Slashdot Mirror


EU's Law Enforcement Agency Closes 4,500 Websites Peddling Fake Brands (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: In a massive crackdown, police and law enforcement agencies across Europe have seized more than 4,500 website domains trading in counterfeit goods, often via social networks, officials said on Monday. The operation came as Europol, Europe's police agency, unveiled its newest campaign dubbed "Don't F***(AKE) Up" to stop scam websites selling fake brand names online. In the crackdown, agencies from 27 countries mostly in Europe but including from the U.S. and Canada, joined forces to shut down over 4,500 websites. They were selling everything from "luxury goods, sportswear, spare parts, electronics, pharmaceuticals, toiletries and other fake products," Europol said in a statement, without saying how long the crackdown took. An annual operation run in collaboration with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security, there was "a significant increase in the number of seized domain names compared to last year," said Europol director Rob Wainwright. As part of the crackdown, Dutch anti-fraud police arrested 12 people across The Netherlands over the past two weeks as they searched homes and warehouses. Most of the raids were prompted by online sales of counterfeit goods on social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram. More than 3,500 items of clothing and fake luxury goods were seized in Holland, including shoes, bags and perfumes purporting to be such brands as Nike, Adidas, and Kenzo, with a market value of tens of thousands euros. Publishing a guide on how to spot fake websites and social media scams, Europol warned consumers had to be on their guard.

72 comments

  1. Idiocracy by alternative_right · · Score: 2

    "Don't F***(AKE) Up"

    Anyone else think this is a bit Idiocratic, or pandering to the TV crowd? I can't take it seriously.

    1. Re:Idiocracy by subk · · Score: 1

      Came here to say this.

      --
      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    2. Re: Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sounds like a huge waste of taxpayer money to protect corporations which don't need any help.

    3. Re:Idiocracy by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Maybe Euro-humour from someone whose first language isn't English.

    4. Re: Idiocracy by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Nope, they protect Chinese counterfeit, which don't deserve any help.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    5. Re: Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Euro humour is gas chamber humour.

    6. Re: Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat ironic. The US still has gas chambers, Europe doesn't (except as museum pieces)

    7. Re: Idiocracy by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Nope, they protect Chinese counterfeit, which don't deserve any help."

      Made by the same Chinese kids that produce the real thing for LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE.

    8. Re: Idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's idiotic. I mean, sites selling counterfeit goods from brands that really exist is one thing. But fake BRANDS? Who do they trick with that? And what exactly IS a fake brand?

  2. Didn't shut down Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money talks.

    1. Re:Didn't shut down Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Centralized vendors can be more easily policed that millions of small ones. Taking out Amazon would make the problem worse.

    2. Re:Didn't shut down Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is working so well now with Amazon.

  3. They forgot about this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aliexpress still works. That's a relief.

  4. Physics-related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, phys.org is less relevant than Slashdot.

  5. Protecting whom? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Europol warned consumers had to be on their guard"
    I don't think that anyone buying cheap "brand name" items from a web site is deluded enough to think they are getting the real thing. They realize that brands charge a premium for the social cachet and not necessarily quality. People are just purchasing the cachet at a discount.
    This is much more about protecting the profits of the brands than protecting the consumer.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Protecting whom? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I buy "fake" soccer shoes all the time. I can get a $150 pair for $49. Sure it is "fake" but it is identical and good enough for my purpose. The only people they are "protecting" are the corporations.

    2. Re:Protecting whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the definition. Fakes that use the same name/logo as the original should be stamped out - they're simultaneously profiting from and degrading the reputation of the real thing. Fakes that just copy the style/look/vibe of the original but don't pretend to be the original brand (say a knockoff Eames-style chair for example, or maybe a phone OS that has the same look and feel as iOS) I don't see the problem: the knockoff is just doing what all businesses have always done and running with a popular style. Might as well try to ban fashion.

    3. Re:Protecting whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake is fake. My friend bought a fake Versace T-Shirt some 20 years ago, thinking it was real. When we went out his T-Shirt started to shrink from the heat and moist in the club. Within half an our his T-Shirt was like 8 sizes smaller and it tore apart. Now this is just a funny anecdote, and being naked is not the end of the world.
       
      But imagine that you buy a fake battery that explodes. Or fake medication that slowly kills you. There has been a period when fake antidepressants were sold in clubs (early 2000's ). I remember that quite a few people died from taking those fake medications.

