The Ethics Of Copies

[demographic]

Actually Gil Hibben does, he designed the Klingon weapons. But as this is not a Klingon knife.... you are dodging the question :borgsmile

Well, I'm more sort of extracting the urine out of Teddy Barbeques kit.
I have already answered the question above though, or near enough.

I don't agree with copying the tradename or logo to fool the buyer.

To be honest I wouldn't know if that was a copy (I don't really trawl the internet looking for Bears kit) or not but if its being done to fool the buyer than in my book its dishonest, so if that's a copy then its a proper fake and I don't agree that's a good thing at all.
That said, a knife with a half serrated and half useful (cant stand serrated edges on anything other than bread knives personally) edge isn't exactly new either is it?

When we get down to Bushy clones then I'm rather less convinced as long as they don't claim to be made by the same maker.
I can remember knives roughly like bushies being made from before I heard about a certain Ray chappy, he might have refined the design but none of its exactly patentable as far as I can see and there's a few people out there making perfectly acceptable knives to that formula that are as good a quality.

Here's a nice picture to illustrate the importance of the issue.

 

[johnboy]

For example, there seem to be a lot of Maxpedition bag copies and Snugpak Response Pak copies knocking around.

That's an interesting pairing to mention.

Maxpeditions Proteus and Snugpak's Response Pak bear a striking resemblance to each other

Similarly the Trangia Triangle and Clikstand...

The list could go on and on...

Companies making copies of exemplar products to sell as part of their own range often at a lower cost is as old as the hills.

As is folk making fakes of branded goods to sell at a lower cost...

Part of our culture of consumption is: we want stuff, we want it cheaper and we want it quicker. We love to consume be it a new song on i Tunes or a woodlore clone (copy).

What is relatively new is that outlets like Ebay allow us to get ever closer to getting products cheaper + faster. Vendors can offer up stuff for sale to us more quickly than ever before. The ease and speed of moden retail fuels our consumptive nature.

Fake, clone, copy, lookalike products are very much a part of this.

 

[Karl82]

well i realy dont care about a brand name i look for quality and if i can get the same quality item cheaper then i will. i dont bye cheap c**p. as johnboy above has pointed out diffrent brands rip eachother off so if its cheaper coz it dosent bare a name thats fin by me as long as the quality is the same.

 

[rik_uk3]

Is there a patent on some of these things, rucksacks and knives for example? If not, copy away your not breaking the law. I'll download a video from the net, 9 times from 10 its something not always easy to get or its public domain and stuff like Ray Mears has been up on Veoh for about three years so as he and the BBC don't seem to object I'll download those too. I rareley download music as the quality is often poor.

I look for function, quality, price and "is it right for me" if all the boxes tick I'll buy it. I'm not interested in the label, its the content thats important.

 

[durulz]

I'm more interested in the quality of the item.
If the cheap copy is no good, I'll buy the expensive version. If the cheap copy is just as good as the expensive item then the cheap copy is fine by me.
I don't see what ethics has to do with it. Look at it this way - if the company producing the item is making a profit then, by definition, they are exploiting the consumer (because they are asking more for it than it cost to produce - keeping in mind costs and bills and wages etc. I'm referring to profit). They have no loyalty to you, the consumer - so what loyalty do you owe them? None.
So if the cheaper (copy) does the job just as well I don't see why I have any responsibility to buy the more expensive item - the manufacturer is abusing me (by charging me more than it cost to produce - again, keeping in mind overheads etc) so I have no onus to buy off them.
That's the way capitalism works - and it works well enough, but it is based on exploitation. Try levelling your criticism at the producer not the purchaser.

Oh, I should add that I am referring to copies that freely admit to being copies and do not pretend to be something they are not. For example, if Fred Bloggs Knives sell a knife in the bushcraft style and call it a 'bushcraftknife' that's OK with me. But if Fred Bloggs Knives produced a bushcraft knife and stamped it with 'Woodlore Ray Mears' then I don't agree with that. Mind you, my dislike of that is based on the fact that it's defrauding the buyer - I couldn't give a monkey's about the original seller (again, because the original item is overpriced - they don't care about me so why should I care about them?).

 

[Wayland]

Hey what about hobo stove copies....

Everything gets imitated, and often the imitations get refined and become improvements.

I protect my copyright when someone steals my actual photos but as said above, I can't stop them imitating them, it's happened quite recently and I have no problem with it.

A case in point would be the transit compass I posted a review of.

Is it as good as the original, no. Is it a hell of a lot cheaper, yes. I accept the drawbacks because I simply cannot afford the original. Simple choice.

