NY Police Destroy Counterfeit Clothes Rather Than Giving Them To The Homeless

from the can't-let-that-destroy-the-brand dept

Wed, Jan 13th 2010 9:23am — Mike Masnick

Last week there was a big controversy over the fact that some stores in NY were caught destroying unsold garments rather than donating them to charities. After people got upset, the main store in question, H&M promised that this wouldn't happen again. This week we've got a related, but somewhat different story, as the NY Police have admitted to shredding and burning the counterfeit clothes they've confiscated, rather than giving them to the homeless, as had always been done in the past. When asked to explain why, the police claimed "no one asked" for the confiscated clothing -- but many charities insist they had, in fact, made many requests for the clothing. Apparently, the destruction is being felt at clothing banks, who say they have many fewer clothes on hand this year than in the past.

Not surprisingly, a lawyer representing various clothing designers was quite happy with the news, saying that they don't want those clothes "back on the street," which suggests that the designers may have pushed for the police to destroy the clothes rather than help the needy. Of course, it's worth pointing out -- yet again -- the recent study that showed most people are not fooled by counterfeits, and they rarely represent a "lost sale." In fact, many counterfeit purchases lead to real purchases later on. So the idea that they act as a "substitute" or somehow "harm" a brand is not actually borne out by the research. And, of course, some companies have learned that there are ways to embrace counterfeiting to their own advantage, as a form of price differentiation.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: clothing, counterfeiting, homeless, nypd, trademark

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:30am

Class warfare at its finest. The profit margins of evil rich corporations and their desire to enforce unowed intellectual property privileges is more important than the needs of the homeless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alex, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Don't forget the best part. Your tax dollars are paying the enforcers and cost the corp $0.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:30am

I agree with the general principle of counterfeit leading to a sale of the genuine item. I have seen it happen. However, even if we assume that theory is false, the police could still give away clothes to the homeless shelters. Just mark the clothes-no one is going to buy a designer knock off with a cut or a color variation. Of course it sounds a little like the Seinfeld episode with the muffin tops, but that is acceptable here I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AdamR (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:34am
  
  Re:
  Say What? So want all the poor and homeless to walk around with marked clothes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mark it in a place that can't be removed but isn't normally seen while it's being worn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ryan, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what's the point of marking it in the first place if nobody ever sees the mark? And I would think the fact that you're buying a used clothing item off a homeless person on the street would devalue it more than any simple "mark" could.
      
      On the other hand, it seems dumb to even debate whether homeless people would dislike a marked article, as if anybody gives a shit. They're getting free clothes, and I don't think they're using them to pick up chicks at black-tie cocktail parties anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So what's the point of marking it in the first place if nobody ever sees the mark?"
        
        So that someone who is going to buy it can see it before he buys it and can refuse to buy it as a result (or at least if they buy it they can try to get a refund after finding out it's counterfeit).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And I would think the fact that you're buying a used clothing item off a homeless person on the street would devalue it more than any simple "mark" could."
        
        If I buy it off the Internet how do I know the person I'm buying it from bought it from a homeless guy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right, we should just ban homeless people from the internet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No if the Fruit of the Loom bomber has proven anything it is that clothes are dangerous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right, we should just ban homeless people from the internet.
        
        Better yet, just make it illegal to be homeless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    Xe's not saying they have to be marked with a yellow star of david of anything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Headbhang, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:06am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, it's just so that they don't look as hot and fashionable as the uppities with the originals. You know, 'cause the cardboard houses, supermarket trolleys and overgrown beards are not enough to distinguish them in their sex appeal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Headbhang, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, it's just so that they don't look as hot and fashionable as the uppities with the originals. You know, 'cause the cardboard houses, supermarket trolleys and overgrown beards are not enough to distinguish them in their sex appeal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Xe's not saying they have to be marked with a yellow star of david of anything.
      
      Maybe we could come up eith a new mark for poor people. How about a green rectangle with a red X through it? Then make a law that all people below a certain net worth must wear it (selectively enforced, of course). That should help the police keep the riff raff out of areas where they don't belong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:39am
  
  Re:
  "However, even if we assume that theory is false, the police could still give away clothes to the homeless shelters."
  
  Sigh, haven't you been paying attention. NO THEY COULDN'T!!! Counterfeit clothes are a LOST SALE.
  
  Imagine how much designer clothing those homeless people will buy now that they can't rely on the counterfeits!
  
  Zoolander's Derelicte line out to be popular....
  
