This paper is the testimony presented by Narciso Rodriguez before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Committee on the Judiciary, in the US House of Representatives. The topic of discussion was whether special provisions were needed to protect unique industries. He was talking on behalf of the Council of Fashion Designers of America. Rodriguez pleads the case of his industry, using his life as an example. He explains the trials and tribulations of his career.

Born to Cuban immigrants , Rodriguez is a true icon of the American dream. He delves into the key aspects that helped him get where he is: a leading American fashion designer, who having previously worked under Donna Karan at Anne Klein, set up his own label in 1998. He explains that his estimated cost of just one 250 piece collection is a little under $6 million. In 1996, Rodriguez rose to fame by designing Carolyn Bessette’s wedding dress when she married John F Kennedy Jr. Pirates copied it and sold about 7-8 million copies, whereas Rodriguez sold only 40 pieces. He says that he spent years perfecting intricacies such as the seams on the dress and it took pirates no time at all to copy the dress when a magazine published the drawings of it. Pirates spend hardly anything creating these copies, they manufacture them in country’s with cheap labor and have them on the shop floor within days. What is striking about this piece is the poignant style in which Rodriguez tells us that his story is not unique, it happens to millions and millions of designers. He draws parallels to fashion copyright in different geographies: In parts of Europe, Japan and India, designers are provided with 15-20 years of protection. Other forms of art such as photography, paintings and music are all protected by copyright law. Rodriguez points out that his form of art uses no less imagination and creativity than the others, so why should it not be given the same protection?

He suggests that congress should not protect all apparel but when it is something that is original or unique, he believes that he or she should have a “small window of protection”. The HR2033 won’t protect people from drawing inspiration from a look, after all, as the designer points out, that is often the mark of success for a designer. He said, “There will be a gigantic public domain of designs that we can all use for inspiration”. Also, consumers would not be the ones who would be prosecuted if they buy these copies, only the manufactures would face legal action against them.

Despite the fact that my argument might not be congruent with Rodriguez’s and I might have a different pe rspective on this issue, this testimony is a very important source for my paper, for it is first hand. I will argue against in my paper against the points that I do not agree with. Rodriguez really touches on all human sensibilities as he narrates his story to get his point across.

 

Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Committe on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives. Design Law: Are Special Provisions Needed to Protect Unique Industries-Testimony of Fashion Designer Narciso Rodriguez.  14 February 2008.

This source is a testimony by Narciso Rodriguez, a fashion designer and board member of the Council of Fashion Designers of America. This testimony is in favor of HR 2033, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. He first presents some astounding figures such as the annual loss of at least $12 billion in the fashion industry due to piracy. He then takes the audience or reader through an almost emotional trip by explaining all the training, hard work, and money that goes into becoming a designer. With all the time and money invested within the fashion industry, pirates are just making a risky business riskier. He then constructs an argument for fashion copyright using a sad, personal anecdote. In other words, he plays on emotions and moral rights to make his point. He basically recounts a story about an original design he made that was copied and sold by pirates millions of times. Without protection for fashion design, US companies arise with piracy as their business model. These companies can afford to make large quantities at low prices, causing more sales for the pirating companies than for the original designer. Rodriguez then suggests the positive results of enacting copyright. Pirate companies would be forced to hire real designers, increasing the job market for designers and creating a great choice of original designs for consumers. He admits that in the past clothing was a functional object and therefore did not require protection. However, he believes that fashion has now become an art that is no longer just utilitarian. He then addresses the other side's concerns by claiming that only truly unique designs will be copyrighted, not all designs. He also states that the three year protection period will simply allow designers to reach the market before the pirates. After these three years and with a large public domain still in existence, previous designs can still be used for inspiration. He also addresses the concern that this will increase apparel prices by claiming that accessibly priced clothing will still exist, but the creation of these derivative lines will be through the original designer. Through explanation like these, Rodriguez attempts to passify the concerns on the scope of the legislation of copyright opponents.

This testimony by Narciso Rodriguez is very beneficial since it is a primary source coming from an elite fashion designer. It provides the viewpoint of someone within the fashion industry. Rodriguez begins his argument with a very emotional approach regarding his personal experiences and losses due to piracy. After getting the audience's sympathy, he provides some positive benefits of enacting copyright. He concludes his argument by addressing the concerns of the skeptics of fashion copyright. Rodriguez is a biased source since he obviously can benefit if the copyright laws are enacted. However, his testimony provides some real insight into the minds of fashion designers and the actual issues they face due to piracy. Therefore, this article provides a better sense of the real problems plauging the industry and if these laws can actually address these issues. So, although this testimony may not support my thesis, it provides better issues to address and counterargue than secondary sources would.

 

This Congressional testimony came from Narciso Rodriguez, who speaks on behalf of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, a not-for-profit trade association of America's fashion and accessory designers. First, he speaks about how frequently fashion designs are being copied. Then, he relates his journey from being the only son of Cuban immigrants, growing up in Newark, NJ, and finally becoming a fashion designer. This journey, he tells, took training, hard work, and financial capital. Then, he attempts to argue that fashion designs are not utilitarian in nature, but that they are works of art, citing specific designers and giving examples of their work. He then covers certain specifics of the HR 2033. For example, no previous designs would be protected by the bill; thus, past designs can be used for inspiration. Also, he states that the market will not be drained of reasonably priced items. Furthermore, the consumers of pirated products are not to be punished. As a whole, the speaker urges that the protection bill for fashion designs be passed.

