|
Thank you, SB, for the links. I found the first article especially interesting and informative. The emphasis seemed to be mainly on the consumer, stressing the inferiority of copied works and the public's love of a bargain.
Although the issue of illegality was mentioned, I thought the article did not cover this issue adequately. There was a lot of concern over how the heads of these enterprises are getting rich while the copyist "artists" are not paid well and work in sweatshop conditions. Of course this is outrageous, but what about the artists whose work is being copied illegally? These businesses are blatantly violating copyright law when they should be 1) asking permission to reproduce, 2) paying the original artists royalties, and 3) respecting the right of the original artists if these artists choose to deny them permission to reproduce. The artists should be making money from this (if they choose) but they are not. They should be paid retroactively for all sales. The whole point, in my opinion, is that these businesses should not exist, at least not in their present form.
The author urged the consumer not to buy "sweatshop" products in general. Again, although this is an important issue, it lumps this "art" in with all other sweatshop products from China. The issues of 1) stopping the sale of illegal goods, and 2) the money due to artists of the original works, get only a passing nod in this article.
|