Jump to content

IceCap

Moderators
  • Posts

    32,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    304

Posts posted by IceCap

  1. Where's Ice Cap? He's usually rebutting my arguments within 30 seconds or so.

    Believe it or not I don't sit around waiting for you to reply to the Counterfeit thread. Truth be told I feel I've said all I have to say on the topic. Even on the Addai thing. I've said what I have to say regarding Reebok's attempt at "stripes."

    And Ice Cap, "self righteous" wasn't the right term. My point is you see this in black and white when, like everything in the world, there are shades of gray. It also seems to be a real hot button for you for whatever reason.

    This itself isn't a hot button topic. The law, however, is. There are many things in the world that are indeed shades of grey. The law, however, is not one of them. Something is either against the law or it isn't. There's no grey area. It's a simple enough concept. People not getting that is the "hot button" issue for me.

  2. That's an overlooked part of this discussion, the fact that the NFL obviously has no interest whatsoever in the visual integrity of their teams' uniforms.

    It's overlooked because it's irrelevant.

    Also, I just skimmed the last few pages so I may have missed this, but was there an good argument made on the side of the NFL being a monopoly? If so, could it be repeated, because I have no idea how this could be the case (even if there's some kind of anti-trust exemption in play.) I don't see how a product manufacturer doesn't have exclusive rights to their product, and the NFL is in effect one single manufacturer. If you want to make the argument that the 32 teams should be split up into more independent entities, then that's one thing, but either way, I fail to see any way to argue that the NFL is a monopoly.

    Yeah, isn't that like saying McDonalds is a monopoly because only they can sell McDonalds products?

    Well I used Coca-Cola to make that point, but apparently that was to self-righteous for Blue Sky :D

  3. Here we go again with the armchair intellectual property lawyers.

    If the NFL or MLB has a problem with what some manufacturer is doing, let them sort it out in court just like all the other IP disputes. I'm not a judge, I'm not going to sit there and figure out which jersey is actually licensed and which one isn't. If someone is selling me something sweet for cheap (and it's not breaking the law to buy it as in the case of stolen property), then let the NFL, MLB or whoever use some of their dough to litigate and shut down any actual illegitimate providers. Cost of doing business.

    Just because something is the source of an IP dispute doesn't mean us lowly peons all have to abide by what the Internet Law Groupthink Pundits think is right. It's not up to me (or them) to fix the NFL or MLB's problems.

    Following the logic of Internet Law Groupthink Pundits, I expect them to refrain from using WiFi because WiMAX is challenging all kinds of patents related to that technology. Every time they use WiFi, they're depriving WiMAX of what they claim as their cut. Horrors!

    +1. THANK YOU.

    YAY for stealing!

    ...says the person who admits to speeding on a regular basis, AND not caring about it because it's not his car.

    Why are you so hung up on the speeding thing? Lets say Dan speeds on his way home today. How does that make the manufacturing and sale of counterfeits any less illegal?

    You're failing to grasp a very simple concept here. It's intellectual property theft. It violates US copyright law. This isn't "in my opinion." This is the law, and it's rather pathetic for people to label those pointing out the illegality of these counterfeits to be "self righteous" and "elitists." It's elitist and self-righteous to point out the law?

    Look, if really want a jersey for cheap and quality isn't a concern, go ahead. It's your choice to buy a counterfeit. Just understand that the production and sale of these things is illegal and don't try to spin it as some sort of noble "for the people" effort.

    It's not. It's you feeling entitled to a luxury item without the means or desire to pay full price for it, so rather then not buy one at all your entitlement leads you to seek illegally produced knock-offs.

  4. mo·nop·o·ly   /məˈnɒpəli/

    [muh-nop-uh-lee]

    ?noun, plural -lies.

    1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

    Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.

    No, it does not.

    The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL.

    The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.

    Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price.

    BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?

    I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit.

    Makes sense.

    BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field:

    Colts-Joseph-Addai-scores-in-31-26-victory-over-the-Raiders-in-Oakland-California.jpg

    And now the NFL has handed the licence over to Reebok. The free market at work.

