A somewhat bizarre statement. Shane seems to think that if I get Gucci or Stickley or whoever do all the work of market research, design, etc., which is ostly, and he does a knock off, say of similar quality but cheaper because he didn't have to pout in the initial costs of research and design, that there is some problem with Gucci being upset about that and asking the intellectual property lawyers to stop him. I am not sure why he thinks that parasitism (as I would see it) is OK.
Now in a society where there was no money or commerce and all creation was free expressive activity and even necessary production was not tied to people's immediate livelihoods,a word Shane believes in and I do do not -- in that world I can see Shane's point. But in thatw orld no one would care except insofar as a cretor might want named credit/fame/respect for her work, or wanted to make sure that her standards of quality were met.
But in a market society. creativity is a commodity and artists, designers, and the companies that sell their stuff have to live. Sorry. I don't like it either. I don't see it changing though. jks
--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> >Doug wrote:
> > >Gucci makes beautiful shoes...What's the point
> in denying that?
> >
> >Beautiful visually...but there is a certain stink
> to them. What do
> >I mean by that? Simply this--if you or I were to
> make shoes of
> >identical visual beauty and sell them at a price
> reflecting their
> >cost the Gucci people would--successfully--move
> heaven and earth to
> >have us locked up for the "crime" of stealing
> intellectual property.
> >
> >piratically,
> >
> >Shane Mage
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs