As far as DVD(s), that is fine too. If my memory serves me right,
the fine for intentional infringement is up to $150,000. It
applies to both parties. Even if a buyer could claim innocent
infringement, it is still $700 minimum. I actually like that. $700
instead $42! I take this deal every time.
Your numbers look high but you would need at least 2 lawyers.
Lawyers tend to like larger boats, just how many are you willing to
finance ??
I believe you have left some things out of the equation. First, there
are refining costs, overhead costs, shop materials and supplies,
tools and equipment and advertising (yes, even a lowly website costs
money), wholesalers, distributors, and retailers fees, just to name a
few. Second, if you give the job to an assistant, not only do you
have labor cost but also your own percentage as the master goldsmith.
Third, if your assistant can make a chain and Tiffany style
lock/clasp in an hour (at 90 Euros/hour as you state) you must have
some major manufacturing equipment the cost of which must be factored
in (as in depreciation). Lastly, since I could not find your website,
would you please tell me where I can purchase a piece of your jewelry
that contains two ounces of silver for 150 Euros? Even if the
aforementioned costs are figured into the 90 Euros/hour, I’m hesitant
to believe that I can afford one of your items
Mr. Pinaud said HIS cost was, maybe, $150 EU for the chain, counting
nothing other than material and labor. He didn’t say that’s what he
would sell it for. I believe he was being sarcastic when he said he
can’t see why “they have to make $ 720 profit on a silver chain.” He
called it “…‘pure and simple free market capitalism’”
I agree. It’s not just a question of ‘you get what you pay for’.
There are people who will NEVER buy Tiffany because they just can’t
afford it. They’re the same people who can’t pay $10,000 for a Birkin
bag. Perhaps they could afford a Coach for a couple of hundred and
they may be willing to pay $200-$300 for a sterling silver necklace
from someone like me, but they will never spend the money for the
Tiffany or Birkin, etc.
While I agree that counterfeiting designs is illegal and deceptive,
I see nothing wrong with buying “large hole beads” because I can’t
afford real Pandora. What people are willing to sacrifice in quality,
integrity and price is up to them. I will never be able to buy a
Birkin… I won’t buy a counterfeit but I’d love to find a quality
look-alike.
To those who believe the name is as important as the quality, or
more important, price is no object. To those of us for whom price is
the major consideration, well, much as some of us (not me) would love
to “own” the name brand, we’ll just have to settle for knock-offs.
To those who believe the name is as important as the quality, or
more important, price is no object. To those of us for whom price
is the major consideration, well, much as some of us (not me)
would love to "own" the name brand, we'll just have to settle for
knock-offs.
A lot of people has been settling for counterfeits regardless of
disposable income. A lot of wealthy collectors have been snookered,
but it is frequently hidden from public view.
One of my favorite books is “Counterfeit Mis-struck and Unofficial
US Coins”. Highly recommend if you can find it. According to it, one
of the largest counterfeiters in the World is.(drum roll please).
United States Mint. Yes, as unbelievable as it is, the book makes
quite a compelling case.
Another example I find fascinating is in recently published book
“Faberge Revealed”, which is dealing with collection of Faberge items
in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Chapter 5 titled “Mrs. Pratt’s
Imperial Easter Eggs” contains some notes on restoration of Peter the
Great Egg, with few pictures. One of the pictures is showing inside
of the eggshell, which was exposed during restoration. I am referring
to page 97 (picture on the left), which shows that outside
decorations are attached via pins haphazardly bent on the inside.
Anyone, who is vaguely familiar with Faberge, would instantly
recognize it as fake. There are other clues like enamel is lacking in
vividness, stone-setting technique is wanting, and others.
My question is, - is it possible that museum curator is so
unfamiliar with Faberge work as to overlook obvious signs. Another
theory implies much worse than lack of familiarity, so I prefer not
to go into it. The point is that an obvious fake is displayed as
original, been purchased as original, and even mentioned in the book
as original. If this is any indication of what is going on in
cultural institutions, than what can we expect from businesses. The
only defense is to know how quality looks, how it is made, and what
it cost. Stamps, signatures, certifications are meaningless by
themselves.
To those who believe the name is as important as the quality, or
more important, price is no object.
I’m going to tell the story without making any judgements about it,
just a real life story. Friends of mine had a client who wanted an
engagement ring. A simple three stone ring with emerald cut diamonds,
one large, two small. I don’t remember all the details, as it was
years ago now, but I believe the total weight was 10 or 12 carats.
They had shopped Cartier and the cost was something like $225K (back
then - try it now!). My friends put the ring together (I may have
made it for them, I don’t remember), and the specs were exactly the
same except one of the smaller diamonds was a full color grade and
clarity grade BETTER. All certified. The savings was just about $50K
from Cartier. This was just a three stone ring, nothing really
copyright-able. Didn’t have the stamp, is all.