    4. Re:Protecting whom? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Don't expect that because you are smart enough to think like this that everyone is.

      Have you ever considered why 419 scams and "Hello this is Windows support" scams are around after decades? It's because people fall for them.

      Consider the national lottery system? Jackpot gets bigger all the time. And the odds are adjusted appropriately. That means you have a far greater chance of winning nothing. So if you play trying to lose, you are almost 100% guaranteed to get precisely what you wanted. Just make sure to aim for the biggest jackpot lotteries.

      However there are apparently lots of people around the world who believe that investing at least half a week's (more if you consider taxes) salary each year into lottery tickets is a good idea.

      There are absolutely plenty of people who are in fact that stupid.

      Also... there are many people who are buying things knowing damn well it's a knock-off and they think that's "knock money off the price" kind of thing. They don't know what counterfeit means. That's why the word fake is so important to present. People don't understand more complex terms like knock-off or counterfeit.

      No... I'm not joking with you. Just because your circle of acquaintances isn't this stupid... it happens A LOT!!!! As in high percentage of the world population.

    5. Re:Protecting whom? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Exactly. I buy "fake" soccer shoes all the time. I can get a $150 pair for $49. Sure it is "fake" but it is identical and good enough for my purpose. "

      Small wonder, since the same Chinese kid made both of them.

    6. Re:Protecting whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small wonder, since the same Chinese kid made both of them.

      Two words: quality control.

      Even if the production line is same for originals and fakes (that is sometimes the case), quality control is not. In fact, products that fail the checks of the originals may well end up as being sold as fakes. If the fakes are made in a different factory, then there will be absolutely no quality control whatever.

    7. Re:Protecting whom? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you are correct for most people, but not everyone. Those who might be mislead also deserve protection under the law, and this is what's happening. It also stops people from knowingly buying fakes from these sites and selling them as the real things in shops, etc. I don't know how anyone can be upset with the law cracking down on counterfeit goods.

    8. Re:Protecting whom? by houghi · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people who believe they buy the real stuff. They buy it because they think it is the real stuff, not because they need it.

      I am as against copyright as much as most people here on /. and perhaps even a bit more, but I am for trademarks. I do not want to buy a Linux toaster and then have it run Windows or Hurd.

      To me it is about the fact that what is on the bow should be in the box. If that says 10% fat it should be 2% fat and not 74% fat and also not kit 1%. If it says Dior, It should contain Dior and not something with a Dior label,

      So yes, please cut them down as hard as possible. And those people who only care about the price, buy something that does not say and pay even less than the inflated prices you pay for fake stuff.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Protecting whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think they are really serious. I know this doctor in town that sells fake tits and the women he sells them to try to pass them off as the real thing.

  6. Re:Hillary!'s web site is next by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Ah, be fair now..

    She lost to a political novice with enough negatives to make Weiner blush even though she out spent, out maneuvered and should have wiped the floor with his fake tan.. He had never run for ANYTHING, never won an election, even for dog catcher. She should have won, no questions, no chance for anything else. At leas it was close but *any* other opponent would have been dead by election day after that Access Hollywood tape. And how the 3 AM twitter wars didn't end his chances I will never know.

    Clinton's unexpected losing was an absolute atrocity, of Biblical proportions. For which I am both grateful and surprised.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. And in other news by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    In other news, Josef Prusa has his PayPal account locked the day before black Friday.

    Prusa is the maker of the (fairly well known) Prusa 3-d printer, and as is typical in these PayPal situations, he hasn't the first clue why it happened. They locked all his funds - he can't fulfill purchases and can't even refund his customers.

    At least in the Europe case it was the police doing it. When companies do this on request of other companies it puts them in a very hard position.

    I wonder how many *non fake* websites got caught up in the sweep, and how many legitimate businesses will be trashed as a result?

    1. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some is cut and dried, the rest is a game. If you are a big established company that can afford to make a healthy contribution to the appropriate political parties then your "looks like x but isn't" is probably going to be ok. By contrast, if you're a small-time player or outsider/disruptor without the appropriate politicians in your pocket then you're liable to be slapped down as a fake if you so much as think about making something vaguely like the big brands.

    2. Re:And in other news by guruevi · · Score: 2

      His first mistake was using PayPal. Everyone knows by now PP will do anything to make a quick buck.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, it's not exactly a great idea to use PayPal as your only means of processing payments. In fact, I would recommend not ever using it if at all possible.