            This is important for my topic because it complicates my thesis. If, as many of my sources argue, pirates really do benefit the producer of the original, I wonder why so many producers are asking for protection of their products. This testimony gives voice to one of these producers, a man who is responsible for original fashion designs and feels as though pirates and copiers are hurting him financially.

 

 

This article is the testimony of Steve Maimon, co-owner of Stony Apparel. In the testimony, Maimon speaks out against the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. According to Maimon, the fashion industry has developed into a successful industry without the help of any copyright laws; thus, in his opinion, there is no need to enact protection now. He states that the laws will reduce creativity and hurt the consumers. In addition, firms like his own will be hurt since retailers will return any products claimed to be infringing, even if they are falsely claimed. Even as the fashion industry is one that daily deals with risks, with the enactment of this protection bill, even more risks will be present for manufactures and retailers, in the form of numerous new lawsuits. Furthermore, Maimon foresees an increase in prices of products since designers will need to hire lawyers to help fight against lawsuits. In Maimon's view, only lawyers will benefit from the protection of fashion designs.

            I think this article is important because it shows an opposing testimony to the one I have already cited. Whereas Rodriguez was arguing for the protection acts, Maimon is clearly fighting to eliminate the possibility of the protection for designs. As a primary source, the concerns and fears are legitimate. I also think that because he does not only cite the negative consequences that the bill would have for retailers as himself, his argument is more effective. Instead, he notes that the bill would be detrimental for consumers, designers, and retailers. In addition, he is speaking from experience, as one who directly would be affected by the passing of the bill, which make his claims more passionate and heart-felt.

 

    On July 29, 2008, Joe Kennedy, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Pandora Media, Inc., gave a testimony on “Music and Radio in the 21st Century: Assuring Fair Rates and Rules Across Platforms.” Pandora has become the largest internet radio service in the US with more than 15 million registered users. It is located in Oakland, California, and employs about 140 people. Pandora uses a unique music taxonomy known as the Music Genome Project, which aggregates songs with musical similarities. Pandora treats all artists equally and relies only on musical relevance to connect songs.
     Kennedy testified on behalf of Pandora and the Digital Media Association. He urged a revision to the Copyright Act that would ensure fairness among all participants in the music industry. Kennedy’s testimony gave a description of the four main problems Pandora and other internet radio services currently face. The first is the matter of basic fairness in determining royalty rates. Kennedy strongly recommends the four factors standard test found in Section 801 of the Copyright Act, which has proven successful in the past. Kennedy emphasizes that internet radio services have the smallest of all radio revenue streams, but they are the ones who pay the highest royalties. Kennedy states, “There is no possible way that Pandora or our sophisticated investors would be a "willing buyer" of sound recording performance rights at a cost equaling nearly 70% of our revenue – because that royalty level is simply unsustainable and will bankrupt us and force the layoff of our 140 employees.”
     The second problem Kennedy reports is consumer recording. SoundExchange and recording industries claim “streamripping” is an issue, although Kennedy states there is no evidence or justification for this. Pandora is a business aimed at programming and promoting music, and no additional technological fees should be made for this purpose. The third issue Kennedy brings up is resolving the confusion of “interactive service.” The definition of this term should allow programming based on the listener’s preference. Kennedy defends Pandora by explaining that listeners have no control over the song or artist that will be played, therefore they are not violating statutory law. The fourth point Kennedy discusses is the royalties on sound recordings reproductions. While typical radio stations require only one copy of the sound recording, webcasters need several copies in order to accommodate different technology services and access speeds. Kennedy remarks that internet radio services should not have to pay a fee for these copies, since they do not have any additional value.
     Kennedy concludes his testimony with a last plea for the equalization of royalty standards. “…so that fair competition prevails and Pandora and other DiMA member companies can grow and realize the full potential that Internet radio offers.”
     This testimony is an extremely useful source for my paper. It offers a complete description of the royalty issues Pandora is facing directly from the point of view of the president of Pandora. The four main points that Kennedy brings up are also key topics for my paper, since I am defending that the new royalty ruling is unfair. It was extremely interesting to read this direct testimony from Kennedy, and it will definitely help defend the argument of my paper.

Our critically acclaimed DAUBERT TRACKER now makes it possible to more accurately check the 'gatekeeping history' of experts before retention or deposition.

A guide to finding expert testimony.

Now, from your desktop, you can efficiently research experts by reviewing filed expert transcripts and reports. The integration of filed expert testimony with Westlaw creates a powerful tool not found anywhere else.

This service provides information on previous cases in which the expert has given trial or deposition testimony. Over 6,000 records are added each month to a database of over 900,000 records of expert involvement. If you are needing expert witness transcripts, this is your best starting point.