    Uh, Nike. No one's arguing that any of this is the free market at work, but by extension, so is the black market. Most people will accept a reasonably priced alternative; iTunes is proof of that.

    D'oh! Yeah, Nike.

    Anyway my point is that the NFL was clearly not satisfied with the way Reebok was handling their properties, so they found someone else.

    I understand that people will accept a reasonably priced alternative. If you acknowledge it's wrong but just decide to say " :censored: it" for one reason or another that's fine. It's when people try to justify it by saying it's not that wrong that I take issue.

    Speaking of, say Frankie and the Fakers records a cover of Sammy Superstar's latest hit and sells it on iTunes for 89 cents where the "real" song by Sammy costs $1.29. By your reasoning, why is okay to buy the "knockoff"?

    Music really isn't my thing man. I have no idea how a "cover" is defined legally. So given my lack of understanding how that industry works, I'll refrain from comment.

  5. mo·nop·o·ly   /məˈnɒpəli/

    [muh-nop-uh-lee]

    ?noun, plural -lies.

    1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

    Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.

    No, it does not.

    The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL.

    The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.

    Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price.

    BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?

    I think IceCap said it earlier, but a homemade isn't technically illegal. It only becomes illegal when you try to sell it for your own profit.

    Makes sense.

    BTW, I'm amused at all the handwringing over inaccurate fakes when the NFL itself has "authentics" that look like Big Lots rejects on the field:

    Colts-Joseph-Addai-scores-in-31-26-victory-over-the-Raiders-in-Oakland-California.jpg

    And now the NFL has handed the licence over to Reebok. The free market at work.

  6. mo·nop·o·ly   /məˈnɒpəli/

    [muh-nop-uh-lee]

    ?noun, plural -lies.

    1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

    Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.

    No, it does not.

    The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL.

    The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.

    Of course it does. People don't want just a jersey, they want their team's jersey, and if that team happens to be in the NFL, their only option is the NFL or a licensee. Wherever they get it though, the NFL sets the price.

    Of course the NFL sets the prices. It's their product! What would you like to see? Any manufacturer being able to make a NFL jersey regardless of if they have permission from the league or not?

    BTW, did the issue of homemades ever get addressed? By your thinking, wouldn't a homemade (regardless of quality) be illegal?

    TalktoChuck has me covered.

    If you make a jersey for yourself you're fine. If you start producing them en mass and selling them it's IP theft.

  7. You're so self-righteous about this.

    I had no idea simply pointing out that illegal activities are illegal was self-righteous.

    See, I'm not angry or even pissy. As I've posted before (guessed you missed those), I'm torn on this issue, which makes me a hypocrite, but we all are (yeah, even you) in some way or another.

    I never claimed I haven't been guilty of hypocrisy.

    You have a lot to say (much of it obvious btw)

    Yet it seems to fly over the heads of so many people. Who knew "knowingly buying illegal goods is wrong" was such an aloof concept, but here we are.

    I'm just playing devil's advocate here, specifically answering the post about why leagues don't crack down harder on counterfeits by barring people from stadiums and so on....but still haven't addressed the fact that no league would want to bring too much scrutiny on their profit margins (which are probably obscene), especially at a time when most fans have already been priced out of even attending an occasional game (much less the economy, unemployment rate et al). Do you agree or disagree, and why?

    I agree, believe it or not.

    Of course the NFL doesn't want to much scrutiny regarding their profit margins on jerseys. Right now the market is at a point where costumers are willing to pay their prices for their products. If the profit margins on their products are examined more people might decide the jerseys aren't worth the price tag and stop buying the product. This would force the NFL to lower the prices on their jerseys, which means less revenue.

    The thing is, I don't see the supposed crime on the NFL's part. They're free to mark up their own products to their hearts' content. Whether the market will support that is something else entirely. Right now it is. In order to keep the situation favourable they're not going to do something that will reflect negatively on their products' price ranges.

    Now we're a small group of people that, due to our mutual interest in such things, are at least somewhat aware of the profit margins made on jerseys. So the decision's on each of us, personally. Are you ok with paying the NFL's prices for jerseys? If so, cool. Buy yourself a jersey. If, due to what you know, you're not then just buy a t-shirt or a cap. Supporting intellectual property theft isn't justified, anyway you cut it. Especially on a forum like this.

    mo·nop·o·ly   /məˈnɒpəli/

    [muh-nop-uh-lee]

    –noun, plural -lies.

    1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.

    Sorry, the NFL's control of who makes their jerseys qualifies.

    No, it does not.

    The NFL's exclusive licence does not qualify as a monopoly because the football jersey market is not just the NFL.

    The NFL and its teams are simply brands in a market that include college and university teams, other pro teams from other pro or semi-pro leagues, and manufacturer specific stuff like Fubu jerseys. If the football jersey market was confined to just the NFL then yes, you would have a point. It isn't though. The NFL's exclusive licence only covers a portion of the wider football jersey marketplace, only 32 brands when you get right down to it. That's not a monopoly.

  8. Still waiting for someone to take on the profit margin argument...but then I suppose it's just easier to ignore the things that don't support your own point. :rolleyes:

    There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. The NFL has the right to sell their own products at whatever prices they want. You can go on and on about the NFL selling their products at a price high above the cost it takes to manufacture them, but that's their right. It's their intellectual property, it's their merchandise. They'll allowed to sell it at any price they want, and if the market's willing to pay that price then, well, that's how the free market works.

    Let's throw in as well that the NFL creates its own monopoly, and the high prices that brings, by granting exclusive licenses. What say ye about that?

    The NFL has a monopoly on NFL products? Say it isn't so! Next thing you'll tell me is that Coca-Cola has a monopoly on Coca-Cola branded soft drinks!

    And exclusive licences? What's wrong with that? If you own intellectual property I'm sure it's completely legal to grant an exclusive licence for that property if you decide it's in your best interests as the owners of said IP.

    If the prices of NFL jerseys are to much for your liking then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet. If enough people decide their prices are to high then they'll lower their prices.

    The answer is not to support the theft of intellectual property and violations of US copyright law.

    So mature. I hope you're really smart enough to grasp the difference. :rolleyes:

    I'm smart enough to know that what you're angry about isn't a monopoly. The NFL owns their IP (shocking, I know). They're free to do with it what they want. If they want to give a manufacturer an exclusive licence that's their right as the holder of the IP.

    A monopoly would be if the NFL started their own manufacturing company, awarded themselves their own exclusive licence, and then used that to either drive Nike and Reebok out of the football jersey business, or outright acquire the jersey manufacturing parts of their companies. Them simply deciding that one manufacturer is better then multiple is not a monopoly. Nike, Reebook, and other companies I'm sure still have to compete for the licence, and it's the NFL's licence to give to whoever they want anyway, it's their IP.

    If the NFL allowed multiple manufacturers to make jerseys the prices would be lower.

    Yeah, and two replicas for the same team, each one from a different manufacturer, would look different. We had this, remember? Each company that had a contract with a NFL team could manufacture ANY NFL team's jerseys for sale. A Broncos jersey made by Nike and a Broncos jersey by Puma looked different. Chargers jerseys (speaking from experience) could fluctuate in bolt dimensions and the thickness of number outlines depending on who made the particular jersey. It was inevitable because each company has its own design teams, templates, and manufacturing processes. Yeah, all the jerseys out there for a given team followed the same general design, but there were (sometimes striking) variations across manufacturers.

    It's reasonable to assume that the NFL wanted tighter brand unity for its teams, hence the switch to a single manufacturer.

    You must enjoy paying double (or more) the rate for the same hotel room when a special event happens to be in town, right? And you never gripe about paying $459 for the same airline seat as the guy next to you, who paid $169? And you never set foot in Wal-Mart, right, because they're driving Ma and Pa's general store on Main Street right out of business. That's how a free market works blah blah blah.

    So what? You're pissy that the market hasn't brought the prices of NFL jerseys down? To me that says that their prices are ones that costumers, by and large, are willing to pay. If costumers are willing to pay the NFL's prices then there isn't a problem, is there?

    Doesn't the fact that a de facto black market exists at least suggest that these items are overpriced?