    4. Re:And in other news by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And basic business logic is you need to ensure that you have multiple ways to accept payment (also IT logic, single point of failure and all that).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:And in other news by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      And basic business logic is you need to ensure that you have multiple ways to accept payment (also IT logic, single point of failure and all that).

      Unless you want credit cards, which make it quite hard.

      Paypal is probably the ONLY provider that makes it too easy to accept a credit card on practically no requirements - most other merchant accounts have transaction and amount quotas you meet in order to get your negotiated rates - miss your quota and you'll get slapped with extra fees and increased rates.

      And at the same time put up with the same crap that you get from Paypal.

      Yes, you can take money orders, bank transfers and bitcoins too, but those will be but a tiny fraction of credit card sales.

    6. Re:And in other news by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not sure how long you haven't looked for CC processors but these days there are plenty that neither charge monthly fees nor quota's, just a flat or percentage based fee. PayPal is actually on the higher end of the cost spectrum.

      Matter of fact, plenty of them have compatible API's with other providers so you don't even need to make custom modules for your site.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  8. Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's great news! Trademarks are the one part of IP I can happily support. If I want to buy Foo brand shoes, and I see a shoebox marked with Foo's logo, I want to be reasonably sure that it actually contains Foo-approved shoes. Sure, people try to abuse trademarks ("you're not allowed to use our name in a news article criticizing us!" and other jackassery), but the actual concept of trademarks is great. This is the kind of IP law enforcement I actually want to see.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      From an end user point of view, they should only target misrepresented products if those products are of worse quality than the falsely advertised products. The law should protect the quality of the product and not the quality of the bullshit advertising associated with the all to many genuinely 'bad' products with genuinely false advertising claims ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      Misrepresentation of the origin of a good does not need trademark to have a special protection in order to be illegal.

    3. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      Quality is subjective. You can't honestly insist there be some judgemental body that eats money deciding if something is "of the same quality"

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Not it is not, when associated with marketing it is but when associated with reality it is not. Look no further than the sneaker market, there was a company the spent more money on advertising than they do on making their shoes, spent big with sporting knob heads, you know they type, "it's not lying, it's acting". Now the way you get tell fakes from the genuine product is because they were made better and lasted longer than the genuine product and they people publicly demonstrated that quality difference or lack there of in the genuine product, company name was ree-something not that popular any more, I think the name ended in bok and they got bought out.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      Uh, no. It's not a standards mark but an indicator of origin. I may think Foo brand shoes suck, but if I want genuine Foo for whatever reason, I want to know I'm buying genuine Foo. Maybe their quality sucks but they're made in a well-respected factory in Colorado, they treat their employees well, and they only emit pure oxygen and distilled water from their factories. The Chinese knockoffs might be better, but I want the Colorado-made product. The whole point of trademarks is that only Foo can claim to make Foo shoes.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      huh?

    7. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      No, the only thing that should be protected is the consumer's ability to determine the source.

    8. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      There's something to be said about knowing that you aren't getting products sourced from x when you don't want products sourced from x. One aspect of the law that seems little known is that if I buy shoes branded x, and I rebrand them y, company x can sue you for it.

    9. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      ...can sue me for it, rather, to keep the pronouns straight.

    10. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > Now the way you get tell fakes from the genuine product is because they were made better and lasted longer than the genuine product

      Generally, no. The fake sneakers tend to be made with poor quality vinylized fabric rather than leather, the soles are thin and wear out quickly, and the stitches are more sparse and seams done more with glue than with stronger stitching. And since they're fake, the chances of getting a refund from the manufacturer are very poor, much as they are with other goods.

      The fake name brand problem also includes Cisco and other quite high end network equipment, cheap phones that have been "skinned" to look like iPhones, tools and toys made of poor quality tin instead of the expected steel, and children's toys painted and made with toxic levels of heavy metals. It's not merely a matter of defrauding trademarked vendors, but of selling dangerous objects to unsuspecting purchasers.

    11. Re: Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, an idiot. "I didn't know that these $20 shoes weren't Nikes. Look, they say Nikes..."

    12. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a lot of different things that all need to be handled on a case by case basis.

      You pays yer money and you takes yer risk.

    13. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      A counterfeit brand can have a peel-away label on it that informs the buyer that it is not a Coach handbag. The buyer can make the choice to buy the labeled handbag and peel away said label if they wish to do so.

