Quote:
Originally Posted by Downfourit
While I disagree with you, If you were a woman I would understand your point more, not to mean any offense but a man wears a watch. I don't care if it is a Casio or a Rolex, A real man wears a watch. A surfer dude that doesn't have to be anywhere important uses his cellphone when he can find it to tell time.
Now in regards to the fake watch conversation, it has nothing to do with TMZ cause like i said you can buy a real watch for $10, or you can buy a fake Rolex for $50 and be a poser. It says a lot about a person if he needs to wear a fake watch to feel relevant no different than a guy debadging his 328i and replacing it with a M3 badge for acceptance. Those are some sorry ass people that I would not let anywhere near my circle because I know enough about them just from that fact. Me personally I wear what i can afford, and if I couldn't afford a nice watch I would wear a $20 watch, but it wouldn't be a fake or counterfeit of another product.
|
Red:
What would make you understand anything unrelated to breasts, vaginas, estrogen, childbirth, and other factors unique to females, more because the speaker of the words is female?
After that opening paragraph of sexist, stereotypically founded, illogical generalizations, my better judgement tells me I shouldn't even bother responding to the rest. And, no, not in the least am I offended by your prejudices. I am disappointed that presumably grown people actually think that way. I don't care if it's one or one million folks who do, it's still sad that after the women's, gay, and civil rights movements, anyone actually thinks that way.
Blue:
What TMZ has to do with it is that there on-screen personalities incessantly read into people's actions meaning and symbolism for which there is no basis. Eighty percent of that show consists of the TMZ team speculating about other folks' actions. Why? Why not instead ask the persons involved direct questions rather than speculate, and absent the opportunity to ask the individuals involve, say nothing?
I realize TMZ is meant to be entertaining, and in that sense, it's fine. The issue that inspired me to write of the "TMZ mentality" is that the sorts of general speculation about specific, public persons that TMZ makes is what you're doing in your second paragraph. In quippy parlance, it's "guilty until proven innocent." That's just wrong, morally, legally and ethically.
When did people cease to be owed the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of popular culture or specific individuals who don't personally know the parties of whom them speculate and generalize? People generalize about BMW owners too, and that is just as wrong as is doing the same thing on the basis of fake watch ownership.
People need to stick to facts. And the only fact that one can be sure of re: fake watches is that their owners possess contraband. One cannot even assert that the owner purchased it absent proof of that act. For some owners, it's not even possible for us to know that they know they have an unauthentically branded watch.
Green:
It's very different.
- The car is still a BMW and in most people's eyes, a BMW is a BMW, varying only by size and styling
- One cannot buy one Rolex model and rebadge it as another
Purple:
That's fine. And so long as you refrain from judging others solely on the basis that their choice in the matter differs from yours, I have nothing to say about it.
You see, the point of this thread isn't to ask what people think about fake watches and their owners. The point is to ask why do "you" give a damn about it? How does it affect "your" existence?
The outright fakes aren't making you pay more because of the legal costs the IP owners incur to defend their IP.
- The money companies like AP and Rolex spend defending their trademarks/brand is spent suing other large companies like Tommy Hilfiger that make watches that don't even purport to be a Rolex or AP, for example.
- Companies like AP and Rolex don't actually bother to sue the makers of the watches that do purport to be Subs, DateJusts, Royal Oaks, etc. I can't find evidence of one single lawsuit against the myriad mom and pop makers of Chinese watches. I can't find one lawsuit against Parnis (http://www.parniswatch.net/) and yet AP sued Swiss Watch International and Tommy Hilfiger over these watches.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1625a...#axzz3SK7oogpu
And yet like Parnis' products, Michael Kors' watches don't violate Rolex's IP rights. Really? (http://www.thefashionlaw.com/is-mich...rity-to-rolex/)
Forget about how much the watches pictured above resemble those of AP and Rolex. The point is that that they don't say Rolex or AP on the dial as do outright fakes, and yet the IP owners don't sue the fake makers. The most they do is (1) coordinate with Customs agencies the public steamrolling of fakes from time to time, and (2) have conversations with Chinese officials about stopping the production of fake watches. I can tell you now those conversations haven't been very productive, for the production volumes of fakes has gone up since the 1980s.
Say what you will about the macro-/microeconomic impact of the fake watch trade; deride the Chinese government if you want. The fact is there is little to no point in the Chinese government creating criminals and filling their jails with literally thousands of "mom and pop" citizens whose only wrong is to produce a replica of a product that neither they nor most of their customers can ever hope to buy.
What's the point of that? Were they to do that, it would conceptually be the same thing the U.S. has done by making criminals out of marijuana users. And to what end? You and I have to pay taxes to support those "criminals" while they are in jail.
So, as I asked earlier, what difference does it make to you? You wear a an authentically branded fancy watch or you wear an authentically branded non-fancy watch. Someone else wears a fake fancy watch or fake non-fancy watch. And their doing so has what direct affect on you?
All the best.