早稲田政経 2013 III
[1]
1932, a group of American fashion manufacturers found themselves faced with a flood of knockoffs ―cheap copies of original designs. Fashion manufacturers, then as now, were not protected by patents or copyrights. So they decided to take direct action to stop the copying. They set up the Fashion Originators Guild of America to monitor retailers and keep track of original designs; if you look at vintage dresses from the thirties, you can find labels reading "A registered original design with Fashion Originators Guild." Retailers selling knockoffs were "red-carded," and guild members wouldn't sell their merchandise to red-carded stores. This was unpopular with the retailers, but it seems to have reduced the copying. The only problem with the plan was that it was illegal: in 1941, the Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturers' arrangement violated antitrust law, and the knockoff artists stayed in business.
1932, a group of American fashion manufacturers found themselves faced with a flood of knockoffs ―cheap copies of original designs. Fashion manufacturers, then as now, were not protected by patents or copyrights. So they decided to take direct action to stop the copying. They set up the Fashion Originators Guild of America to monitor retailers and keep track of original designs; if you look at vintage dresses from the thirties, you can find labels reading "A registered original design with Fashion Originators Guild." Retailers selling knockoffs were "red-carded," and guild members wouldn't sell their merchandise to red-carded stores. This was unpopular with the retailers, but it seems to have reduced the copying. The only problem with the plan was that it was illegal: in 1941, the Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturers' arrangement violated antitrust law, and the knockoff artists stayed in business.
[2]
In the decades since, copying has remained
common in the fashion industry. Fashion-conscious but low-priced retailers like
H&M and Zara have flourished, thanks to their ability to take designs from Milan
to the mass market. Private-label designers for major department stores boast
of the high quality of their imitations. And almost as soon as hot new designs
appear on the fashion-show runway, photographs and drawings of them are on
their way to Chinese factories that can produce reasonable facsimiles at a
fraction of the cost. Designers today are as annoyed by this as their prewar
counterparts were.
[3]
Designers' frustration at seeing their
ideas mimicked is understandable. But this is a classic case where the cure may
be worse than the disease. There's little evidence that knockoffs are damaging
the business. Fashion sales have remained more than healthy―estimates value the
global luxury-fashion sector at 130 billion dollars ―and the high-end firms
that so often see their designs copied have become stronger. More striking, a
recent paper by law professors Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman suggests
that weak intellectual-property rules, ( A ) the fashion industry, have instead
been essential to its success. The professors call this effect "the piracy
paradox."
[4]
The paradox stems from the basic dilemma that underlies the economics of fashion: for the industry to keep growing, customers must like this year's designs, but they must also become dissatisfied with them so that they'll buy next year's. Many other consumer businesses face a similar problem, but fashion ―unlike, say, the technology industry―can't rely on improvements in power and performance to make old products outdated. Raustiala and Sprigman argue persuasively that, in fashion, ( B ) function. Copying enables designs and styles to move quickly from early adopters to the masses. And since no one cool wants to keep wearing something after everybody else is wearing it, the copying of designs helps fuel the endless demand for something new.
The paradox stems from the basic dilemma that underlies the economics of fashion: for the industry to keep growing, customers must like this year's designs, but they must also become dissatisfied with them so that they'll buy next year's. Many other consumer businesses face a similar problem, but fashion ―unlike, say, the technology industry―can't rely on improvements in power and performance to make old products outdated. Raustiala and Sprigman argue persuasively that, in fashion, ( B ) function. Copying enables designs and styles to move quickly from early adopters to the masses. And since no one cool wants to keep wearing something after everybody else is wearing it, the copying of designs helps fuel the endless demand for something new.
( C )
[5]
If copying were seriously affecting
designers' profits, it might slow the pace of innovation, since designers would
have less incentive to produce good work. But while knockoffs undoubtedly do
steal some sales from originals, they are, for the most part, targeted at an
entirely different market segment―people who ( D ) high style but can't ( E )
high prices. That limits the damage knockoffs do, as does the fact that fashion
is one of the few industries in the world where people are still willing to pay
a considerable premium to own original brands instead of counterfeits, which
are illegal. The best evidence of this is the fact that luxury-goods makers
have not had to cut their prices in response to the knockoff boom―indeed,
they've been able to raise them consistently. In fact, given the importance to fashion
of what law professor Jonathan Barnett calls "aspirational
utility"―the enjoyment people get from imitating the lifestyle of the rich
and famous―one might think of knockoffs as being like gateway drugs: access to
the lower-quality version makes buyers all the more interested in eventually
getting the real stuff.
[6]
The fashion industry is not alone in its surprising mixture of weak intellectual-property laws and strong innovation: haute cuisine, furniture design, and magic tricks are all fields where innovators produce new work without being able to copyright it. This doesn't mean that we can always do without copyrights and patents. But we should be skeptical of claims that tougher laws are necessarily better laws. Sometimes imitation isn't just the sincerest form of flattery. It's also the most productive.
The fashion industry is not alone in its surprising mixture of weak intellectual-property laws and strong innovation: haute cuisine, furniture design, and magic tricks are all fields where innovators produce new work without being able to copyright it. This doesn't mean that we can always do without copyrights and patents. But we should be skeptical of claims that tougher laws are necessarily better laws. Sometimes imitation isn't just the sincerest form of flattery. It's also the most productive.
Source: James Surowiecki, "The Piracy
Paradox," The New Yorker (September 24, 2007)
1 Choose the most suitable answer from
those below to complete the following sentence.
Cheaper fashion retailers have been
successful because
(a) the Fashion Originators Guild appealed
successfully to the Supreme Court.
(b) there have been considerable
improvements in the technology to produce photographs and drawings.
(c) they are able to introduce new designs
from fashion centers to a much wider public.
(d) they have been able to come up with new
designs that later proved very popular.
(e) those like H&M and Zara have
established their own fashion-show runways.
2 Choose the most suitable answer from
those below to complete the following sentence.
The underlined expression "the cure
may be worse than the disease" suggests that
(a) firms at the high end of the market
have become stronger than before.
(b) having stricter laws to prevent
imitations would probably be a bad idea.
(c) it is easy to see why fashion producers
are dissatisfied with the current situation.
(d) the evidence shows that the fashion
industry is in an unhealthy state.
(e) we should encourage designers to demand
tougher legal restrictions.
3 Choose the most suitable phrase from
those below to fill in blank space (A).
(a) alone in supporting
(b) apart from helping
(c) close to damaging
(d) far from hurting
(e) next to copying
4 Use the six words below to fill in blank
space (B) in the best way. Indicate your choices for the
second, fourth, and sixth positions.
(a) copying (b)is (c) it (d) serves
(e) that (f) this
5 Choose the most suitable order of
sentences from those below to fill in blank space (C).
(a) But it means that in the industry as a
whole there is more innovation, more competition, and probably more sales than
there otherwise would be.
(b) Had the designers who came up with the
pinstripe or the stiletto heel been able to prevent others from using their
creations, there would have been less inventiveness in fashion, not more.
(c) The situation is not necessarily easy
on designers, who have to keep coming up with new ideas rather than being able
to continue with the same trend for years.
(d) These characteristics of the fashion
industry are all promoted by the absence of copyrights and patents.
6 Choose the most suitable pair of words
from those below to fill in blank spaces (D) and (E).
