Harvard Law Prof's Poor Economic Analysis Used As Cover For Unnecessary Fashion Copyright

from the not-again dept

For many years, we've pointed to the fashion industry as a perfect example of how a creative industry can be incredibly innovative and fruitful, even without copyright protections. It's a great story, and studies have shown, in fact, that the lack of copyright protection for fashion designs has been key to the success of the industry. There are a few reasons for this: (1) Brand recognition still matters, so people still want the originator's work -- and thus the copies tend to spread the concept further, and actually increase desire for the "real" version. (2) Copying of designs helps better segment the market, and actually allows top designers to increase their prices. (3) Most importantly, the fact that copiers so quickly copy the works of top designers means that those designers can't rest on their laurels and have to quickly move on to next season's design. In other words, as we've seen in many other industries, as you remove monopoly protections, the incentives to innovate actually increase.

And there should be no question that things work fine in the fashion industry, as it is highly competitive, with many different players, and new designs hitting the market all the time. Considering that copyright's sole purpose is to create incentives to promote such innovation, it's hard to see how anyone would be justified in suggesting we need a new copyright over fashion.

And yet, as with other types of intellectual property, what happens is the incumbents all realize that with such monopoly rights, they would be able to block competitors, slow down their rate of innovation, and capture greater monopoly rents. So they push for them. And, tragically, politicians have been listening. Back in 2007, a bill was introduced to add copyrights to fashion. That bill went nowhere, but similar efforts were made in 2008 and 2009 (when designers tried to enlist Michelle Obama to help their cause).

This year, it looks like the plan is to hide behind an economically questionable law review article put out by a Harvard law professor, Jeannie Suk, and a Columbia law profesor, C. Scott Hemphill (who actually appears to have a degree in economics). A bunch of folks have sent over a Boston Globe article that focuses on how Suk is helping to craft this latest attempt at adding copyright to fashion design, using the law review article as economic proof that such a law is needed. This is troubling, as the economics in the paper are severely lacking.

Given the success of the industry today, combined with the studies showing how it benefits from a lack of copyright, I wanted to read the analysis to see why Suk felt so strongly about this, and I have to say that it makes highly questionable economic arguments with no basis in fact at all. Instead, almost every economic argument is a random assumption about things -- with provably false statements like "Obviously, people always want to purchase inexpensive copies of creative works or have them for free."

No, that's not obvious and it's not right. Studies have shown that people are more than willing to pay for scarce quality -- and recent studies proving that a huge number of buyers of counterfeit goods later buy the real goods suggest that people have no problem paying for the authentic versions when they can. The myth that "people just want stuff for free" has been debunked so many times, it destroys the credibility of this paper.

But, even worse, Suk seems to base her entire argument on one simple economically-illiterate pretense: that competition is bad, and without monopolies, people innovate less:
The reduced profits can be expected to have a negative effect on the amount of innovation; this is a standard result of economic theory.
No. No, it is not a standard result of economic theory. It is only the result in a market that is static, in which no additional innovation can occur. But in the real world, in a dynamic market, this is called competition and has been a part of every "standard" economic theory since Adam Smith, who he noted that if someone is making a profit, it will bring in competition. But this doesn't have a negative effect on the amount of innovation. Quite the opposite. Competition drives innovation by encouraging people to come up with something new. Monopolies decrease innovation by taking away competition and slowing down market innovation. That is what economic theory (and reality) says.

Basically, Suk's whole position is based on the fact that the monopoly rents of designers is decreased by a lack of copyright, but she fails to consider that this leads to greater and more frequent innovation (which we see all the time in the market). What's even stranger is that she flip-flops her argument in the middle of the paper. She talks repeatedly about how designers need big profits to have the incentive to innovate, but then says that big designers aren't the ones really threatened. Instead, she claims, it's the smaller designers. But, those designers didn't have those big profits to protect in the first place. They're out there trying to make a name for themselves by designing something new and cool -- so they have plenty of incentive to innovate. And if their design this year is copied, that's great for them because it gives them greater recognition and means the demand for their original products will be even greater the following season.