 

[Magentus]

I'd like to know why, as a member of the armed forces (I assume), you feel you need to buy your own gear. You should be provided with equipment that's fit for purpose.

Magentus

 

[Ogri the trog]

I can see that if there is an element of intended deciet, then the vendor is guilty of "intending to decieve" however if the buyer is aware of an item being a copy, then "caveat emptor".

I've made a knife in the style of other more well-known maker - I made no measurements and my heat treatment is questionable at best - however I'm happy to accept that it might break at any time. I don't call it a "Woodlore", to me it is a knife! I wouldn't sell one as a "Woodlore knife".

Years ago I bought a Swanndri shirt, its now quite threadbare and I want to replace it - so I bought some woolen fabric and drew around the swanni as I like the style - but the resulting garment has additions and features that "I" want and a fit that would not suit many other folk. Its not, nor would I call it a Swanndri - though it was a Swanni that lent itself as its pattern.

To my mind, like our forefathers did - if they saw something that they thought was a good idea, they took it, twisted it a bit to suit the specific conditions and made something that was almost identical - just think of how many patterns of bill-hook there are.

I think that todays technology has made that process significantly easier and faster to achieve - the trouble comes from some individuals believing that they have the right to decieve others into buying "knock-offs" in place of "originals". Your story of the two holsters shows that if buyers are hopeful of minimising the cost, then certain features have to be sacrificed or considered as inferior. But, as has been mentioned, in some cases the copy has greater features or something else that proves to be a benefit to that particular user. Horse for courses and caveat emptor again.
A further problem arrises when quality manufacturers look to reduce costs by using inferior materials or cheaper processes to gain a higher profit, the quality inevitably suffers.

Babbling now

Ogri the trog

 

[Mikey P]

Some really interesting points and - as I feared - things are not as 'black and white' as I'd hoped.

There certainly seems to be an issue over copyright - the feeling is that most, if not all, knife designs are not original and I can see that. They have all been 'done before' and hence copyright is perhaps unenforceable. In this case, I guess the issue would be with counterfeit goods but there don't really seem to be that many people out there making copies and then falsely applying a maker's stamp/mark. Or are there...?

What I was surprised to see was some comments along the line that 'making counterfeit goods is OK because it is a supply and demand situation'. Sorry - couldn't disagree more. This is both wrong and indefensable - breaking the law because you feel like it? Hello? Just because you don't want to pay the cost that a manufacturer charges, does not mean it's then OK to purchase counterfeit goods. Where has this attitude come from? What happened to saving up for something you really want? Are we all now slaves to 'instant gratification'?

If people don't like the price of an item, then they should buy an alternative design or just go without! I really don't think we should encourage copying/counterfeiting to suit our own personal financial circumstances.

Personally, I would have no issue with anyone making a single 'copy' for their own use - it's a lot of hard work and a good way of learning. For example, we do see people making something that has been 'inspired by' another design (ie, identical!). I would have problems if that person then started to sell them but, then, that's down to my own personal standards. I do worry when items are sold as, say, a 'Woodlore Clone' or advertised using part of the name of the original piece - this is using the name of an established company/make to sell your own imitation wares and that's not cricket in my book.

There is also the issue detailed above with some manufacturers making very similar items to each other. In this case, I would expect (hope?) that the corporate lawyers may well have exchanged letters? Or perhaps an agreement has been reached and one is made under license? I don't know. Maybe I'm being naive about this but, if you have a product you have developed and it's making you money, would you not protect that design/idea? Still if you use this as an excuse ('Well, if they're doing it, I'll do it'), is this a case of lowering your own personal standards just because you see someone else doing something? This would be like saying that it's OK to avoid paying tax because you see some corporate bodies trying it on.

Quality is a word that keeps coming up. If you feel you are paying through the nose for a poor quality item ... er ... don't buy it. Find another design, make your own or go without. I think some people are also missing the point that you at least have some come-back against a commercial company if their product fails - in most cases, you can get your money back, a replacement, or create adverse publicity. Can you do that against counterfeiters? Nope.

There was a comment above on levelling criticism at the producer rather than the purchaser. OK, I agree that there are some outrageous prices out there but, if you aren't prepared to pay them it still doesn't make it right to encourage the production of clones/counterfeit items. Yes, sometimes prices seem high and it looks like customers are being exploited: vote with your money by not buying that item. If a manufacturer can't sell it at one price, they will hopefully realise that they're overcharging. However, if they are able to sell that item, it just comes down to you not being able to afford it and that is then your problem, not theirs. The producers couldn't continue to maintain a high price point just because they wanted to - someone has to be buying it! So, the criticism has to be levelled mainly at the purchaser: either the purchaser is aware they are being 'ripped off' and doesn't care, or the purchaser is throwing a hissy fit because they can't have something they want (living life as a 3-year-old).

