The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, proposed recently by Senator Charles E. Schumer, is not only a copyright protection for designers, but also a step that promotes innovative design. Nevertheless, is it a greater trigger than that offered by copying itself? The designer who has the idea first, is in demand since consumers who are faithful to innovation discard whatever is alike and prefer the unique. The new act gives an extra push to this tendency towards the original and constitutes a deterrent for those without genuine ideas. Though complicated and weak, it has the consent of both the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA), after four years of inconclusive debate. It’s not clear how a designer can prove the authenticity of his creations practically, but it’s truly evident that he should try hard to defend it. Consumers must not get confused buying a “copy”, if they can actually afford getting the original. That’s the spirit of the proposed legislation. The outcome would be that the so-called innovative designers should invest all their energy in convincing the market that their products have a special, distinguishable id, obvious even to the naïves. It’s truly a paradox that both copying and prohibition of copying push towards further innovation. But this is a desirable paradox, I have to admit…
Στην Αμερική προωθείται ένας νέος νόμος για την προστασία της μοναδικότητας των δημιουργιών των σχεδιαστών μόδας. Το παράδοξο βέβαια είναι ότι ακόμα και η αντιγραφή των καινοτομιών κάποιων ώθει το καταναλωτικό κοινό προς την επιβράβευση όσων καινοτομούν ουσιαστικά, καθώς γίνεται πιο απαιτητικό και υποψιασμένο για οτιδήποτε χρυσοπληρώνει ως μοναδικό, πρωτότυπο, αυθεντικό, αποκλειστικό και ανεπανάληπτο…
