IceCap

Actually I don't download music illegally. You're using a Transformers avatar. Did you get prior written consent from the creators? Do you have written consent from the Washington Redskins and/or Sean Taylor? Fact is that Hasbro, TakaraTomy, Paramount, and Dreamworks have released sets of Transformers imagery, including the Decepticon logo in my avatar, to be used free of charge for use as message board and IM avatars. I could stick a picture of Optimus Prime's face in my avatar space and it would be ok because the owners of the Transformers brand have made it clear they have no issue with people using their IP in such a manner. Really, though, you're just trying another variation on the same tactic. To try and deflect the issue. What I do is unimportant. The topic of the thread is counterfeit jerseys. Everything else, as far as this thread is concerned, does not matter. At all. Like BBTV said. If you know it's wrong to support intellectual property theft and you do so anyway then go ahead. The total failure of people here to even recognize that it's wrong is baffling at best and downright sad at worst. I think we've covered this before. Late in the season, when they've run out of white jerseys for teams that go far in the playoffs, they simply take blank Raiders white jerseys and put the appropriate stripes and numbers on them. Hence you'll have disparities like this.

Actually, that has less than nothing to do with the topic here. I think that many people who choose to download music illegally at least recognize that they are committing a crime and that it's wrong, they just choose to do it anyway. That doesn't make it right, but at least (IMO) most of these people do understand right from wrong in this case and choose to do wrong. In the case of counterfeit jerseys, many of you idiots really don't understand why it's wrong and illegal, and that it can hurt someone. Some of you are actually making the point that it's right to do it. I couldn't really care less if someone knows the situation and then still chooses to do something wrong (and deals with the consequences if caught... though there aren't many legal consequences to buying a fake jersey) but it does bother me that there exist people who simply don't get that it is wrong, it is stealing, and it is illegal. Plus it's dumb to come on a board that is frequented by companies who actually produce some of the designs that are being stolen. But considering that these days 80% of this board is either 10-year-old kids, people who come here just to talk about how great Jesus is, or just general idiots, I'm not surprised by the lack of common sense.

Actually I don't download music illegally.

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." 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. 1) I'm crushed. Really. But that response sounds more like you don't have good counterpoints than you've had enough of it. Just sayin'... Not really. I read your latest long post. And every counterpoint I could have made I have made. No one's convincing anyone else here, we've just started repeating the same points. If you want to do that then ok. I had opted not to. If anything says "I don't have a counterpoint" it's the "well you break the law SO THERE" response. The fact is that what anyone else does in regards to the law has absolutely zero barring on the counterfeit discussion. Lets say I head out to the grocery store later, and lets say I drive over the speed limit. How does that make the sale and production of counterfeits any less illegal? Fact is it doesn't. The topic up for discussion is counterfeiting jerseys. It's illegal. That if I sped home from school that one time a few months ago doesn't change that fact.

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." 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.

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

+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.

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: 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 " 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. 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.

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

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? 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.

I had no idea simply pointing out that illegal activities are illegal was self-righteous. I never claimed I haven't been guilty of hypocrisy. 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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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.

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. 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.

If you think $300 for a jersey is to expensive then don't buy one. Contributing to intellectual property theft and the violation of US copyright law isn't the right course of action.

This reminds me of the "professor" was trying to argue that the Vikings' uniforms were meant to be worn purple over purple, and insisted that was the case even when factual evidence proved him wrong. Look rams29jackson, producing counterfeit jerseys is illegal. It violates intellectual property laws. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

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. 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. 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.

I love that logo. Had they used that as the primary for that look it would have been the Brewers' best ever.

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.

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.

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?

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. 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.

Exactly. Maybe it's the broad use of the term, but I really take no issue with the NFL having a monopoly on NFL merchandise.

Hey I have one of those! Cool! 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. 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. 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? 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.

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.

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.