Ownership, Ego, Ownership, Ego, Sharing,Sharing,

and Counterfeitingand Counterfeiting

Ownership, Ego, Ownership, Ego, Sharing,Sharing,

and Counterfeitingand CounterfeitingRussell W. BelkRussell W. Belk

University of Utah, USAUniversity of Utah, USALancaster University Lancaster University

Management School (visiting)Management School (visiting)

What (if anything) is wrong with buying a fake

Luis Vuitton Handbag?

Is counterfeiting new?

Brand forgery is newest

Preceded by Money forgery

Preceded by Art forgery

Preceded by Notions of Specific Individuals as the sources of art

Preceded by the Rise of Possessive Individualism (at least in some cultures)

All of Which are Preceded by Notions of Sharing

Premise: Counterfeiting is an unauthorized sharing of brands

Sharing: An Alternative to

Private Ownership

• Also Includes– Voluntary lending– Contractual renting– Gift-giving– Pooling & allocation of resources– Authorized use of public property– Unauthorized use by theft, vandalism,

or trespass

[Fan Tin Tsuen No. 250

Opening Hours: Noon-4 a. m.

Outside catering order

Phone # 24713184]

What we Share• We can share things, places,

people, pets, ideas, values, time, affection, animosity

• Excludes non-volitional coincidence involving things we don’t own or control– “Sharing” a common place of birth– “Sharing” a language– “Sharing” a set of experiences

Sharing Defined• The act and process of giving or losing what is

ours to others for their use • The act and process of receiving or taking

something from others for our use • When we share what we feel is ours, others

come to feel it is at least partly theirs to use• Use may be for an indefinite or prescribed

period & for another’s exclusive use or for use by us as well as others

• Givers and receivers can be individuals or groups

• Distribution may or may not make the access to things more equal

Cultural Influences• Sharing, possession, & ownership are

all culturally learned behaviors• In the West, possession & ownership

learned first; sharing, fairness, justice later

• Australian aborigines learn sharing first– Vestigial effect from nomadic past– Led to difficulties with private cars & VCRs

• Culture also prescribes what is selfish vs. altruistic, generous vs. stingy, & fair vs. unfair

Mixed Effects of Sharing

• Recipient can feel grateful or hostile• We may feel we get our fair share, more, or

less• Can reduce envy & foster feelings of

community or create dependency & feelings of inferiority

• We may see sharing as a sincere effort to help or a sop

• Can take place within excess or insufficiency• We may share broadly or narrowly

Impediments to Sharing

• Feelings of object attachment• Cathecting objects as part of extended self

(e.g., body organs)• Materialism

– The importance attached to possessions– Components: envy, possessiveness, non-generosity– Accounts of materialism in 4 cultures

• E.g., Christmas giving– From broad charitable giving– To narrow giving with the family

Sharing & the Museum Without Walls

• Fine art is Finite• But it can be broadly distributed

– Art Museums– Inexpensive copies

• What is the problem here?– Benjamin’s loss of “aura”– Denigrating reproduction, fraud, fake,

forgery– Status hierarchies – e.g, Visiting Luxor in

Egypt vs. Las Vegas, vs. books, Internet & postcards

Incentives to Share Intangibles

• Some of “our” intangibles are not legally ours – a view, an aisle seat, “our” song

• Other intangibles may be our property – ideas, designs, & various creations– Academic ideas – ours vs. plagiarized– Presenting & publishing = sharing– It also = the way to make them ours– We should give them rather than sell them– We are more apt to share with doctoral students– But sharing raw data = less likely – Others may admire our garden, but may not borrow

our tools, seeds, & potting soil

Sharing without Losing• A song, joke, body, digital files• Copies of books, journals, or videos• The online gift economy

– Linux, Napster, freeware– BBSs, chat rooms, web sites

• Why share in these virtual communities?– Keeping while giving (Weiner)– Cheap altruism (Coyne)– Utilitarianism– True hi-tech gift economy

Intangible Sharing Communities

• Marker goods• Sports fans, music fans, brand cults• Proselytizing & recruiting members• Feeling of minority status,

persecution, & uniqueness• iPod?

Case in Point:The Grateful Dead

• Long known for “tapers” freely trading (not selling) concert tapes

• Evolved into digital downloading• But in late November, 2005, GD did an

about face & told Live Music Archive to stop making it available

• Fan uproar caused a partial reversal• But GD already suggested shift

– From Internet as cornucopia– To Internet as pay-per-play jukebox

Brand Grateful Dead

• “The Dead had created an anarchy of trust, going not by statute but by instinct and turning fans into co-conspirators, spreading their music and buying tickets, T-shirts and official CD’s to show their loyalty. The new approach…changes that relationship….The change also downgrades fans into the customers they were all along. It removes…brand value from the Dead’s legacy by reducing them to one more band with products to sell” (Jon Pareles, “The Dead’s Gamble: Free Music for Sale” NYT, December 3, 2005.

Incentives to Share Tangibles

• School boys/girls sharing clothing• Leveraged lifestyles

– Lease vs. buy car– RealNetwork’s Rhapsody– Blockbuster, Netflix

• Virtual Renting– eBay & flipping (cell phone, computer, iPod, sports

equipment)– Calloway– Bag, Borrow, or Steal– Buy, rip, sell CDs

Other Tangible Sharing Incentives

• Family heirlooms & extended self• Sharing within the family• Group sharing (e.g., time-share homes)• Institutional sharing—e.g.,

– Museums– National Parks

• But, beware the tragedy of the commons

Involuntary Sharing:Counterfeiting

• Unlike graffiti or vandalism in intent• Sometimes condoned by the brand

counterfeited (e.g., Hilfiger, Nike, Polo)• Usually strongly opposed• A victimless crime?• Justifications

– Robin Hood– Decency– Righting the crimes of rapacious capitalism

• Those who buy are not usually in the target market

• Imitation may flatter• Helping entrepreneurs in the less affluent world• Helping consumers in the less affluent world

Problematizing Brand Counterfeiting

• Grades of Counterfeits• Counterfeits as Better than “the real

thing” as defined by to intellectual property laws

• Ranges of counterfeits– Beverages—Pepsi, 1st Growth Bordeaux– Designer brands—facsimiles vs. ironic

(Baudrillard’s simulacrum vs. fake or Joshua Glenn’s “fake authenticity”--Hermenaut)

– Motorcycles (5 of 6 Yamaha bikes—Rana, SSRN) or aircraft parts

– Pharmaceuticals—Viagra vs. AIDS drugs

Conclusions• Social desirability of sharing

– E.g., U.S. home ownership (> 2/3)– Why? Community, civil obedience,

investment– Why not? ID through things vs. people,

Bowling Alone, financial security vs. social security, economic capital vs. social capital

– Privatization of the nuclear family – radio, TV, car, computers, bathroom, meals, bank accounts & credit cards

• Compensatory rise of virtual communities & online sharing

Conclusions• Social desirability of renting

– Spouse– Womb– Soldiers– Children

• Online sharing vs. intellectual property laws vs. public access; dreams of free access

• Post-materialism, VS, downshifting, dematerializing, experience economy?

• One boom U.S. rental market: storage• Business may lead the way with the virtual

corporation