At Signals vs. Noise they quote Jason Kottke:

A favorite conversational tidbit was that when you buy fake electronics in Hong Kong, they ask you which logo you want on it (Sony, Panasonic, NEC, etc.) and then affix the proper sticker. Awesome.

Then Jason Fried says it's not awesome, and it's theft and all that. He is wrong: this is totally awesome. Why? Because it's absurd and silly, but also shows a rather bizarre interaction with branding. Clearly the consumer realizes that the Panasonic sticker does not make the TV into a Panasonic; and yet not only do they want the sticker put on, but people come in with a preference for which brand of absurdity they desire. This all probably came about because brands were a class signifier, but it's amusing to see it morph into something else. Anyway, Jason Fried concludes...

You know, everyone wants corporations to be more like people -- more responsible, more honest, more respectful of the environment, etc. Yet we're not as quick to treat corporations like people. We want to see what we can to do scam them. We want to see what we can do to take advantage of them. We call it awesome when people take their brands or their IP. Respect is a two-way street.

I can't decide what about this paragraph is wrong. And yet the paragraph makes no sense to me. I simply can't parse the logic.

Well... I guess I think that we have ethical obligations to other people, and we have zero fundamental ethical obligations to corporations. Any obligation we have to corporations is derivative of the obligations to people; if hurting a corporation hurts people, then that's wrong. If a certain legal structure (like trademark) creates a more civilized and predictable market where producers can build deserved reputations, and that helps people, then that legal structure is good. But there's no way in hell I'm going to give corporations the same consideration I give humans. The more I think about it, the more offensive the very idea is to me. If I was religious, I would find the very idea an offense against God. Literally -- I do not think that is too extreme of a stance. To give corporations that consideration is to say that humans are capable of creating entities as deserving of moral consideration as humans themselves are deserving; it is to bestow as much importance onto our creations as onto God's. But I don't believe in God, I'm just a humanist, so I can't use such lofty language... but I still take the human part very seriously, and find Jason's moral logic to be deeply flawed.

Anyway, I digress... I don't really think it would be good if you get the sticker of your choice in the US. In part because it's just stupid. But when brand turns into class, it makes me happy to see people subvert that brand, as it subverts class distinctions in some way as well. It's a little disappointing because it also is driven by class, driven by vanity and a person's aspiration to be something they are not (in this case, a consumer of more-expensive electronics). But the subversion also unintentionally removes a tool of class distinction, reduces the distinction itself to absurdity. And that is awesome.