No, that still isn’t a real Ferrari. But yes the analogy is off because I probably would buy the car since it was built using real parts but there is no true 1 to 1 replica of Pokemon cards.
1 Like
I already answered in a similar thread and I will answer the same way: Yes, I do it, and I justify it in any form.
Whether it’s getting a copy of an otherwise unobtainable real card or a card completely designed from scratch. The principle of copyright infringement is present in both cases and should always be condemned because it is always to the detriment of the original producer, not to mention that in some (if not most) countries, those who buy counterfeit products are also punishable and not just those who sell them.
Having removed the empathic-legal parenthesis towards those who generate the original product, I go on to justify my thoughts, which I certainly don’t expect to be shared.
As for copies of original cards, probably my problem. I’d rather have a copy that fills the hole than a hole forever. If the copy has a decent price-quality ratio, I buy it. Obviously I don’t expect to see the original delivered to my home if I pay little for it. I think that every person who buys this type of card has a limit beyond which they don’t want to go with their spending, as they are, in fact, fake. But I also don’t feel like saying that it’s better to print a copy with my home printer and cut it out by hand.
Different, and from what I see even more shared, is the situation if we talk about cards that will never see the light of day from the pokemon company. We are always talking about feeding counterfeiters to the detriment of the manufacturer, but a specific layout that will never be adopted by tpc, a particular holography, a pattern that we will never see come out of an original booster, there is something that makes us want it and even though we are aware that it is wrong, we decide to buy it, perhaps before the advert is taken down. Because it might be the last time we’ll be able to see them.
Very simple, basic principle that underlies the whole reasoning: “Do I like it? I want it. Do I want it? I’ll buy it.” without going through the subtle legal process. The only real difference that some have grasped and which decides where ethics ends is the “”hypothesis of realizability””. If something already exists as original, it is wrong to take it as false. If something does not exist, perhaps it will never exist and I will have no way of obtaining it in a form other than a fake.
For me, I repeat, for me, there is no ethics. Tpc still takes my money, even if I buy a fake every now and then, it’s certainly not me who is damaging their turnover. A trophy then… who should my life savings go to? At tpc? How if I buy from a private individual? “eh but tpc produced the original card” …yes, but who’s my money going to anyway?
Then of course, one could suggest that a certain promotional card has a limited edition, is linked to a specific event that occurred in an unrepeatable place and date and that this increases its value as original (historical value). But what value are we even talking about? Purchase value is dictated by second-hand sales. Also because these cards were given away by the manufacturer for free and not sold.
From here on the discussion could move to a situation that is no longer what the thread wanted to touch on. That is, what determines the collectible value, the question of why one collects (for the pleasure of having something he likes, for the pleasure of having something expensive or something else) etc…
that’s it for me. Then of course, if I have to go into ethics by bruteforce, maybe I don’t take a card from a specific set as a fake, because the price of the original is still affordable compared to how much I am willing to spend.
However I justify those who deliberately buy fake set cards instead of buying original ones, basically, for everything. And I also understand any reasons they may give (such as the excessive price of certain cards or the temporary impossibility of finding an original copy in the desired conditions), as long as they keep them to themselves.
I also justify those who sell fakes. Because if they do, it means there is a market share that isn’t being filled. As long as they specify that they are selling fakes and do not betray the trust of their buyers.
I do not justify those who sell fakes by passing them off as originals. Because here instead the customer’s trust is betrayed, with all the consequences of the case. Before being legal, even economic. A seller who cheats consumers simply loses them, and with them, their profits.
6 Likes
Beautifully said. Great to get a response from someone that isn’t completely controlled by their feelings but with humbling common sense instead.
1 Like
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate the viewpoints. It also made me ponder about certain points that you have made in your post which may have not aligned in the way I think about the issue.
Cheers!
1 Like
Just remember guys, if you disagree then you are completely controlled by your feelings
2 Likes
Facts
