5 ms·

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I wa

by mrlase 15y ago

Some of these companies are just so random... Why, for instance, does Adidas, L'Oreal, American Apparel, Rite Aid, Pfizer, etc. even have a stance on SOPA? I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :(

marshray 15y ago
Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash. I consider them un-American traitors.
- mekoka 15y ago
  Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true, I think a better reformulation which more accurately translates the greed of these corporations is Because they feel they're not making more money due to counterfeit knock offs. The companies themselves aren't actually losing anything.
  - marshray 15y ago
    I agree that is more accurate. I thought about writing that but didn't want to slice the language so thin that it distracted from the main point.
  - dextorious 15y ago
    """Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true""" I keep hearing that argument in discussions about counterfeiting/piracy. Does it convince anyone? Yes, lots of people would buy the real thing X if there was no way to buy X's knock offs. It only depends on a) how much they want something X-like and b) the relative price. If (1) something X-like is desirable, and (2) the price of X's knock offs is near the price of X (so that people not affording X at all is not an issue), then people WOULD buy the original if they couldn't get a cheaper knockoff. Does even one person's money lost qualify the issue as "proven"? Because I know that I have downloaded albums and books that I would DEFINITELY have bought if I could not get them for free of the intertubes.
  - codyrobbins 15y ago
    No, I don’t think that’s the reason why fashion brands are against knock-offs. They don’t necessarily expect that everyone who buys a counterfeit will buy the real thing. Instead, a market glutted with counterfeit products dilutes their brand and reflects poorly on the quality of their merchandise because consumers confuse the knock-off with the real thing. And that most certainly does lose them something. A Chanel handbag is a luxury item that, in part, is desirable simply because of its expense and thus relative scarcity—not everyone can have one. Lifestyles brands are built in large part around a carefully crafted image of their consumer, and when every 19 year old Starbucks barista making $21K/year is walking around with a knock-off Chanel handbag it’s difficult to maintain the image they’re going for. Sales drop as the real consumers flee the brand, and then the company has no choice but to market to a lower demographic. Counterfeits undermine the company by commoditizing their goods. Since fashion brands have significantly more limited legal protections for their products than other industries, I don’t see how you could expect them to be against an act that stands to enlarge the remedies available to them to protect their brands. It was shortsighted for the media companies to try to take a sledgehammer to the Internet—since what they sell are inherently digital products for which it was inevitable that distribution would move to the Internet eventually—but apparel is a physical product that isn’t in any danger of having that happen. For that reason apparel companies don’t care about the Internet (just like you probably don’t care very much about apparel), and I can’t say I could really blame them. This isn’t even to mention the fact that fashion design is an art, and having opportunists steal your design, completely mangle it in an attempt to make it cheaper, and then sell it as an original is in all likelihood an incredibly infuriating thing simply from the perspective of artistic purity. Again, I find it hard to blame them for wanting to stop this, given that how well the Internet works is largely irrelevant to practically everyone in the entire industry.
    - michaels0620 15y ago
      There was an article (that I now cannot find) that claimed there was a positive effect of counterfeiting for high end fashion brands because it motivated buyers to more quickly move on to the latest version. Someone who is willing to spend $700 on a hand bag will get a newer version rather than hold onto the one they have when they see anyone and everyone sporting it.
- Iv 15y ago
  In their case, I rather think they are uninterested in the provisions about internet and would support removal of these clauses if this could help SOPA to pass.
- fredBuddemeyer 15y ago
  selling a country's freedom? un-american? its hard to even conceive what on earth this means or how your consideration of what is american - or treason - means anything. and adidas is german.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >"There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash." Do you have to be US American to hold stock in these companies? Do you expect international companies to have a nationality?
skymt 15y ago
SOPA isn't just about copyright: the blacklist is also intended to be used against foreign product counterfeiters, and fashion, drugs & shoes are among the most counterfeited products.
burgerbrain 15y ago
Probably because they want to use SOPA to shut down websites selling "counterfeit" merchandise.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
darkane 15y ago
The push for these bills really started years ago when pharma companies were desperately trying to prevent the purchase of drugs from Canada and other countries. The entertainment aspect is rather new and actually somewhat secondary.
- waqf 15y ago
  "somewhat secondary" ... that's what the MPAA etc. want Congress to think, so that their Internet-destroying legislation gets in under the radar.
waqf 15y ago
> I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :( Back when I was in academia, Elsevier had a clear reputation as the most "evil" academic publisher, because of its extortionate journal prices and its active resistance to any method of information dissemination which would reduce its profits (for example, lower-cost online access, or friendlier contracts with its authors). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controv.... Apparently nothing's changed.
- mrlase 15y ago
  Wow, I wasn't aware of this. I'm still a student but it seems that about 1 out of every 2 journal articles is by an Elsevier owned journal. I'll have to keep note of that for the future.
shortformblog 15y ago
FYI: That isn't American Apparel on the list — it's an industry group with a similar name that just so happens to count American Apparel as a member — amongst thousands of others. http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-american-apparel http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-americ... Now's a good time to emphasize that not everything an industry group does is supported by individual members.