Now, we see bad economic reasoning all the time -- but it's troubling when it comes from a Harvard professor (law, not economics), whose mixed up work is being used as the basis of changing the law that could seriously harm an innovative creative industry that is currently thriving.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Danny, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 10:27am

    Ummmm....

    "Obviously, people always want to purchase inexpensive copies of creative works or have them for free."
    If that were the case then how and why in the hell do, despite the countless knockoff options, do designer purse makers manage to sell purses for THOUSANDS of dollars? I mean damn a purse is nothing but a utility bag for carrying the bare necessities on the go yet people pay more for a single one that most people make in a month's salary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 10:33am

    Re: Ummmm....

    Didn't the presidents wife spend thousands of dollars and have an entire committee of experts spend days working on a dress she only wears to one event?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 17th, 2010 @ 10:42am

    Crap...

    "And yet, as with other types of intellectual property, what happens is the incumbents all realize that with such monopoly rights, they would be able to block competitors, slow down their rate of innovation, and capture greater monopoly rents."

    That means that the pace at which we will finally arrive with the uniform future garb of the one peice jumpsuit with an inverted "V" on the chest that every Sci-Fi movie tells me is coming will be slower.

    Given that this uniform dress is the inevitable evolution of fashion, which would effectively END innovation in the fashion industry, wouldn't slowing down innovation now actually keep dress variety longer, thereby increasing innovation--shit, now I've gone cross-eyed....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), Mar 17th, 2010 @ 11:09am

    Re: Crap...

    I prefer my future suits with an upright "V" where the serifs lead into kick-ass power shoulders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 11:16am

    Soooo

    as long as i wear or own said underwear i must pay pay and pay all time i use it
    come check to see if i am wearing my gotchies please

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Vake, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 11:34am

    This has to be stopped...

    ... before it can get off the ground. Chuck Schumer is a smarmy, self-serving politician, probably the most conniving in DC. Freakonomics had a good two part series on their blog about how fashion is better off without copyrights. I think right now is a worthy re-publication of those pieces.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 11:43am

    It's not a huge surprise that a law prof is behind a push for more copyright restrictions because in the end it only benefits the, it's this lawyer tax that is turning everything to shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    greg.fenton (profile), Mar 17th, 2010 @ 11:54am

    Re: This has to be stopped...

    Why is it that the idea of "re-publish a blog" just doesn't sit well with me?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    anymouse (profile), Mar 17th, 2010 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Crap...

    I think you are misinterpreting the message in all those movies.....

    The one piece jumpsuit with the inverted V is the only design left in the public domain, everything else (including all future designs in perpetuity, thanks to all the bogus laws the fashion industry got passed)have been copyrighted. So everyone wears the cheap (roughly $500 adjusted for inflation) jumpsuit, since they can't afford the outrageous prices that all the designers are asking for their copyrighted creations. I mean who would really want to pay $350,000 for a sleeveless one color cotton shirt with a somewhat rounded check-mark/shwoosh type logo on the front?

    /sarcasm off

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Mar 17th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

    Ivy League is over rated

    With "genius" professors like this at Harvard, I don't feel so bad about my state school education. If I had graduated from Harvard, I'd start to think I got ripped off. Apparently they'll let just about anyone teach there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 7:49pm

    Re: Ivy League is over rated

    With "genius" professors like this at Harvard, I don't feel so bad about my state school education. If I had graduated from Harvard, I'd start to think I got ripped off. Apparently they'll let just about anyone teach there.


    Make sure you reiterate this the next time Masnick name drops Lawrence Lessig.

    I'll just be over here, holding my breath, waiting for you to prove you're not a hypocrite...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2010 @ 10:51pm

    Law reviews are generally not peer reviewed. They're reviewed by a bunch of law students sitting around drinking coffee and citations. Smart people, but still just students.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Ivy League is over rated

    You're assuming that I think all of Harvard's profs are incompetent, which isn't the case. I'm just pointing out that Harvard, like state schools, has it's share of academic frauds. So I'm not sure how you can take that comment to be hypocritical if I don't paint Lessig with the same brush. Care to share how you reached that conclusion?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This