I like Paramo clothing - it's bloody expensive but it works extremely well. Initially, I felt annoyed that I couldn't afford their stuff new and ended up buying a second-hand jacket on eBay. The quality, workmanship and performance is superb and that's why they cost. I am now saving for another Paramo item because I like the company and want them to have my business - what I am not doing is looking round for a cheap and inferior copy, or bitching to them that they charge too much for their clothing and it isn't fair.

High costs are not necessarily a case of 'ripping people off' - the cost of R&D, tooling, research, training, manpower, parts (whose prices may fluctuate due to global supply and demand), transport. I work part-time for a high-tech business and I frequently hear our sales guys trying to explain to a customer why we have to charge them more than they want to pay. I know what we have had to spend to create world-leading products and we have to recoup that money as well as make a profit. I am also aware of the work we have to do to prevent competitors from copying/adapting our designs...

Yeah, we live in a capitalist society - but it doesn't excuse counterfeiting/cloning. Yeah, life seems unfair - but it doesn't excuse counterfeiting/cloning. Yeah, items may be expensive - but it doesn't excuse counterfeiting/cloning. Many times I've seen something on this website, thought 'I want one', looked it up, seen the price, and then decided I couldn't afford it. Ah well. And I move on with life. There is always a choice.

Or, have I totally missed the point here? I feel it isn't just a legal issue, there's a moral issue at stake here too. In my opinion, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's right. Is my moral compass pointing in the right direction or am I in a minority?

Anyway, some excellent stuff here and some very good points being made. Many different opinions and approaches. Top.

 

[Laurentius]

It could easily be argued that a copy of something using inferior or different materials was not a copy at all precisely because it did not use the original materials.

I myself have owned an original Barbour Jacket and cheap wax cotton derivatives. I know which I prefer and it is not the Barbour.

In this day and age, what purports be a copy may well be manufactured by the same factory who supply it to the original company to put there badge and premium on.

In the case of knives and certain other artefacts, a copy may be the only way to go if the original is no longer produced, so entirely ethical in my opinion.

I don't think in a lot of cases cheap copies of expensive goods are actually depriving the original company of revenue, because they are purchased by people who could never afford the original in the first place, and whenever you buy a copy of something at ridiculously low cost it is a case of caveat emptor, but that is also the case with premium lables that might not turn out to be of the quality that they pretend to.

Again in the case of certain classic designs, there are only so many ways to do something anyway.

 

[Mikey P]

"I'd like to know why, as a member of the armed forces (I assume), you feel you need to buy your own gear. You should be provided with equipment that's fit for purpose.

Magentus"

Couldn't agree more! I'm actually retired (finished about 18 months ago) but, whilst the situation is far, far better now with issue equipment than it used to be, there are still some very poor items of issue equipment out there.

When I first joined up in the early 90s, it was de rigeur for the guys to buy their own items to improve comfort and quality of life in the field (eg, Snugpak jackets, Buffalos, Altbergs, etc). The MoD has learned a lot over the last 10 years or so (Snugpak now manufacture the military issue reversible jacket and trousers, boots, clothing, etc, are far better than they used to be); however, the issue holster is still the first thing to discard upon issue. In my opinion, it is not fit for purpose and, if you look closely at the lads in Afghan, they are still mostly wearing third-party sidearm holsters (Blackhawk, Spec Ops, etc) and especially the SERPA-style which can mount on the front of the Osprey/plate carrier at chest level.

The MoD are much better now at learning what is really required, especially in terms of personal issue kit and clothing and I would not be surprised to see these style holsters as 'issue' in the next 5 years or so. You heard it here first!

 

[demographic]

In this day and age, what purports be a copy may well be manufactured by the same factory who supply it to the original company to put there badge and premium on.

I'm seeing more and more of this with tools, there's several tool manufacturers that buy existing items from China and bung their label on them and sell them on as their stuff, then the original manufacturer sell their stuff to another manufacturer which gets called a copy.

Who made the copy in that one?

Another example of this is with these from Sea to Summit

Optimus

And Firelight.

Now if you look hard anough you will find that they all come from China and in fact so does a fair bit of Titanium cookware and I bet its a hell of a lot cheaper from there.
Are they copies?