    No. It proves that there are scumbags out there who are willing to steal other people's intellectual property to make a quick buck themselves. It proves that there are people out there willing to support those scumbags either out of ignorance or a flawed belief that they deserve jerseys and that by supporting an illegal operation they're "sticking it to the man."

    At the end of the day two wrongs don't make a right. If you honestly believe the NFL is "wrong" to charge so much for their products then don't buy those products. Knowingly supporting criminal activity isn't somehow made ok.

  9. Still waiting for someone to take on the profit margin argument...but then I suppose it's just easier to ignore the things that don't support your own point. :rolleyes:

    There's nothing to say that hasn't already been said. The NFL has the right to sell their own products at whatever prices they want. You can go on and on about the NFL selling their products at a price high above the cost it takes to manufacture them, but that's their right. It's their intellectual property, it's their merchandise. They'll allowed to sell it at any price they want, and if the market's willing to pay that price then, well, that's how the free market works.

    Let's throw in as well that the NFL creates its own monopoly, and the high prices that brings, by granting exclusive licenses. What say ye about that?

    The NFL has a monopoly on NFL products? Say it isn't so! Next thing you'll tell me is that Coca-Cola has a monopoly on Coca-Cola branded soft drinks!

    And exclusive licences? What's wrong with that? If you own intellectual property I'm sure it's completely legal to grant an exclusive licence for that property if you decide it's in your best interests as the owners of said IP.

    If the prices of NFL jerseys are to much for your liking then don't buy them. Vote with your wallet. If enough people decide their prices are to high then they'll lower their prices.

    The answer is not to support the theft of intellectual property and violations of US copyright law.

  10. The other thing that bugs me are people wearing fakes who come over and check the price of legit ones to "see how much they saved". Well, they spent less, but since they didn't buy a real jersey, they didn't "save" anything, they just paid less for something that is worth less. Big difference.

    Absolutely, these are ignorent people with no knowledge of jerseys, sports logos, or anything else to do with them. Im sure most people on these boards pity these people. They will never know the joy of purchasing an authentic jersey, knowing its the real thing and being able to know why.

    It's hard for me to not make a joke about misspelling "ignorant." You walked right into that one. But I won't say anything else about that.

    I disagree with you guys, I consider myself to be very knowledgeable about sports logos, but that wouldn't necessarily stop me from buying a fake. I mean it's not like I actually play for the team. As long as the fake doesn't have blatant errors, I would have no problem buying and wearing it. I think I would get more "joy" out of buying a fake and being able to buy something else with the money I saved, than supposed joy gotten from buying an authentic. And I guess that's what makes people different.

    Blatant error = Illegal item w/stolen artwork?

    "Joy" = Using the saving from the purchase of illegal items?

    I meant a blatantly noticeable error. Like a wrong letter, or wrong font, or something like that. Not the fact that it's illegal in and of itself.

    And I didn't want to steer the discussion back to this, but here we go: Do you ever exceed the speed limit while driving? Then I guess you drive illegally.

    Two wrongs make a right, eh? This isn't a discussion about speeding, it's about the production, selling, and buying of counterfeit jerseys. Whether or not someone speeds has no barring on the fact that by knowingly buying a counterfeit you are knowingly contributing to intellectual property theft.

    Ops, I forgot. Theft is ok when you're stealing from rich people, right?

    Are authentics (and even replicas in some circles) over-priced? Yeah, they are. The answer isn't to support an illegal enterprise though. The answer is to simply stop buying the jerseys. That's the beauty of the free market. If enough people simply don't buy their goods due to the high price tag then Reebok, Nike, etc... will lower their prices.

    i guess you would all look down on someone making their own jersey. and by that i mean actually making the crests and the striping and piping themselves.

    where do you who are against this draw the line? if someone takes a blue hockey jersey and adds an iron-on oilers logo, would you rip them for that? both are cheaply made knock offs, but one happens to not be made in china and the other in someone's basement.

    The line is very easy to spot, actually. If someone makes their own jersey for their own use in their basement that's fine. If he starts making tons of them and selling them for a profit, then it's intellectual property theft. Funny how a basic examination of the hypothetical situation clears up the question.

    i'm sorry. i still can't get mad at anyone who buys one of these. as i said before, i would never do it because i have a discerning enough eye to tell bad replicas from the real thing. if someone does not want to pay out of their rear ends for an official looking jersey that has been marked up several hundred percent, i don't blame them and won't crucify anyone who gets one.

