- 7,364
- 28,987
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
How does it "not work" if it accounts for an end product that is virtually identical to the source? Again, my example even allotted for the possibility that the "unauthorized" production was taking place on site. The unauthorized bills would obviously be characterized as counterfeit regardless.-i don't think your money analogy works. taking the equipment/specs to produce product elsewhere is what produces the poor quality fakes we've all known about for years. we come to the conclusion that the products in question are unauthorized pairs from the same factories on the balance of probability. independent producers tend not to use material like carbon fibre, zoom and high quality leather.
People refuse to do so here because they want to pretend that, since they're visually or functionally similar, they're "authentic." Again, "third shift" products aren't necessarily being subjected to the same quality control standards and they may very well cut corners in ways that can't be easily discerned from a photograph.
There's nothing positive to be gained from attempts to legitimize illegal merchandise.
To say "they're hard to detect, so be careful and the only way to be 100% certain is to purchase ONLY from authorized retailers" is fine. It helps protect consumers. Saying, "they're authentic, because they're just as good and maybe they even come from the same place", however, only serves to promote products that, by law, would likely be considered counterfeit (or, at the very least, a trademark violation.) That's where I take issue.
A "fake" implies deception - and indeed these products are being sold and labeled in deceptive ways.the word "fake" merely rubs the wrong way here in my opinion.
If you wanted to object to the term "knock-off", I could understand that - but even "third shift" counterfeiters are faking something. College blue Air Jordan XVIIs produced last year and labeled with a 2001 production date have FAKE tags. They are FAKE 2001 Air Jordan XVIIs.
When people resist "fake," what they're actually resisting is the stigmatization of an illegal and unauthorized product. They want to justify it so they can purchase and wear them without compunction, and there's no valid reason to grant them that. There IS something inherently wrong with these products and they should be classified as such.