I know lots of people who use Zippos, or I did, when I hung out with the smokin’ and drinkin’ crowd. They were very popular in my high school, from which I graduated in 1996. I used them almost exclusively throughout the 11 years I smoked, the only time I’d use a disposible was if my Zippo was out of fluid and I happened to have a spare disposible around.
I grew up in a rather blue collar and rural area, though, and they’re definitely popular with people who work in settings where sparks can fly about. During my brief stint eight years ago working in a horse trailer factory, smoking was allowed in the plant, but disposable lighters were banned because sparks could melt through the plastic and cause the fluid to leak, which could either ignite, or cause chemical burns to your skin. My father is a welder in a garbage truck plant, and that’s the rule there too, Zippo-type lighters only.
It may be, though, that they’re less common in more urban settings. Now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure that of the smokers I know who I met after I moved to a larger city and started working in an office environment, I’m the only person I know who used one. Well, my husband used one, but that’s just because he liked mine so he got his own.
Zippos are definitely cheaper than that. The cheapest plain chrome ones can be gotten for around 12 dollars at Walmart. The polished brass one I bought my dad for his birthday when I was in high school was around 25 or 30, I think.
I’m not sure of the reasoning here. ISTM that either people could afford to buy real Zippos, and therefore would have if fakes were available (and the fakes are therefore directly stealing sales), or people could not afford to buy real Zippos, making the Zippo a luxury item (and the fakes are therefore devaluing the authentic ones).
In either case, I don’t see how you can argue that ripping off a product doesn’t hurt the product. If my patented Widgetrons cost 10 bucks, I don’t want you selling fakes, and if my patented Widgetrons cost 1000 bucks, I don’t want you selling fakes.
But then, I don’t get the whole situational morality of stealing being okay so long as you steal from someone I don’t like, so we’re probably not on the same page anyway.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think we should be demanding absolute proof of a causal relationship though, as that would be nearly impossible to establish.
There’s no good reason to doubt that these cheap-o knockoffs are eating into Zippo’s profits, and I think it’s an entirely plausible scenario. Under the circumstances, I think that the Zippo folks are perfectly justified in complaining.
There are fake everything out there and not many other major long standing companies are losing business- most are experiencing growth- why is Zippo losing business? Not only expensive items either- I have seen fake Bic pens and disposable lighters.
And if they are right, they are absolutely justified in complaning. If they are just blaming foreigners for their own failures, thats unspeakably bad.
Really? You have literally seen counterfeit “Bic” pens? How did you know? “Disposable lighters” as such are not branded; anyone can sell them. So what would be a “fake” disposable lighter?
I don’t see why it can’t be both. If their company is suffering anyway, due to decreased demand for lighters, then wouldn’t that mean they would be more concerned about counterfeits than less? Again, I don’t get the reasoning here: It’s like either they must be doing great, in which case they shouldn’t give a shit about people ripping them off, or they must be sucking for other reasons, in which case they shouldn’t give a shit about people ripping them off.
Forogot to add, there are tons of legal zippo “style” lighters out there, made in the US, but I guess these don’t hurt the business, only the Chinese ones.
The Chinese ones are not Zippo “style” lighters, they are fake Zippo lighters. They are sold as Zippos. I think the Zippo company would argue that domestic fake Zippos hurt business as well.
I don’t know; save up for them? Or maybe not buy them, so that the three people out there who care about having “genuine” Zippo lighters know that 1 billion Chinese aren’t carrying them?
ISTM that if you create something tangible and someone else takes it, they are clearly stealing it. I don’t see why an original idea is worth less protection. I’ve only earned enough from my fiction writing to buy a few tanks of gas, but I would still be pretty pissed if someone started republishing my stories without my permission and thereby taking for themselves a profit that justly belongs to me. I don’t see how that could possibly not be stealing.