    If someone cannot afford an official replica or authentic then the prudent thing to do would be to not buy a jersey at all.

    Like I said, two wrongs do not make a right. Justifying your knowing contribution to a criminal enterprise because the evil corporation has marked up the real thing doesn't really change the fact that you have indeed contributed to an illegal enterprise.

  11. I always thought anachronistic jersey/player combos like that were just kind of a fashion thing, though. Not necessarily because the wearer thinks that that player actually wore that jersey.

    I would say it's on a case by case basis. Some (probably most) people are probably in the "thinks the player wore that jersey" camp. Remember, not everyone's as into uniform changes as we are.

  12. It's late, so I'll just leave this here before I hit the sack:

    5fs9brfziigv6ho78ucp2ntto.gif

    This is one of the best uniforms in the NFL. Monochrome or not, awesome is awesome.

    Not my favorite, but still good for what it is. I'm still not sure but I think the first year they did it

    that it was more green blue ..?

    its good in its own right because the practically invented a color. but I would have used the old blue in the pin stripe and not lime/dayglo. I really dont see the point of the lime green jersey? its a bad reminder of the 1980s haha

    Maybe because two blues and lime green look better then three blues?

    the difference in shade is so great, I think it would work and the pin stripe isnt that noticable to make it a bad contrast. Look at Buffalo as example. they use 2 or 3 blues and 2 more colors added while still mimicing an old school design

    Using Buffalo as an example of how do design a uniform is a very bad idea. The Bills have the prototypical bad uniform.

    For the record they use two blues and nickel, and it looks terrible. The most needlessly crammed colour scheme in the NFL.

  13. It's late, so I'll just leave this here before I hit the sack:

    5fs9brfziigv6ho78ucp2ntto.gif

    This is one of the best uniforms in the NFL. Monochrome or not, awesome is awesome.

    Not my favorite, but still good for what it is. I'm still not sure but I think the first year they did it

    that it was more green blue ..?

    its good in its own right because the practically invented a color. but I would have used the old blue in the pin stripe and not lime/dayglo. I really dont see the point of the lime green jersey? its a bad reminder of the 1980s haha

    Maybe because two blues and lime green look better then three blues?

  14. C'mon, man. Of course they own their own IP. The issue is giving one company (EA Sports for Madden, Reebok for jerseys, etc.) exclusive licenses. Don't you think Madden would be better and/or cheaper if there was another company allowed to make NFL video games?

    That's not a monopoly though. A monopoly would be if Reebok were the only jersey manufacturer in town, having forced out its rivals with monopolistic tactics, thus forcing the NFL to give them the licence. Or if EA were the only video game developer around, having built up a monopoly for itself, forcing the league to go to them.

    This, simply put, is not the case. Reebok and EA do exist in competitive business environments. The NFL has decided that their performance in their respective markets is good enough to warrant the licences to their products. That's business, not a monopoly. There are other video game developers out there. There are other jersey manufacturers out there. If they offered a quality of product on par with Rebook or EA, or if they had made a better case for themselves to the NFL and in the marketplace, then they could have gotten the NFL licence rather then Reebok or EA.

    Monopoly is a term that tends to get thrown around a lot in these discussions. Simply put, EA and Reebok do not have monopolies. At the end of the day it's the NFL's intellectual property. They can do whatever they want with it. If they want to give one company an exclusive licence in one field or another that's completely within their rights as the holder of that IP. It's not a monopoly. Now if Reebok, DirectTV, or EA prove to be so incompetent that consumers stop buying their goods and services then the NFL will look elsewhere. There are other companies out there in the fields of cable/satellite television, video game development, and jersey manufacturing. If they keep up the quality of their goods and services, and if the holders of the NFL licences falter like so many are claiming they are for long enough, then we could see a shift.

