Op-ed: Protect the Pirates; the Pitfalls of Protection in the Fashion Industry

Today, I have the pleasure of introducing the latest contribution from friend of the site Pat Decourcy. Today, Pat tackles a potential law being written by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D, N.Y.) which would afford fashion designers the same types of protections for their designs as music artists and authors currently have for their works. Though such protections have existed in Europe for some time now, the legislature in the US has avoided the topic. As a result our judges, referring to the common law and in true law and economics fashion, have often found for the 'pirates' in such cases due to the loss of efficiencies that would occur if the plaintiff were to succeed. I get the sense Pat would prefer the current state of the law over the proposed changes. As always, comments and feedback are appreciated.

Though I feel that there is some need for limited copyright protection, the bottom line is that designers currently demand a huge premium for their clothing. Most outsource labor to 3rd world countries, and thus, are able to create massive profit margins, which I am all for. However, bootleggers offer consumers one source to drive the price of these luxury goods downward to a fairer equilibrium by eroding some of the overall demand.

I feel that for most consumers, cost outweighs quality, and that is the difference between name brand and bootlegged goods. The name brand item is usually higher quality, while the bootlegged product might not be as durable, or may not use the highest grade materials. As long as there is a “sunshine” policy on these details, i.e. the bootleg manufacturers do not make fraudulent claims that they actually ARE the same as the name brand, I don’t see a need for this sort of legislation. All it will do is limit the choices of consumers and help extinguish the innovation of low cost clothing lines which try and mimic more mainstream brands, while also creating a virtual oligarchy amongst the Calvin Klein’s and Giorgio Armani’s of the world, whose operations do not need further protection by the US government. A quick search of the price of Ed Hardy apparel yields prices of around $90 for a t-shirt -that’s not a misprint, A T-SHIRT FOR $90!

So why does anyone feel a need to help protect these designers? The answer lies in progressive/liberal ideals, which is why it is no surprise that the uber-arrogant Sen. Chuck Schumer and some elitist Harvard professor are pushing something like this. Progressives such as the aforementioned Schumer, do not like when the free market is allowed to correct supply and demand issues. They know that the inclusion of the bootleggers helps move the “invisible hand” to a lower price equilibrium and gives consumers more choices, and progressives don’t like that. When the free market is allowed to function without govt. interference or meddling, it will always erase the need for progressive policies. They always need to be seen as the heroes – saving us from some crisis through the drafting of complex legislation, which neither helps consumers or the economy.

Beside this copyright legislation for clothiers, another perfect case in point is the healthcare legislation being force fed to us in Congress. This won't help consumers or the economy and is completely unpopular with the American people, but progressives need to be seen as the “shining knights in armor” to save us from those evil insurance executives, so they push on with no regard for the costs or need for such sweeping controls on 1/6th of the US Economy. This is what is wrong with Washington; they haven’t learned that the old adage “If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it” is sometimes the best legal policy.