by mrlase 15y ago

marshray 15y ago

Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash. I consider them un-American traitors.

mekoka 15y ago
Because they lose money to counterfeit knock offs. Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true, I think a better reformulation which more accurately translates the greed of these corporations is Because they feel they're not making more money due to counterfeit knock offs. The companies themselves aren't actually losing anything.
- marshray 15y ago
  I agree that is more accurate. I thought about writing that but didn't want to slice the language so thin that it distracted from the main point.
- dextorious 15y ago
  """Your assumption is that if someone doesn't buy knock offs, they'll buy the real thing. Until that can be proven true""" I keep hearing that argument in discussions about counterfeiting/piracy. Does it convince anyone? Yes, lots of people would buy the real thing X if there was no way to buy X's knock offs. It only depends on a) how much they want something X-like and b) the relative price. If (1) something X-like is desirable, and (2) the price of X's knock offs is near the price of X (so that people not affording X at all is not an issue), then people WOULD buy the original if they couldn't get a cheaper knockoff. Does even one person's money lost qualify the issue as "proven"? Because I know that I have downloaded albums and books that I would DEFINITELY have bought if I could not get them for free of the intertubes.
- codyrobbins 15y ago
  No, I don’t think that’s the reason why fashion brands are against knock-offs. They don’t necessarily expect that everyone who buys a counterfeit will buy the real thing. Instead, a market glutted with counterfeit products dilutes their brand and reflects poorly on the quality of their merchandise because consumers confuse the knock-off with the real thing. And that most certainly does lose them something. A Chanel handbag is a luxury item that, in part, is desirable simply because of its expense and thus relative scarcity—not everyone can have one. Lifestyles brands are built in large part around a carefully crafted image of their consumer, and when every 19 year old Starbucks barista making $21K/year is walking around with a knock-off Chanel handbag it’s difficult to maintain the image they’re going for. Sales drop as the real consumers flee the brand, and then the company has no choice but to market to a lower demographic. Counterfeits undermine the company by commoditizing their goods. Since fashion brands have significantly more limited legal protections for their products than other industries, I don’t see how you could expect them to be against an act that stands to enlarge the remedies available to them to protect their brands. It was shortsighted for the media companies to try to take a sledgehammer to the Internet—since what they sell are inherently digital products for which it was inevitable that distribution would move to the Internet eventually—but apparel is a physical product that isn’t in any danger of having that happen. For that reason apparel companies don’t care about the Internet (just like you probably don’t care very much about apparel), and I can’t say I could really blame them. This isn’t even to mention the fact that fashion design is an art, and having opportunists steal your design, completely mangle it in an attempt to make it cheaper, and then sell it as an original is in all likelihood an incredibly infuriating thing simply from the perspective of artistic purity. Again, I find it hard to blame them for wanting to stop this, given that how well the Internet works is largely irrelevant to practically everyone in the entire industry.
  - michaels0620 15y ago
    There was an article (that I now cannot find) that claimed there was a positive effect of counterfeiting for high end fashion brands because it motivated buyers to more quickly move on to the latest version. Someone who is willing to spend $700 on a hand bag will get a newer version rather than hold onto the one they have when they see anyone and everyone sporting it.
Iv 15y ago
In their case, I rather think they are uninterested in the provisions about internet and would support removal of these clauses if this could help SOPA to pass.
fredBuddemeyer 15y ago
selling a country's freedom? un-american? its hard to even conceive what on earth this means or how your consideration of what is american - or treason - means anything. and adidas is german.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>"There are people who would sell their country's freedom for a handful of cash." Do you have to be US American to hold stock in these companies? Do you expect international companies to have a nationality?

skymt 15y ago

SOPA isn't just about copyright: the blacklist is also intended to be used against foreign product counterfeiters, and fashion, drugs & shoes are among the most counterfeited products.

burgerbrain 15y ago

Probably because they want to use SOPA to shut down websites selling "counterfeit" merchandise.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

darkane 15y ago

The push for these bills really started years ago when pharma companies were desperately trying to prevent the purchase of drugs from Canada and other countries. The entertainment aspect is rather new and actually somewhat secondary.

waqf 15y ago
"somewhat secondary" ... that's what the MPAA etc. want Congress to think, so that their Internet-destroying legislation gets in under the radar.

waqf 15y ago

> I was rather disconcerted to see that Elsevier was on this list :( Back when I was in academia, Elsevier had a clear reputation as the most "evil" academic publisher, because of its extortionate journal prices and its active resistance to any method of information dissemination which would reduce its profits (for example, lower-cost online access, or friendlier contracts with its authors). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Criticism_and_controv.... Apparently nothing's changed.

mrlase 15y ago
Wow, I wasn't aware of this. I'm still a student but it seems that about 1 out of every 2 journal articles is by an Elsevier owned journal. I'll have to keep note of that for the future.

shortformblog 15y ago

FYI: That isn't American Apparel on the list — it's an industry group with a similar name that just so happens to count American Apparel as a member — amongst thousands of others. http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-american-apparel http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/14732754002/sopa-americ... Now's a good time to emphasize that not everything an industry group does is supported by individual members.