    Now I'll tell you why it makes sense for the NFL to give one manufacture the licence for team merchandise. Remember when we had multiple companies making NFL jerseys? Now each company had its own list of NFL teams that it made on-field jerseys for, but each company could make replicas of teams that they didn't have the licence to. Nike, for example, could make and sell replicas of a team they didn't work with. What we got was a market flooded by official replicas from three or four different companies, and they all varied in design, even among the same teams. A Reebok Broncos replica would look different from one made by Puma, and the one made by Nike would look different from both of them. This runs the risk of diluting the visual identities of the league's teams. By choosing one manufacturer to hold the licence for all teams the NFL sidesteps this problem.

    An interesting alternative to this, however, is if we consider the NFL a collection of 32 independent pro football organizations that just band together under one banner for the purposes of forming a competitive circuit. If we take this approach, which I feel does holds a level of legitimacy, then it can be argued that the league has no right to force teams under one licence. If that's the case, and we return to multiple manufacturers, then I would want to see tighter control over what we saw in the past. That is to say that manufacturers cannot make merchandise for teams that they're not associated with. That way everyone wins, I think. A level of competition is reintroduced to the official NFL licence on team merchandise while the problems brought on by multiple versions of the same jersey in the marketplace are avoided.

    As for the video games? What can I say? I've always been an EA Sports/Madden fan, even before they got the licence. To me they always produced the best football game around so it made sense to me that the NFL would choose them when they wanted to only have one official NFL game series. Unlike the jersey position I see no reason why the NFL felt it only needed on video game franchise, but at the end of the day it's there licence, and they can do what they want with it. EA doesn't have a monopoly, they have the exclusive rights to one video game series. Not the same thing.

    Really, I don't see much lost there. Did anyone play Backbreaker (the new football game)? What a letdown.

    For example...the new Maple Leafs jerseys. All I have heard in discussions is that the counterfeits are terrible, a waste of money, and just plain awful looking. Now maybe it is because I am not a Leafs fan, but for the most part, the counterfeits look pretty close to me.

    The recent events with Braylon Edwards reminded me why I prefer the fake jerseys. I bought a Edwards fake for $35...now he may be suspended, be thrown in jail, never play for the Jets again after this year. I'm only out $35, instead of the $80 I was out for my crappy Favre replica.

    Maybe the Devils don't resign Parise next summer...well I'm only out $60, instead of the $150 a Premier jersey would have cost me.

    Not to mention if I am at the bar and some jerk spills beer / food on me. I wore one of my jerseys on a trip home once, and even though I was as careful as possible, I still managed to spill coffee down the front. :cursing:

    If someone really takes the time to come up to me at a game and point out that I have a fake, I will calmly walk with them back up the tunnel, and point out that there is a game currently going on and that they need to get a life.

    An outstanding point. Nothing like shelling out big bucks for a jersey only to wear it one season before that player slides out the revolving door that is the NFL in free agency.

    I'll have to disagree here. In hockey and baseball you can just buy the jerseys blank. No problem. In basketball and football, well that's the risk you run. You know full well that the player who's jersey your buying may not play for the team next season. Yet you choose to take the risk when you buy the jersey. Furthermore this problem can be sidestepped. Buy a jersey of a player who stands a high chance of staying around for a while. Buy a jersey of a high profile player from a recent championship run so that even if they leave your jersey still has meaning as a fan. Or buy a throwback/vintage jersey that often feature great players from the team's past. No problem there. As a Saints fan you're probably safe with a Drew Brees jersey, for example.

    The whole "well the player may not be around much longer" problem is easily sidestepped.

  15. as someone with a history degree,

    Hey I have one of those! Cool!

    my point in bringing up the founding fathers argument, is that breaking the law can be seen as a noble thing if the law-breaker firmly believes that they are supporting a greater good. The founding fathers committed treason in order to create this country. Is refusing to pay the markup for Reebok and whatever sports league and so purchasing an illegal counterfeit jersey an act of justifiable defiance? I'm not saying that it is, but I am certain that some, perhaps many, will.