No, they didn’t steal the unethical breeding ground concept, you see they have they’re own entirely original unethical breeding ground concept - the resemblance is probably some kind of coincidence
Not fake as in with the BIC logo, although some might, I meant fake as in “they look identical to the actual thing in every way”. My take is, and I could be way off, no one under 30 cares about Zippos, most don’t even know what the word means, out of context. Its a relic from an earlier generation. Just my opinion, and based on what I have encountered. Did I see kids in school in the 70’s with zippos, smokin in the boys room? Alll the time. Do I think kids in high school now have Zippos- especially in bigger cities? No I don’t.
And my take on the knockoffs sold on the streets is, the average person who buys or thinks of buying one is doing so to have a cheap lighter, or they like the skull design, they are not thinking “I can fool people into thinking I have a real Zippo”.
Zippos to those that still care about them are like Harley Davidsons- if you want one and like one, you are going to get a real one- it doesn’t strike me as the type of product that people who are into it would lower themselves to buy a fake.
Googling fake Bic lighters, it looks like they do exist.
An idea in terms of an abstract concept, maybe. But specific words put together in order to express that idea is a different thing. The way those words are put together makes the property a “marketable” thing…that is, something that is worth money to someone. I can’t see how appropriating that property to make money for oneself isn’t stealing. If something is marketable, then it is a property.
Jodi is talking about fiction-writing. Sure, maybe you can make the argument that there are only 7 original plots in the world, but if she has filled out the plots with her own voice, then that work is hers to try to sell. Why should anyone else reap the benefits of her work? She may not be making widgets, but she still has her time and effort invested in the creation. It belongs to her.
Im sure such cheap, mundane things as disposable razors, lighters and pens do attract the attention of counterfeiters - it happens with stuff like this, so why not?
So which is it? Do you want to leave the laws unchanged, including the ones protecting intellectual property (even that owned by giant corporations), or do you want to eliminate the legal protection on intellectual property?
Well, that’s a consistent and fine opinion, as long as you realize that under your system many creative people will be:
(1) Less disposed to create; and
(2) Less disposed to share what they’ve created with others.
I’m a writer. I get paid for it, in a variety of contexts. Without the present intellectual property laws, I’d have two problems, one easily managed, the other not. The first problem would be that we’d need to create some alternate system by which I could make a living by writing. If I couldn’t feed myself and my family in this way, I’d have to use the time I currently spend writing building houses or making soup or in a courtroom or in a garage, because I need to eat, right? So first you’ll have to develop a financial system that can handle this - pay me a salary, I guess, not dependent on how popular what I create turns out to be, or make me dependent on benefactors. This would probably limit my creative ability, of course, because instead of writing for readers first, I’d have to write for my employer and hope that other end readers share his or her tastes. But it would solve the problem to some extent, and over time I’m sure a new system could be created that would deal with the financial aspect.
But there’s another problem, not so easily solved. If I write a play, for example, that shit is mine. I spent hours and days and months and years creating it, sweating over every line. It is mine. I don’t want it changed without my permission. I don’t want someone to decide that my novel would work just great with two chapters gone and a new character, and cut those chapters and insert that character and disseminate it. That’s not what I wrote, and I want the right to control over what I wrote.* Too bad,* you say, you don’t get that right? Well, OK, but then I’m not going to waste my time creating something that could be adulterated and then presented as my work. Or if I do, because the urge to be creative is so strong, then I won’t share it, or I’ll share it only with close friends and family. In my case, no great loss. But I’d guess that others who create what is now protected intellectual property feel the same as I do, and some among them might be doing things that are much more valuable than what I’m doing.
Given your statement that you don’t think there’s such a thing as an original idea, I have to wonder why you would care about plagarism. You deny originality as to the idea, but you would demand originality in how it expressed? That doesn’t make any sense.
And I own my work. I sell the right to publish my stories to magazines. In all (the few) cases, they have published the story the one time they were legally entitled to do so, period. Even if I had sold all my rights to a given story to them or to some other publisher, the value of my story to me would corrolate directly to its value to them. The less money they make out of publishing my story, the less money they pay me. If I sell them the foreign rights and those rights in Asia can be expressed as diddly / squat due to the fact that my work has already been stolen and disseminated there, then diddly / squat is what they will pay me for those rights.
Unless you imagine intellectual property is the one area in which economic shit does not roll down hill.
