Yes, same thing here in Europe, though maybe not as restrictive as in the US.magruder wrote:Alex,
There are copyright laws in the US to prevent this sort of thing.
Also, the US Customs Service seizes and destroys millions of counterfiet items a year.
That's about the point I was trying to hook on to. They don't pretend to be something else. They do copy a design, or better: a look. The original intention is probably rather to maximize the copier's income than to minimize the fruits for the inventor. Although second point is included to some level in the process of copying a design. And to be serious: Would the buyer of the copied pipe have bought one of Love's models if the copy wasn't there? All the best to Love's business, don't get me wrong! But there is a difference between Love's work and the copied pipe and original Levis Jeans and the asian ripoffs on the other.While the Russian pipes are not counterfiet -passing as a Love or Rolando
pipe - the intention is to obtain the fruit of anothers' talent and labor
and exclude the original artist from the PROFITS derived from that talent and labor.
I believe that to copy exactly as possible, in a manner to captures the uniqueness of a certain pipe, is morally wrong and, in the US and many other countries, illegal.
I totally agree about the moral standard, I am not so sure about if it's right to set it on the "illegal shelf". All that principles make more food for everyday income of participants of the legal system than really being helpful for the artist.
I agree to some level. I work in graphic design, and have been doing some music (though not professionally) and know about these codexes (codizes?). They should be highly regarded. Though in Music business, I have the strong feeling that all that napster discussion over the last years was mostly music businesses thing more than the artist’s. All the fuzz about that is more an instrument to separate the world of the money making machine of music industry from the buying client and his everyday need for some good music. If music business would accept, that the prime purpose of making/composing music is not to be a rich man someday but rather making a living, all that argue would not have reached that level…A man or woman should be protected from having their talent and skill
poached by knockoff artists.
I was a professional musician for years and I am currently a professional photographer and I am always alert to copyright infrindgement and
avoid commiting it myself.
Yep, anger is at least a better response than giving up pipemaking. But it can have you more or less driven away from your work.If this guy is a good pipemaker, let him stand own his own like a man and take the chances that real artists take everyday.
Anger is sometimes a appropriate response to intentional violation of moral standards and legal code.
Best to all here,
Steve
It would be easier, if pipemaking was not right on that thin line between creation and craftmanship. A creator/inventor would follow every legal way of having his creations protected while creating them (patent or design registrations, etc.) and afterwards (sueing the copycat). A crafter does not act on that level. So what are we going to do?
In my view, this is a dilemma not so easily to be solved. I have the strong believe, that all that copyright and patent thing has risen to a level, where it leaves it's original purpose to protect the maker's rights. The last few years show the trend to patent everything on earth. And those patents are not registered by some makers but from some very wealthy companies. That is not the way – I believe – it was meant to be.
Allthough I find all our concerns about our work and the inherent rights rather correct, I do have a feeling that the principle behind it is rather delicate and should be questioned from case to case. So I didn't want it to be discussed on a simple "that's mine, nobody else can do it" level.
I still believe, intellectual, cultural and industrial evolution does not work because of copyright, but against it. A Contradiction, you say? Yes, Sir. One out of the many I see in man's life.
