|
Read through the thread with interest... and since Tony20009 is still reading, I thought I'd add my 2 cents. Or maybe 3, given it's going to be a long post.
There seem to be 3 quite separate arguments against fakes - be they watches or anything else:
1. The legal argument: fakes are illegal.
2. The argument from function: fakes don't work as well as originals.
3. The argument from morals/ethics: fakes are wrong - and in fact using or condoning the use of fakes provides an indication of the (diminished) moral/ethical worth of a person.
On 1., there is little debate. In most jurisdictions, intellectual property, including branding, technology and design characteristics is protected. China (and other Asian nations) are less strict in enforcing the protection, and it is debatable whether protection in its current form is necessary or even useful; however it is there.
On 2., it seems relatively indisputable that the basic function of a watch as timekeeper and personal ornament can be fulfilled by almost any copy as well as by an original. Robustness, long-term reliability, complications and preservation of monetary value mostly remain associated to originals.
3. is the interesting argument. Partly because ethics (and morals) around imitation are strongly determined by culture: I don't think it's by chance that in Chinese (and Japanese) art there is a lot of inspiration borrowed by "past masters", whereas the history of art in the West, especially in relatively recent times, has put more emphasis on individual innovation. Perhaps it's an overstatement to say that to the Chinese imitation is only a form of admiration, since there are clearly business interests as well, but the way in which China and the US look at "copying" is profoundly different.
It is also not by chance that the US has been characterised as one of the most "universalistic" cultures ("there is one right answer") by quite a lot of research, and some of the statements made in the thread bear witness to that.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the purchase or use of a fake watch - knowing it is one - tells others practically nothing about honesty or reliability of the wearer; the reasons for buying a fake can be many, and only few of those have to do with deception. I suspect in most cases people wearing fakes simply don't care; the argument of "buy another cheap watch instead" holds up to a point: what if I like that "fake" one more than the other? Or what if an unbranded replica just isn't available?
A couple of months ago I was in the Middle East for business, and I needed a belt because I forgot to take a black one with me. There was a choice between purchasing a genuine branded article - at a high price for something that I would use for a week and for which I had perfectly viable replacements at home - or buying fakes. Unbranded, good quality items simply did not seem to exist. Potential legal issues at re-entry notwithstanding, I bought a fake Brioni belt; it served its purpose. Could I afford to spend the $300+ for a genuine branded item? Yes; I simply didn't want to. I felt (and still feel) that spending $50 for an item that I would not need after returning home was "punishment" enough for my failure to pack properly. FWIW, the custom inspectors at Zurich airport did not seem to notice or care either.
Does having bought a fake belt in the circumstances above - and continuing to wear it - brand me forever as a dishonest, lying, unreliable person? I don't think so, but I fail to see the moral difference between doing that and purchasing a fake watch. Boasting that I only wear Brioni (or perhaps more to the point in leather goods, Hermès: fake Hermès belts were available too, but I didn't like them) would be significantly more revealing, I think, but it does go way beyond what most people do with their belts - or even their watches.
Do I normally buy fakes? No, and that's because I generally appreciate fine craftsmanship, and copies (be they watches, paintings, jewels, furniture, handbags, shoes, dresses/suits or belts) are rarely up to the standard of originals unless there are fraudulent intentions towards the intended purchaser.
Do I think others should not buy fakes? It depends a lot on the circumstances and intentions; however if I were to bet, I'd bet that the vast majority of fake purchases in the world are neither damaging to the originator of the design (very few purchasers of a fake would buy the original instead - for whatever reason) nor an indication of intended deception on the part of the wearer. Legally, things may well stand otherwise.
|