In one day, six women asked about the "Gucci" handbag on my shoulder. Shamelessly, they were told that it was a knock-off, bought for US$20.00. It was offered for inspection and by the gleam in their eyes, they were convinced that it was a really good deal.

Becki Patterson

Frankly, each time it was investigated was a feel-good moment. The real thing is out of my reach and because fashion changes so quickly, it is also not desired. In fact, someone else loved it so much that it has since found a new shoulder from which to profile its good looks.

The knock-off industry has for years thrived on people like me. Maybe because it is a way to still have "something nice", and having paid for it, there are no second thoughts to the copyrights infringed through the manufacture of such items.

The Chinese seem to be the masterminds behind the widespread manufacture and sale of knock-off brand-name clothing, pharmaceuticals and other items.

A February 2005 news report said that China has expressed doubts it can win a battle against rampant piracy in the country. The infringement of Intellectual Property Rights has been rampant in China for many years and the problem has grown much too big for the Chinese legal system alone.

"China cannot win the anti-piracy battle if it relies only on government crackdowns and judicial punishment," said a vice director of the National Copyright Administration.

Be it China-based or otherwise, the results of piracy aided by the advances in technology have taken a noticeable toll on US profits. This is the point, of course, that the problem begins to get real consideration.

According to one US expert, "Intellectual property, consisting of the core copyright industries, movies, TV programmes, home video, books, musical recordings and computer software comprise almost four per cent of the nation's gross domestic product, gather in some US$45 billion in revenues abroad, and has grown its employment at a rate of four times faster than the annual rate of growth of the overall US economy.

Whatever shrinks that massive asset is not in America's interests." It is not in the interest of cinema operators in the Caribbean either.

After enjoying many prosperous years of no or low competition, even enduring the advent of the VCR, Caribbean cinema operators are literally bawling, but at the same time dealing with the matter rather uncreatively - by raising movie entry fees.

A recent local report said that they are incurring some 25 per cent loss in revenues; that "the proliferation of movie piracy and the 'plunder on profits' of legitimate theatres" are the cause.
Downloading and copying CD and DVD digital files from internet web sites are more popular than ever.

Because of digital piracy, say music industry representatives, CD sales have sharply fallen. Similarly, the motion picture industry reports that internet users download 350,000 movies every day, depressing DVD sales as well.

There are no grounds to condone the stealing of the products of someone's intellect. Pirate music and movies hold the same connotations as plagiarism in schools.

But island culture everywhere in the region is such that not even getting supposedly harsher laws to counter piracy will work to deter the circulation of pirated CDs and DVDs. Very few people see it as stealing. Justified "taking" might be more accurate.

One web-based critic of cinemas everywhere rationalises the situation: When money is an issue - of travel costs to the cinema, ticket costs and then refreshment costs (especially for a family), the option of watching the film for perhaps a tenth of the price (or the price of the Internet connection - depending on whether you bought the movie or downloaded it), in the comfort of your own home, has convinced some to use these avenues.

Is it right that the movie producers should apportion blame on the loss of money within the movie industry to piracy, when they think it's justified to pay millions of dollars to the actors who star in the films?

How many actors/actresses have turned down a role in an obviously badly written sequel just to change their mind days later, based on the fact that the producers have increased their pay offer from US$10 million to US$20 million? Come on, hands up, those who think that US$10 million wasn't a lot of money to begin with!

Instead of continuing to kill attendance with high ticket prices, one chain of cinemas in South Africa - Nu Metro - took the bold decision to respond to the situation by dropping prices drastically. They cut ticket prices to less than half, from 35 rand to 14.

The Star newspaper in South Africa reported that with the increased accessibility more people were going to the movies more often, reversing the trend of revenue loss. This happened in March 2005 and to date it is still in effect. What looks like common sense elsewhere must be pure book sense here.

As for the matter of greater legislative action, the US has already determined that to some extent, what should really be happening is that consumers be given greater "fair use" rights to access and reproduce copyrighted works.

According to fair-use advocates, consumers should have the right to make copies of their CDs and DVDs so they can play them at home, at work, in their vehicles, and on portable devices. In addition, users may need back-up copies to restore lost, stolen, or damaged discs.

While not defending digital piracy, this is the civilised way of dealing with the matter. Cinemas in the Caribbean will have to adjust to the dictates of the market by being realistic about their prices and by coming up with deals and specials to keep discerning and choice-driven audiences if they hope to be around.

beckipatterson@hotmail.com

Mothers can't father

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'