    Not only is it NOT an act of justifiable defiance, it doesn't even BELONG in the same discussion as the founding of the United States. On one hand you have a group of people who believed their states were being taxed unfairly and so they decided to form a new nation based on the principals of the Enlightenment. On the other hand we have a group of people who making (often) shoddy replicas of sports jerseys to sell at prices below what the official ones sell for. They're profiting off of the copyrights of these leagues and teams and off of the ignorance of the consumer. To even suggest that someone making/selling illegal counterfeits is acting in the same spirit as the American founding fathers is downright insulting to the founding fathers' legacy.

    Counterfeiting in no way supports a "greater good." They're crooks making illegal copies off of other people's legal copyrights and selling them to consumers who, to be honest, are unaware that they may be buying a fake. These are not selfless icons of morality standing up to the big bad sports leagues and the manufacturers. They're scumbags who profit off of other people's intellectual property and the ignorance of the consumer.

    I brought that up because of the large amount of people citing illegalities as the primary reason not to buy one, and they had little resistance to that argument. Sometimes, laws are wrong, or at least shouldn't exist. For anyone who wants to take up that idea and run with it, be my guest.

    We're not talking about the Nuremberg Laws or Jim Crow Laws here pal. The law in this case is a league/team's right to own the exclusive rights over its own intellectual property. Is that law wrong? If not, then there's no debate here. The counterfeiters are both morally and legally in the wrong.

    Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

    This is the cheapest, by far, argument ever thrown around in this debate. Perhaps you missed this life lesson growing up, but two wrongs do not make a right. Someone else's violation of the law does not give you a free pass to break another law. That seems pretty straight forward, but I guess it would slip by someone who has the nerve to compare counterfeiters of NFL jerseys to America's founding fathers.

    Furthermore distinctions need to be made, and your "everyone violates the law" argument is so paper thin and broad that it really doesn't hold up in this argument when those distinctions are made.

    For the record, yes I have gotten a few tickets, for a few different traffic offences. You know what I did? I paid them. I broke the law, I was punished accordingly, and I paid my punishment. As in I got caught breaking the law and I paid the proper consequences. What consequences have you (a general you to anyone who's bought, sold, or manufactured a counterfeit jersey) paid for your breaking of the law?


    monopolizing the industry.

    Quoted for truth.

    The monopoly on rights is exactly why the prices are so high. When true competition is allowed prices go down and quality goes up. A monopoly means that the major sports leagues can put as high of a price as they want on the jerseys so long as people still buy them. They take such issue with 'counterfeits' because they really put a stitch in the side of their monopoly. Sure they can say, make similar products with the same colors, people will buy them, but the fact of the matter is authentic jerseys are what the consumer wants. Nobody wants a k-mart shiny t-shirt in place of an authentic jersey. They do not hold a monopoly on team apparel, they hold a monopoly on authentic jerseys, and they're making a killing.

    I'm going to have to disagree.

    You're argument is essentially "the *insert league here* has a monopoly over the production and sale of goods that use the *insert league here*'s various intellectual properties." Of course they do. That's just not them. That applies to everyone. Everyone has a "monopoly" over their own intellectual property. That's how copyrights work.

  16. I have a Penguins jersey from the Mellon Arena official team store whose crest is bubbling. Idk if that's from so much use and washing, or if there's something wrong with it. But, bubbling should not be your only indicator.

    I'm really surprised that nobody's played devil's advocate here and said something to the effect of "the American founding fathers were committing illegal acts when they declared independence." Could there be a positive aspect, one of protest perhaps, to the illegality angle?

    again, this is coming from an avid jersey collector who spots fakes all the time, and to my knowledge, has no fakes. I'm just trying to see all sides, and so far, nobody has challenged those who have been touting the illegality argument

    I'm not sure I equate the loft Enlightenment-inspired ideals of America's Founding Fathers with the Chinese counterfeiter's desire to make a quick buck on other peoples' trademarks and fan ignorance.

  17. This argument is ridiculous. It is like saying "if I don't have enough money, it is ok to counterfit money or rob a bank." It's not ok. Illegal is illegal and no one should be arguing the metits of the illegal things they are doing/producing/buying.

    Playing devil's advocate, what law is being broken by customers who buy fake jerseys?

    The act of producing and selling counterfeits is the illegal act here.