      It's wrong to deceive the purchaser, but we all know that many people who buy knock-off goods are aware of what they're buying.

    14. Re: Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, another idiot. It may be perfectly valid that Nikes could cost $20...somewhere.

      Corporations like to carve up the world into markets so that they can extract the most money from people that don't know better. In many cases, the product is available for order from Timbuktu for a lot cheaper than it is in your own country/region. Obviously, this is not via a corporate-approved reseller. Books are a fine example of this ass-hattery as are some "luxury" products/brands .

    15. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I was wondering why company x would sue me for your transgression :)

    16. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's any chance of them actually going after the source of these products as well? Because, you know... heaven forbid we offend our Valuable Trading Partner(tm) where all these fakes are coming from, right? After all, we want to sell our cheap Chinese widget with our logo on it that costs 10x as much, not the fake brand Chinese widget that probably comes from the same factory after hours.

      If you outsource manufacturing to a country that doesn't give a crap about international IP laws, this is the inevitable and rather obvious results. Online storefronts are easy to shut down, move, and re-open, unlike factories. Fine, they got a few middlemen, but the problem will remain. Unfortunately, even if we move manufacturing elsewhere, the Chinese knockoffs will continue, because they're *extremely* good at doing that now, and we financed their infrastructure and education. At the very least though, we could *stop* financing them. But then where would we get low-cost manufactured goods, which require hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers to keep costs down? Problems, problems...

      Yes, I'm a bit jaded.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    17. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all that is needed is to make a "Trusted by Law" certification for reviewers. If a reviewer wants the cert it would mandate by law that the reviewer do not take bribes, do not overlook freebie marketing scams, punish products for designed-to-break, etc.

      If the reviewer breaks the cert rules, he would face time in prison. No money fines, no stern warnings. Jail.

      Then consumers would be able to trust reviewers with the cert.

    18. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would prefer they only target those that don't live up to the buyers expectations, whatever those are. Some care a lot about the brand, and should get their money back even if the product is better than the genuine brand, simply because the brand is what they paid for.

    19. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, then I can peel the label off and resell it for a profit. Sure, that might be illegal, but why facilitate it by providing an easily-removed label?

      Honestly, do you even think before coming up with these schemes?

    20. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by houghi · · Score: 1

      Same. To me it is about what is on the box should be in the box. If you think that is worth the value they want to sell it for is your personal opinion and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

      Also the people do not understand that they are still overpaying. Say a brand product costs 100 and the fake one they buy for 20, you can be sure that if you buy asomething that is identical to the second one but without the fake brand name, it will be 10. I have seen where they started selling the fake ones at 80, so it looks more genuine.
      Now if the real product is worth 100 to you is a complete different discussion.Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't and that will differ per person and product.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    21. Re:Trademarks protect purchasers, not sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going after fake watches and purses is one thing but what about non fashionable items? In my opinion that would make a much bigger difference for the consumer. A knockoff purse might break a strap or a knockoff watch might make you late for a meeting but fake individual pieces of a system like automotive fuel pumps, ABS modules, and other electronic components can cause REAL problems. These are usually sold at a higher level direct to wholesalers and then passed along to regular everyday retailers and manufacturers. Unfortunately not many people or companies ever notice these are subpar quality and fakes.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

      https://www.google.com/search?...

  9. Re:Hillary!'s web site is next by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    I came here to say, "Well, I guess the Ivanka shit is gone."

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  10. the Ben Frank quote below by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    doesn't deserve "saftey"

    1. Re:the Ben Frank quote below by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Is Ben Frank a counterfeit Ben Franklin?

  11. European Union getting smaller every year by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0, Informative

    But all the fake brand-name products come from Chinese websites and some very big Chinese companies. EU talks a lot but does very little and I think they would need Big Brother U.S. to speak up for them. And what with the European Union getting smaller every year the small turd Brussels, will have to do make with threatening themselves. And I think Italy is on its way to bankruptcy owing the US: €34.8 bn FRANCE: €309 bn SPAIN: €29.5 bn JAPAN: €32.8 bn GERMANY: €120 bn and the UK: €54.7 bn. Foreign debt per person €32,875. Foreign debt: €2 tn.

  12. How this relates to abolishing IP by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I posted in a recent comment about abolishing intellectual property. Misrepresentation of the origin of a good does not need trademark to have a special protection in order to be illegal.

  13. 4,500? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    4,500 down, 22,876,341 to go.

