|
Tony wrote "So yes, I understand the ire that Rolex et al should have, but if it does bother them, they aren't doing much to stop the fakes from being made and sold. In light of that, I have to ask, how upset are they? As far as I can tell, the only reason high end watch companies take legal action is that they think they can get a lot of money for having done so. They don't seem at all concerned about actually stemming the production of outright. unabashed counterfeits."
But this is rather interesting, as you've repeatedly objected in this thread to people presuming others' motives in owning fakes. Yet here you are, presuming to know the motives of companies!
Honestly, most of your posts condoning fake watches are better arguments in favor of legal homage watches. If someone wants a Rolex Sub, it's very, very easy to find the same styling without the Rolex brand. If someone buys a fake instead, it's pretty clear the brand name is what they want, not the look. The look has been widely imitated.
The reality is that there is no consistent, coherent argument for fakes other than in complete anarchist-style protest of intellectual property rights and laws (a position I'd actually be very sympathetic to!), but that it doesn't matter: people buying fake may offer justification but they don't really need it or care--they buy fakes because they want the real thing, can't afford it, and don't care about laws and intellectual property rights when it's inconvenient for them to do so.
|