  18. Unless it's one big league with franchises in other countries that all play by the same CBA and rules as far as salary caps, etc., then IMO no team can really be called the "World" champions (exception of NFL, since there aren't any other "major" American-rules football leagues.)

    I would argue that there aren't any "major" hockey, baseball, or basketball leagues outside of the NHL, MLB, and NBA. Really. Do you honestly think the champs of the KHL, European leagues, or Japanese and Korean leagues would stand a chance in a true championship series against the NHL, NBA, or MLB champs?

    Sure a Russian all-star team could beat the Blackhawks, but that's a pretty piss poor comparison. I real question is "could the KHL champs beat the Blackhawks?" and that's a pretty obvious "no."

    I think people are confused here. It's not a question of North America vs the world. It's a question of which league has the best assemblage of players. The World Series champs in MLB aren't just made up of American and Canadian players. They'll probably feature some of the best players Japan, South America, and maybe Korea have to offer as well. So if the MLB champs play the champs of the Japanese league they're not going up against a team of Japanese all-stars. They're going up against the best club team Japan has to offer, and they themselves would be playing with some of the best Japanese players out there. Simply put, they'd curb stomp them.

  19. Do you read what other people are saying or do you just scan for key phrases and guesstimate the rest?

    The CFL, the KHL, the European basketball leagues, the Japanese and Korean baseball leagues, are obviously bush league when compared to the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB. The North American leagues are, without a doubt, the highest level of competition for their respective sports. Thus the champions of these leagues calling themselves World Champions is appropriate. Trying to argue that they aren't, that the teams in these other leagues actually have a chance to rival the NHL/NFL/NBA/MLB champs, is naive at best and argumentative at worst.

  20. Ice_Cap's guide to wearing sports jerseys....

    1) Only acceptable when at a game or watching a game, or if you're out the day/night of a game. You just look silly wearing a jersey when you're out grocery shopping. Just my opinion, but you do.

    2) Wearing a jersey with your own name/number is only acceptable if you're age 10 or younger.

    3) Blank jerseys are preferred over jerseys with the name/number of a player, but that latter is still acceptable.

    1) Agreed.

    2) I make an exception if the customization is something that would CLEARLY never make it on the field/floor/ice (like an obvious nickname or a 3-digit number). I used to know a guy called Ugly that was known for wearing his "UGLY 00" Packers jersey to the club (back in 2002 when you could still rock jerseys at the club). To me, that's different from the 5'9, 250 lb. guy with his own (real) name who insists on a receivers number on top of everything else.

    That said... I'm personally more than content with a team-logo hoodie.

    Fair enough. Yeah, those are fine, in and in many cases, pretty funny.

    3) For hockey and baseball, sure... but even for football and basketball jerseys?

    D'oh! Was in a hockey mindset. Obviously player name/number jerseys are ok for football and basketball.

  21. The NFL charges too much for a terrible product and the market has responded accordingly. There are tons of free market warriors on this board -- I would imagine this would be example A of how markets work.

    Except counterfeiters are not responding to the demand via legal means. They're 1) infringing on copyrights and 2) in most cases trying to pass their fakes off as the real thing, thus deceiving the costumers. One can be "pro-free market" and still see the legal and moral problems with counterfeit jerseys.

    grown men shouldnt wear jerseys anyway.

    Thanks for the insight Mr. Blackwell. rolleyes.gif

    Wear what you want, but he's got a point. Everytime I see a grown-a$$ man in a jersey (especially a customized one) I just think he's some big kid who is imagining that he's actually on the team by putting on the jersey, like he's fulfilling some childhood fantasy. It's all a big game of pretend. If you're actually at the game, maybe you get a pass, but it's still kind of corny for adults to wear the jerseys of other adults.

    Ice_Cap's guide to wearing sports jerseys....

    1) Only acceptable when at a game or watching a game, or if you're out the day/night of a game. You just look silly wearing a jersey when you're out grocery shopping. Just my opinion, but you do.

    2) Wearing a jersey with your own name/number is only acceptable if you're age 10 or younger.

    3) Blank jerseys are preferred over jerseys with the name/number of a player, but that latter is still acceptable.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.