@pesematology: And obscenely crazy expensive stuff at that. So they went with the 'crazy' when they "wrote" the damn thing. WTF? (Nice sound effects on the interminable 'removal of bag contents' however.)
God, I thought that was terrible. Maybe it's because I'm a noir and Hitchcock fan, but wow... yeah. I'd like to scrub that out of my brain now, please.
What was it supposed to accomplish? I didn't want to continue watching it after about 30 seconds and had to fight the urge to click away the whole time through... I don't really remember what the bag looks like, and I didn't covet the clothes.
The contents of the bag were neat, if a little overdone. And that's all I've got.
She did explain it (sorry for the bad translation):
"It was very clumsy of me to bring up a subject as important as 9/11 in a TV Show. It was neither the topic nor the place for it. And I?m far from being a suitable person to talk about it. But I never claimed - as it was written and said - that the insurance companies destroyed the towers. I only explained that I don't believe everything the government and media are telling us. My words were taken out of their original context and misinterpreted. Who am I to have an explanation? Nevertheless, I think there remain many mysteries in the official explanation. Numerous American citizens are asking for the re-opening of the investigation. An investigation deserving of that name. This event changed many things in the world, so asking oneself questions when there?s such a lack of clarity appears to me legitimate."
@LouisaNuddletits: That's not an explanation, a clarification, or an apology. That's a justification.
Thousands of people died on that day. How are her remarks -- "Numerous American citizens are asking for the re-opening of the investigation" -- any different than, say, arguing that there are "mysteries in the official explanation" of the Holocaust?
I'm so torn about extending copyright protection to clothing designs. In one sense, yes, the pieces are individual examples of one persons artistic design but on the other hand they're not re-inventing the wheel. Its an industry that has always heavily borrowed. I think extending copyright protection can get into a messy gray area where older design houses will extend copyrights for years and newer designers will be constantly sued by older more established lines and thus creativity will be stifled. Because honestly you can easily make a case for copyright infringement when dealing with such a general "medium" as clothing.
@bluebears: I completely agree but for selfish reasons that I know will probably get me panned here. The bottom line is I CAN'T afford Lavine or Trovata. I can, however, afford Forever 21 and Urban Outfitters (I can't fit into them, but that's another story). I don't think it's fair that only the rich can be fashionable and I think this is kind of a way of equalizing that.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: well and of course thats another, totally valid, argument against extending copyright in this area. It allows designers to get away with charging an arm and a leg for these items. Competition only helps the consumer.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: Also, it's not as though someone thinks to herself, "Well, I could buy that at Prada, but they have something similar at Forever21." There is basically zero consumer overlap there.
@bluebears: Besides, the entire nature of fashion is such that it seems uncopyrightable. I mean, come on, are they going to copyright a silhouette? Which most designers, judging by their runway shows, seem to lift entirely or in part from the most cutting edge street fashion of the year or two before anyway, these days?
The only thing it seems to me that COULD be copyrighted without a shadow of a doubt is exact pattern layouts (thus preventing other makers from simply ripping apart one designer's product and copying it straight out), names and logos. Anything other than that seems to run completely contrary to the viral nature of fashion itself.
@DangerMouse: That's exactly what I was getting at (only much better said). It seems to me that the only way I will ever be able to afford black peep tow pumps with a red sole is if I by the ones Jeffery Campbell makes. I can't, nor ever will be able to buy Louboutin. Why shouldn't I be allowed to wear shoes with a red sole? Because Louboutin thought of them first?
@Merkin: I agree, if the darting and seams are EXACTLY the same, that is a problem. Like you said, fashion is so fluid, it seems cheap knock-offs are an answer to the problem of buying a 300 trend piece only to have it go out of style the next season. Instead you can spend $50 on that trend piece and not feel so bad when it isn't stylish any more.
@DangerMouse: good point about the total absence of overlap.
@LvV: @Merkin: exactly. I have no idea how they could properly enforce this it seems like all it would do was run smaller design houses right out of business with a mountain of legal bills.