 

[Landy_Dom]

As a design Engineer working in manufacturing, I have some experience of this issue.

There are a couple of different levels of protection a manufacturer can achieve. The most simple is design rights, which gives a basic form of protection against exact carbon copies of a product.

When a copy is a variation on a theme - dimensions are slightly different, shape altered slightly etc but clearly is the same tool for the same job, then then situation is more difficult and would need to rely on a patented feature. Patents are ridiculously difficult and expensive to attain. They are then comparitively easy to bypass with a bit of design cleverness and a good lawyer.


I have seen both sides of the argument here, both as a designer and as a consumer. As a designer, I have had my designs copied a few times. On most occasions the copy has been a variation on a theme, clearly the same tool for the same job, but tweaked slightly. In a number of cases it has been fairly clear that our product has been pulled apart and re-engineered as a copy. There is very little we have been able to do about this. Where a design is simple and has no patentable features, it is almost impossible to stop people copying it. That said, a perfect copy might have some protection as far as design rights go, and if a logo is used then that is obviously something that can be prosucuted.

We are finding more and more at work that the only way to stay ahead of the game is to keep innovating, and to make the designs reliant on complex tooling (this prevents the back-street merchants being able to copy). We are also using patent applications more, although this is of debatable value if you are fighting a big boy with a big lawyer.

As a consumer, I have come down on different sides at different times - for example I own a genuine Fallkniven knife, and a genuine Grandfors axe. Probably the reason is that I know I can trust the items, but also that the thing most likely to go wrong with a cheap copy of a knife or axe is a failure due to cheap material or poor quality heat treatment, neither of which is easy to spot with a simple visual inspection. Where the product relies on some cleverness that I cannot see or measure, I tend to pay through the nose for a trusted manufacturer.

On the other hand, I have bought Vango copies of thermarest mats. Now they don't use the thermarest name, but it is blatently obvious they are a fairly direct copy (with perhaps a few minor dimensional changes and perhaps a different valve). I trust Vango gear - they are a reputable manufacturer, but they have copied thermarest. If there was an enforcible patent on the thermarest, then I presume the copies (at least by reputable manufacturers) would have been taken off the market years ago. This is a bit like manufacturers making variations of my designs - I don't like it but it is a fact of life. Incidentally the price difference between Thermarest and Vango is staggering!

I guess from a moral point of view I would propose the following:

Copying the basic idea of a design but doing it slightly differently is naughty, but entirely legal. As a designer I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do about it. As a consumer, it comes down to price versus trust in the manufacturer's reputation.

An exact copy of a design, but without copying the original designer's logo, I don't like. It infringes design rights and shamelessly rips off the original designer's R&D.

An exact copy, including using the logo and name of the original, is WELL out of order and should be vigorously prosecuted.

A difficult moral quagmire though - with lots of grey areas.

Dom.

PS: we in design joke that R&D doesn't stand for research and development - it stands for rip-off and duplicate!

 

[lab72]

Copies of anything is wrong in my eyes ,be it knifes or music etc its not right !

 

[_mark_]

There is also the issue of cheaper materials/workmanship making the items dangerous to use.

 

[JonathanD]

To be honest I wouldn't know if that was a copy (I don't really trawl the internet looking for Bears kit) or not but if its being done to fool the buyer than in my book its dishonest, so if that's a copy then its a proper fake and I don't agree that's a good thing at all.
That said, a knife with a half serrated and half useful (cant stand serrated edges on anything other than bread knives personally) edge isn't exactly new either is it?

When we get down to Bushy clones then I'm rather less convinced as long as they don't claim to be made by the same maker.
I can remember knives roughly like bushies being made from before I heard about a certain Ray chappy, he might have refined the design but none of its exactly patentable as far as I can see and there's a few people out there making perfectly acceptable knives to that formula that are as good a quality.

Agreed, the Chinese knock off has used all of the patented designs of Bayley including BGs signature (he does offer the plain edge too like the original). A woodlore shaped blade is certainly not patentable and nothing really new.

Lets not forget however, that a certain ex-Nobleman caused outrage here when he copied many peoples knife/bag and other designs. Now none of those items were protected by patents, but because we knew the people whose designs had been copied by this person, it was frowned upon by the vast majority of the community here. There certainly isn't a black or white argument here, but it is interesting how peoples views on the ethics differ vastly and what I consider acceptable may be frowned upon by others, and also, where I draw the line, some people may draw their own alot further back.