(a) admire―resist
(b) appreciate―afford
(c) imitate―reject
(d) prefer―set
(e) produce―demand
7 Choose the most suitable answer from
those below to complete the following sentence.
The writer believes that
(a) compared with the prewar period,
fashion designers today face much stronger challenges from copying.
(b) fashion manufacturing may benefit from
an environment in which imitation products can be sold.
(c) the designing of knockoff products
should be rewarded with higher profits.
(d) the designs from Milan are the most
suitable for the mass market.
(e) the fashion and technology industries
are similar in that they both require strict copyright protection for
innovation.
1932年に アメリカのファッション製造業者団体は氾濫する模倣品－オリジナルデザインの安価なコピー商品-に悩まされていた。ファッション製造業者は，当時も今と同様，特許や著作権で守られてはいなかった。そこで，業者は模倣をやめさせるために直接行動に出ることにした。業者は「アメリカ・ファッション創案者組合（ＦＯＧＡ匸）を設立して。小売業者を監視し オリジナルデザインの販売経路をたどれるようにした。もしあなたが30年代の年代物の衣類を見れば，「ファッション創案者組合認定オリジナルデザイン」と書かれたラペルがついている。模倣品を販売する小売業者は「レッドカードつき」となり，組合に属する業者はレッドカードのついた店には自社商品を売ろうとしなかった。これは小売業者には不評だったが，それで模倣は減ったらしい。その案で唯一問題なのは，それが違法であるという点だった。つまり, 1941年に最高裁判所はその業者の取り決めは独占禁止法に違反するとの判決を出し，模倣品作りの名人たちは商売を続けたの
である。
以来数十年になるが，模倣は今もファッション業界ではごく普通である。Ｈ＆Ｍやザラのように流行には敏感だが，低価格が売りの小売業者は，ミラノからデザインを取り入れて大衆向けの市場に出す能力のおかげで，大いに繁盛してきた。大手百貨店の自社ブランドデザイナーは，自分たちがまねて作った製品の品質の良さを自慢する。そして，新しいデザインがファッションショーのランウェイに登場するのとほぼ同時にその写真や図面が，何分の一かの費用で複製品を製造することができる中国の工場に送られる。今日のデザイナーは，戦前の同業者と同様，こういう状況に手を焼いているのだ。
デザイナーにすれば自分のアイデアが模倣されているのを目にすればイライラするのはわかる。しかし，これは治療しようとしてかえって病状が悪化する典型的な例である。模倣品がビジネスに被害を与えているという証拠はほとんどないからだ。ファッションの売り上げはとても好調な状態が続いており，推定では，世界全体の高級ファッション部門は1,300億ドルと見積もられている。自分たちのデザインが模倣されているのを目にすることの非常に多い高級品を扱う会社が，以前にも増して好調なのだ。さらに特筆すべきことだが，法律学教授のカル＝ロースティアラとクリストファー＝スプリグマンによる最近の論文では，知的財産法がゆるいことは，ファッション業界に害を及ぼすどころか，むしろ成功に不可欠だったのではないかと示唆している。教授らはこの効果を「海賊版のパラドックス」と呼んでいる。
その逆説はファッション経済の根底にある基本的なジレンマに起因するものである。つまり，ファッション業界が成長を維持するには，顧客が今年のデザインを気に入ってくれなければならないが，来年度のものを買ってくれるように，それに満足できなくなることもまた必要なのだ。他の多くの消費者ビジネスも同様の問題に直面するのだが，ファッションはｰたとえば，ハイテク業界などと異なり一旧製品を時代遅れにするためにパワーや性能の改善に頼るわけにはいかない。ロースティアラとスプリグマンは，説得力のある形で，ファッションではこの機能を果たしているのが模倣なのだと主張する。模倣されることで，デザインや型は早々とそれを取り入れた人から大衆へとすぐに広まることが可能になる。そして，粋な人なら誰も，何かを他の人がこぞって着るようになってから着続けたりしないので，デザインの模倣は新しい物をはてしなく欲しがる気持ちをあおるのに役立つのだ。
その状況が必ずしもデザイナーにとって甘いものではないのは，彼らが何年も同じ路線でやり続けることができず，たえず新しいアイデアを考え出さなければならないからである。しかしそれは，業界全体としては。そうでない場合より，さらに多くの革新的アイデアや競争が生まれ，そしておそらく売り上げも増えるということなのだ。ファッション業界のこうした特徴はすべて，著作権や特許がないことで促進されている。もしピンストライプやスチレット・ビールを考え出したデザイナーが，他の人が自分たちが創ったものを使えないようにすることができていたら，ファッションにおける創作力は減りこそすれ，増すことはなかっただろう。
もし模倣がデザイナーの利益に深刻な影響を与えているとするならば，デザイナーは良い作品を生み出そうとする意欲が減退するだろうから，革新的なものが生まれるペースは落ちるかもしれない。しかし，模倣品は確かにオリジナル商品の売り上げの一部を横取りするものの，売り上げの大部分はたいていの場合，まったく異なる客層一最新のファッションを高く評価しながらも，高額の費用を出す金銭的余裕はない大たちｰを客層としている。そのために模倣品が与える損害が限られたものとなるわけだが，それと同様の機能を果たすのが，ファッションは，違法に作られた偽物ではなく，オリジナルブランド品を我がものとするためならかなりの割増価格を払うこともいとわない大たちがいる，世界でも数少ない産業の一つだという事実である。この最も適切な証拠となるのが，高級品の市場は，模倣品があふれかえっても，それに対抗して自分かちの価格を下げる必要はこれまでなかった，それどころか，一貫して値上げすることができているという事実である。実際。法律学教授のジョナサン＝バーネットが［憧れ効用］と呼ぶ効用-すなわち，人々が金持ちや有名人のライフスタイルをまねることで得られる快感-のファッションに対する重要性を考慮すると，模倣品を入門薬物のようなものだと考えてよいだろう一つまり，低品質版が手に入ることでいっそう，買い手がいつかは本物を手に入れたいという思いを強くするというわけである。
ファッション業界だけが唯一，知的財産法の脆弱さと革新的アイデアの力が驚くべき形で融合した状態にある業界だというわけではない。高級フランス料理，家具のデザイン，手品の種などもみな，革新的な人物が新たな作品を，著作権で保護することができなくても生み出している分野である。これは私たちが必ずしも著作権や特許などなくてもやっていけるという意味ではない。それでも，私たちは厳しい法律がすなわち良い法律だという主張は疑ってかかるべきなのだ。模倣は，時に最高の賞賛となるだけではない。それは同時に この上なく生産的な行為でもあるのだ。
1(c) 2(b) 3(d)
4 (b) (e) (f) 5 (c)(a)(d)(b) 6(b) 7(b)
コメント
コメントを投稿