But I like feathered do-dads and teal, snakeskin like, outrageous gladiator sandals! Are you saying there is something wrong with that?
In other news, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy once again proves to the world that she is not just like them and never will be. Her fabulousness knows no bounds, and now where she lives will be more fab too. SUCK IT, GISELLE.
@AthertonMerriweather: Yeah, I thought that too. I guess when you cover fashion like this you're inherently looking at it from a designer-centered viewpoint, downwards. I always feel this way when I read fashion coverage about "looks for less."
And yeah, I would pay Aldo's prices if their shoes seemed nice, but they don't.
@snappletree: You're right. Aldo is cheap compared to Gucci or something. I get my shoes at Target and even though only on sale. I was just surprised to see Aldo called cheap because their stores have a high-end look to them.
Well I am confused. Are you telling me that during a period of massive unemployment and home loss Americans are NOT willing to shell out 90 bucks for a tank top?
@vamusical: I have never ever found clothing with the same price point as Free People that is so prone to simply falling the fuck apart.
Not even after one wash, after one WEARING. Free People is disgustingly bad quality, and I say this as someone who worked in a boutique that sold a lot of it!
It's made of fluff and held together with prayers and silly string.
@Pocahaunted: I friended you for that last description: "it's made of fluff and held together with prayers and silly string." LOL. And frustration, all at the same time.
05/21/09
What are they trying to get people to buy?
05/21/09
Stuff. They want you to buy stuff.
05/23/09
05/21/09
What was it supposed to accomplish? I didn't want to continue watching it after about 30 seconds and had to fight the urge to click away the whole time through... I don't really remember what the bag looks like, and I didn't covet the clothes.
The contents of the bag were neat, if a little overdone. And that's all I've got.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
But gosh, it was really nice to look at.
05/21/09
Other than that I loved it.
05/21/09
"Les Ladies, dey are not buy-ying the expenseef hand baaags, it is a mystery"
05/14/09
05/14/09
Nah, just some of 'em.
(Sorry. I'll stop now.)
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
"It was very clumsy of me to bring up a subject as important as 9/11 in a TV Show. It was neither the topic nor the place for it. And I?m far from being a suitable person to talk about it. But I never claimed - as it was written and said - that the insurance companies destroyed the towers. I only explained that I don't believe everything the government and media are telling us. My words were taken out of their original context and misinterpreted. Who am I to have an explanation? Nevertheless, I think there remain many mysteries in the official explanation. Numerous American citizens are asking for the re-opening of the investigation. An investigation deserving of that name. This event changed many things in the world, so asking oneself questions when there?s such a lack of clarity appears to me legitimate."
05/14/09
Thousands of people died on that day. How are her remarks -- "Numerous American citizens are asking for the re-opening of the investigation" -- any different than, say, arguing that there are "mysteries in the official explanation" of the Holocaust?
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
The only thing it seems to me that COULD be copyrighted without a shadow of a doubt is exact pattern layouts (thus preventing other makers from simply ripping apart one designer's product and copying it straight out), names and logos. Anything other than that seems to run completely contrary to the viral nature of fashion itself.
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
@LvV: @Merkin: exactly. I have no idea how they could properly enforce this it seems like all it would do was run smaller design houses right out of business with a mountain of legal bills.
05/14/09
In other news, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy once again proves to the world that she is not just like them and never will be. Her fabulousness knows no bounds, and now where she lives will be more fab too. SUCK IT, GISELLE.
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
And yeah, I would pay Aldo's prices if their shoes seemed nice, but they don't.
05/14/09
good point about the different perspectives on costs. if a $700 skirt is normal, of course a $300 one sounds sweet. i think hard about a $30 skirt.
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
Not even after one wash, after one WEARING. Free People is disgustingly bad quality, and I say this as someone who worked in a boutique that sold a lot of it!
It's made of fluff and held together with prayers and silly string.
05/14/09