    Still, I'm all for it and it's a step in the right direction. Perhaps a small bounty could be paid for reporting sites that are found to be peddling fake brands.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  14. Agree with you. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    Copyrights and other IP protections can bite the dust as far as I'm concerned. If I choose to pay more to support the creator of a work, I want to be sure that the creator of the work I chose to support benefits.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  15. Next, fake Craigslist ads!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Between the Nigerian scammers selling *everything* to suckers, but especially renting apartments "that they can't live in because they're caring for their poor sick mother, but here are pictures and you can look at it from outside", and the *flooding* of Craigslist by the fraudulent subscription room rental site www.roomster,com, there are almost no legitimate room shares left on Craigslist. Roomster is particularly nasty: they seem to be only the one company, but they seem to be more than 80% of the Craigslist cheap rental ads, they show pictures of fabulous places, they respond only with "sign up here" messages, and the original room is never actually on the Roomster websites. If you subscribe, they say "first month only $10" but instead charge the full $30 to your credit card, they ignore cancellation requests, and if you're not hitting their website often enough they pull an "Ashley Madison". They have a bot pretending to be a landlord reach out to you about a non-existent room, just to dangle the hope of getting a cheap room.

    Frankly, most wholesale web fraud can be tracked to a surprisingly small number of bad vendors. I'm delighted to see action taken against them, but this kind of "we cancel the account" action costs them almost nothing. And a modest culling of the most stupid of them is actually good for the rest of them, just as culling most spam made the remaining, more clever spam more effective.

  16. Re:Hillary!'s web site is next by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Trump roped a lot of inferior politicians together and dragged them all under. It's a remarkable achievement.

    The Clinton Family is truncated.
    The Bush dynasty is terminated.
    The US Chamber of Commerce is disconnected.
    Even the bloody Koch Brothers are unhappy.

  17. Re: Hillary!'s web site is next by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

    It's not surprising at all when you look at the whole story. The things you thought would shut Trump down, Hillary did much worse. She made Trump look like a goodie two shoes. Unfortunately, no 'real' news sources would report it, so half of America doesn't even know what happened. The funny part is that part of what she was caught doing was telling CNN what and how to report stories, and now while people are still figuring out what happened, someone's trying to shut down 'fake' news outlets. Ironic

  18. Re:Hillary!'s web site is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Trump roped a lot of inferior politicians together and dragged them all under. It's a remarkable achievement."

    Why act surprised? This is the Republican Method.

  19. This is a good thing by jonwil · · Score: 1

    People who make a profit by ripping off the hard work of other people (whether it be someone selling a knockoff Rolex watch, someone selling a knockoff Gucci bag, someone selling a device that violates the GPL, someone selling bootleg LEGO sets or whatever else) disgust me and the more such people who get prosecuted for their crimes the better.

    1. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      That's not always how it works, though.

      If I order a $10 Chinese watch which just happens to have a fake Rolex logo I don't care about, it will be destroyed if caught in customs, yet if I then decide to not rip off the hard work of others and go into an official Rolex store and order $10 Chinese watch, I will be chased out of the store.

      In the end, nobody loses anything by me buying the $10 Chinese watch. I get what I want (a $10 Chinese watch), and Rolex don't want my $10 anyway. UNLESS it's caught in customs, then I will be out of money, because Rolex will insist that it's cutting into their sales of $10 Chinese watches.

    2. Re:This is a good thing by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And when you sell that fake Rolex for thousands to some guy whose only error was to believe you and the name on the product, nobody loses? Sheesh. Consumer protection laws exist for a reason.

  20. How to spot a fake website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Publishing a guide on how to spot fake websites

    How to spot a fake website: Look for the letters "swf" in place of "html", or "file://" in place of "http://".

    At least the headline got it right. "Fake brands" is not the same as fake products or fake websites. A cheap Chinese watch is not a fake watch just because it has the work "Rolex". It's a fake Rolex, but it still tells the time as well as you would expect from a cheap Chinese watch.

  21. Re:Hillary!'s web site is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton's unexpected losing

    Unexpected? Only if you were inside the echo chamber.

    I was expecting Trump to win for weeks before the election. When you have democrats saying they dislike Hillary so much that they are ready to vote Trump, and republicans telling they dislike Trump so much they are ready to vote Bernie, it becomes pretty clear that all the democrats had to do to lose the election was to select Hillary as their candidate.