  /sarcasm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    No doubt this will take money away from the Derek Zoolander's Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What is that, a school for ANTS?!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously! It's need to be at least....three times as big....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That Hansel is so hot right now...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    I would never have figured that comment as sarcasm thanks for adding the /sarcasm tag .... ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:45am

Marketing
Our clothes are so affordable even the homeless can wear them.

or

[Insert a picture of a homeless woman in designer clothing] Who needs food when you can look this good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:51am

Counterfeit?
Easy peasy solution: Make a label (something like "DKFU") and sew it on all the 'infringing' clothing. Now it's clearly not a 'counterfeit.'

Within a year, you'll be able to find knock-offs in the Village and all the hipsters will be wearing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:57am

the real issue here
the real issue here is that the makers of luxury clothing don't want their products worn by the lowest class of people, lest their brand be diminished, even if the trademarks and labels are obscured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Headbhang (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:14am
  
  Re: the real issue here
  Indeed. They have the market-mandated duty of protecting the fragile egos of people whose self-worth largely depends on the permutation of characters sewn onto their garments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - CastorTroy-Libertarian, 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re: the real issue here
    Gotta give ya a star for that comment, i actually laughed at the aforementing fragile ego people...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: the real issue here
  I mean who wants to see the fashion of the weeks clothes being worn by the homeless, disgusting right?
  
  /sarcasm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alan Duxbury (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re: the real issue here
    Brian,
    I think that, politically speaking, right should have been capitalized... oh wait, you said "homeless" not just "disgusting", my error.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul Renault (profile), 14 Jan 2010 @ 5:27am
  
  Re: the real issue here
  I came here to say this!
  
  The clothing is/was destroyed because the idiots, whose only sense of self-worth is that defined by name brands, don't want to see poor people wearing 'their' clothes, even if they're fakes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCX2, 13 Jan 2010 @ 10:32am

Meh
Someone should make that lawyer go tell the homeless people who need clothes in person how happy he is that the clothes were destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:39am

something to think about
Any of these knockoff clothes designer knockoffs? The reason why I ask is that if the homeless person can resell the designer knockoff for a decent amount of cash, the homeless might use the clothes for purposes other than helping them. (They sell the clothes, then buy booze/drugs with the cash.)

Think big picture here. The last thing you want is supplying the homeless with a means to a bad end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: something to think about
  Would you honestly buy something off a homeless guy?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: something to think about
  "Think big picture here. The last thing you want is supplying the homeless with a means to a bad end."
  
  Exactly. People are homeless and poor for a reason: they're supposed to be that way. It's just the law of nature. Besides, it's probably their own fault. Think about that the next time you're tempted to give a bum a handout or contribute to a charity for the poor and don't do it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:51am

Hey, clothing designers! Being happy about the homeless not having clothes? Not a position you really want to be taking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Collard, 13 Jan 2010 @ 11:58am

Counterfeit...
My brother bought me a "Rolex" off the street of NY. It was a gag gift and although it looks real, anyone with a basic knowledge of Rolex's can instantly tell it's a fake.

I lost my real watch and actually started wearing it until I found a new watch that I like. Some people commented on it, and I actually feel guilty for wearing it.

But, it has made me look at used Rolex's. I'm actually considering getting one if my new iPhone app takes off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alan Gerow (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 12:18pm

Here we have Hobo Joe wearing this season's HOTTEST Celvin Klone overcoat with Arenotme pants made in the finest sweat shops in Taiwan. Be sure to stay up on the latest fashion trends from the streets and gutters of New York's trendiest alleys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GJ (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 1:43pm

reality check...
How about, instead of banging on a keyboard to whine about how the homeless have nothing to wear, you go through your stack of clothing and give some if it away?

--GJ--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 13 Jan 2010 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re: reality check...
  How about going thru my stack of clothing and instead of giving it away, I destroy it and then publicly declare how happy I am that the homeless aren't wearing it?
  
  It's only fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake01, 13 Jan 2010 @ 3:25pm

Typical
This sounds like the same geniuses who came up with Obama's Cash for Clunkers plan, giving people money for their cars, which were required to still be in working condition before they were completely destroyed rather than allowed to be bought by people who couldn't afford new cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2010 @ 9:25pm

It's not just the NYPD but the stores themselves
I knew a guy who worked at a landfill near a medium sized city and he reported that when a major department store couldn't sell all its winter clothes, he saw the store's trucks empty them out into the landfill. This under the watchful eyes of armed guards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2010 @ 12:37pm

Liars
When asked to explain why, the police claimed "no one asked" for the confiscated clothing -- but many charities insist they had, in fact, made many requests for the clothing.

Well, somebody is obviously lying here, and it can't be the police because they're heros! I'm not suprised that charities for those disgusting homeless people would be lying. Working with homeless people probably rubbed off on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 15 Jan 2010 @ 9:53am

What poped into my mind
The scene in Coming To America where the princes clothes are being warn by the locals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]