The 1acs call to crackdown on counterfeiting is just a call from rich and powerful leaders in industries to criminalize and police those beneath them. They fundamentally rely on the idea that those in power are victims while displacing the focus on the very workers that they are helping to exploit. There workers goals don’t align with the owners

In an economy where average U.S. consumers find themselves stretching their dollars, the idea of buying luxury fashion items for a fraction of the price is seductive. The lure of obtaining catwalk looks for sidewalk prices can be overwhelming for some. After all, who has not admired the glamour associated with coveted high-end fashion? Those looking for a good bargain may find themselves having increasing luck: as globalized distribution and production operations continue to expand, the ability of counterfeiters to market inauthentic goods has become faster and easier than before (Hilton, Choi, & Chen, 2004; Weller, 2004). This means consumers now have greater access to inexpensive imitation luxury items. Yet these lower priced knockoffs have industry leaders worried. This is because, according to them, counterfeiting creates unfair competition, endangers the future creative contributions of designers, and victimizes both the consumers and the countries that support it (Adamson, 2012; Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau, 2008; Cox & Jenkins, 2005; Hilton, Choi, & Chen, 2004; International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, 2005; Jackson, 2011; Pezzi & Faggioni, 2011; Salembier, 2007; Tasker, 2011). While fashion leaders struggle against the injustices presented by counterfeiting, garment workers have pointed to an additional challenge facing the industry: human rights violations. Concerned with the larger social, economic, and legal conditions making it possible for fashion goods production firms to exploit them, garment workers believe wage disparities, subjection to unsafe working conditions, and the denial of basic labor rights are among the key injustices facing the industry (Bonacich, Appelbaum, & Chin, 2000; Bullman, 2003; Dumas, 2012; Ehrenreich, 2008; Hilton, Choi, & Chen, 2004; Louie, 1992; Ross, 2004; Salembier, 2007; Scheer, 1995; Su, 1998; Thomas, 2009).

These diverging viewpoints present complexity in how the struggle for justice plays itself out in the industry and who ultimately gets framed as victim. The positionality, rank, and role of an individual within the industry influences whether s/he will support the efforts of industry leaders or whether s/he will advocate for garment workers. In these struggles there seems to be little, if any, room for overlap. Elite fashion leaders believe they are victims and call for legal reform that protects their individual and material interests. They advocate further criminalizing domestic counterfeiting practices and strongly enforcing existing anti-counterfeiting laws. Garment workers, on the other hand, believe laborers are the primary victims of unscrupulous fashion industry practices. They call for reform that provides redress for workplace abuses and they advocate for stronger protections against labor exploitation. Each group advocates for their respective solution in a political and legal system that disproportionately distributes power, rights, and benefits to its members. And although the current legal system offers some protections for designers, fewer protections exist for garment workers.