The holster issue is something I've had experience in too. I used Ken Null or Matt Del Fatti IWB holsters and they have their cheap copiers about. The fact is they were dangerous as they were not made to the same standards and could move on your belt or even sink lower during wear. This is potentially life threatening if you had to draw down on your sidearm and found it had moved from where it should be. Obviously a back pack or pouch design would not have such potential consequences. But a karabiner design might where the copy firm might not employ the same testing and quality standards to cut down on costs.

 

[Laurentius]

Something can be legal and unethical, and likewise illegal but ethical.

I would say that improving on a design that is not your own is ethical, that is how technological progress works.

I would also say that a restrictive patent that prevents anybody from improving on a design is unethical. For instance enforcing a patent, merely to keep the supply of a certain good low, and the price high is effectively restraint of trade, particularly when one could licence the design.

In any case it behoves some degree of co-operation between an original designer and someone who merely improves the product, in such a way that both of there interests are maximised. If either party acts in such a way as to discourage that, then I would say they are not only acting against there own interest they are being unethical.

In the case of knives I would think it is very hard to claim originality at all, given that anything you do amounts to improvement rather than invention. Passing off a near copy of something as representative of the quality of the original when it isn't however is clearly wrong.

It's tools for the job really, some people want the extra aesthetic of owning a high value, low production model, others simply want a user with the same features but mass manufactured.

Take the example of watches, I have a Lorus watch, the design of which looks a bit like a Rolex as it is a classic frequently copied design. The plating on a genuine Rolex (or perhaps a Seiko) would not peel off over time as it has on my watch, however it tells the time as well as a more expensive Seiko (because they use the same works) and for all I know tells the time as good as a Rolex. The battered exterior does not matter to me so long as it keeps the water out when I go swimming, which it does.

Now if someone were to offer me a "quality" watch I would not say no, but I would still go on wearing my existing one, in a variety of situations I wouldn't want to risk a designer lable.

 

[chris_irwin]

I must say, I disagree with you somewhat. If people come up with an individual idea or particular design that is different to everything else, get a patent for it...

with the case of something like the response pack, at the end of the day, it's just a bag. It's not only the design of the bag that makes it popular, it's the materials used, the build quality etc. If someone makes a cheap knock off, you have two options - buy cheap but not as good, or buy more expensive but better quality.

If people were only allowed to ever create anything vaguely similar to each other, all industries would suffer. I think it encourages healthy competition to be quite honest. If your product is well built and affordable, it will still succeed compared to the knock off product.

However, selling a fake product is a different matter. If someone uses a particular brand (which they do not own) to sell their product, that I do not agree with.

 

[JonathanD]

Take the example of watches, I have a Lorus watch, the design of which looks a bit like a Rolex as it is a classic frequently copied design. The plating on a genuine Rolex (or perhaps a Seiko) would not peel off over time as it has on my watch, however it tells the time as well as a more expensive Seiko (because they use the same works) and for all I know tells the time as good as a Rolex. The battered exterior does not matter to me so long as it keeps the water out when I go swimming, which it does.

Now watches is another thing (I used to work for Rolex for 11 years). Your Lorus would keep better time as quartz movements that cost 10p are more accurate than a handmade mechanical movement that costs £2000 plus And Rolex never plate their watches, it's all solid as you would expect. The thing is your Lorus is a copy of a visual design on which the patent ran out on years ago, and they do tend to add slightly different dimensions, albeit small, so is completely legal. A Rolex copy with exact measurements to the original with the coronet and Rolex markings is a fake and an infringement on their intellectual property. So there is a big difference there too. Not to mention the fact that high end watch counterfeiting rings fund organised crime and even terrorism, and expoit child labour. The IRA used to make quite a bit of profit in the fake Versace jeans market not so long back. So things can get very deep.

 

[JonathanD]

I must say, I disagree with you somewhat. If people come up with an individual idea or particular design that is different to everything else, get a patent for it...

with the case of something like the response pack, at the end of the day, it's just a bag. It's not only the design of the bag that makes it popular, it's the materials used, the build quality etc. If someone makes a cheap knock off, you have two options - buy cheap but not as good, or buy more expensive but better quality.

If people were only allowed to ever create anything vaguely similar to each other, all industries would suffer. I think it encourages healthy competition to be quite honest. If your product is well built and affordable, it will still succeed compared to the knock off product.

However, selling a fake product is a different matter. If someone uses a particular brand (which they do not own) to sell their product, that I do not agree with.

Let's not forget that Snugpak may very well have paid for the licence to produce their RP copy. This is a common thing with big company designs, in that they will grant licences to do that. As consumers, we can't be expected to research everything that we buy to sort out which are which.