purchases are made to over seas countrys so no national economic income, only massive costs for their medical & social impact & policing costs, potential slave trade network support & money laundering)

and they stacking loads of god knows what in fire hazards among highly combustible tight infill housing with chemicals etc
no fire suppression system in stacked combustibles which will be unable to be extinguished if they catch fire from some illegal living in the back cooking on an open gas burner and falling sleep etc


[i'm not arguing the policing, i am arguing the concept of corporate's attempting to install morals on people]

they probably dont employ anyone(only 1 or 2 people between the customer and the owner getting the money) much like the luxury brand businesses

 

It is morally wrong to fake news, or to fake your CV in a job application, or to tell other sorts of lie too, but the fact that we are talking about fake manufactured goods here does not not make it OK. Faking goods is deceit. Please note it is deceiving the buyer, i.e. the consumer. So it's not just cheating the brand owner out of his profits, it's cheating the poor sap who buys the fake goods.

Morality aside, the functioning of a civilised society depends very largely on respect for the rule of law, applied even-handedly to all cases. The laws of trade marks and passing off are drafted with all sorts of traders in mind, both large and small. You can't argue it should not apply to one company just because, in your opinion, it's too profitable. The remedy for that already exists in law, too, through trading standards, anti-monopoly laws etc.

If brands charge what you think is too much for their clothing, that's because some people are mugs. They can buy an unbranded hoodie for half the price if they like. There are plenty to choose from.

I suppose, though, that you implicitly pose a wider question, namely the extent to which the state ought to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity. After all, it is not their fault they are stupid. That's quite a tough one, I admit. But generally the law tends to leave people and business alone unless there is a manifest injustice, like, say, mis-selling of mortgage protection, in which a person of normal intelligence can be easily be bamboozled.