3 ms·
It's dodgy for the same reason it's dodgy to print and sell a new novel without paying the author, for the same reason it's dodgy to clone a successful app and
by dkarl 7y ago
It's dodgy for the same reason it's dodgy to print and sell a new novel without paying the author, for the same reason it's dodgy to clone a successful app and sell it without any attempt to improve on it. On one hand you have a system where companies support the creation of new designs so that they can profit from the reproduction of them, and on the other you have companies operating parasitically so they can get a share of the profits without providing any support to the designers.
- blotter_paper 7y agoI would be interested in seeing the results of an HN poll: "Do you agree with the existence of intellectual property laws?" It seems like a divisive topic here, and I suspect this is where the disagreement on dodginess comes from.
- ghaff 7y agoI also think there’s conflation here between knock-offs that do in fact violate IP laws which isn’t just dodgy but a violation of the law. And knockoffs that take the same general form or appearance of branded goods—with or without the same level of quality.
- dkarl 7y agoThe law doesn't grant clothing designs the same IP protections that other creative works enjoy, which makes it much easier to knock off fashion without facing legal challenges.
- blotter_paper 7y agoI agree that this is happenong in these comments. I also think that the people who support IP laws are more likely to find legal yet adjacent actions dodgy -- if you didn't support physical property laws you might find taking an legally abandoned yet possibly lost item dodgy, whereas somebody who doesn't believe in physical property laws is unlikely to have any objection to this.