Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by OnWis97

  1. And THAT, combined with ebay/internet commerce is why the fakes are flourishing. Very few fans notice subtle changes and most would never notice some really inaccurate stuff unless it was pointed out to them, and then would not really get that hung up about it. The Twins jerseys I see have awful numbers and oversized wordmarks, but the owners probably don't know and about 5% of the other fans that see it even realize. And I honestly doubt that the majority of the purchasers even understand that these are not legal/licensed. So I don't see it going away.
  2. 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? I know less about video games than anyone. But competitors can still make football video games. Do they have a right to produce the "NFL" video game or just the right to produce a competing "football" video game? And other companies can still make clothing...sports clothing. Albeit that some lame fashion "football" jersey does not compare to a (insert team) jersey, but the NFL does not need to let anyone use their imaging any more than, say, Aeropostale does. So when we use "monopoly" are we implying that it should be illegal? Are we implying that anyone should be able to make NFL-based clothing? Because if not, then it's still just "I deserve a cheap jersey" to me. And if so, then I'd have to disagree.
  3. 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. Bruce Springsteen's record company has a monopoly on selling Bruce Springsteen CDs. Score one for rationalizing piracy.
  4. This isn't a good discussion point because it's stretched so incredibly thin. I hear it a lot as the last refuge of people who know they are wrong--most commonly, software pirates. "Ok fine, it's wrong for me to download games illegally, but you probably break the speed limit so shut up. I still win nyah nyah" I actually agree with hockey week on this... I mean he's really just saying that almost everyone is a lawbreaker. Do you honestly disagree with that? It's true, but I doubt most people would make these statements for murder, rape, DWI, etc. And no, I am not comparing those terrible crimes to IP infringement in terms of significance, but the line must be somewhere between here and there. If I told everyone that I scored my authentic Denard Span jersey by going into the store and taking it and running out, I bet I'd get clobbered, and deservedly so. IP infringement (by the counterfeiter at least, and the music pirate) takes the opportunity to profit from hard work just as much as shoplifting, so why does one get chastised and the other get rationalize? Must be either 1) "Newness" of availability of filesharing and ebay purchases from abroad...we're used to "don't take something from a store", but this is new and 2) Likelihood of getting caught. This is what I think it is. Turns out most people feel entitled, but know that if they continue to shoplift, they'll get caught. IP is much tougher. I don't download music illegally and when it comes up, people will actually say "why, you won't get caught." It's not about getting caught or not getting caught. It's about right and wrong and not taking what's not mine. I have don't have the right to songs on my i-pod or Vikings jerseys I perceive as overpriced. As for my "holier than though" hypocrisy, all I can come up with is speeding and j-walking. Have I chosen to draw a line there? Yes. I actually believe that it's worse to perpetuate IP theft than it is to cross the middle of the street. I suppose if I caused an accident, I may feel differently and I fully admit that I speed for the same reasons many people participate in counterfeit jerseys...because I won't likely get caught. I also know I could create a pretty good music library by burning my friends' CDs. I don't do it because I view that as steeling. Based on the above, I guess I cannot win. I've chosen to draw a line that is a bit more stringent than the lines some of you draw. I guess they are both fairly arbitrary. But that does not mean I have to say "oh, yeah, it's OK." And it does not mean that I am going to stop believing that the rationalizations are based on a sense of entitlement.
  5. If I may clarify something for both sides, the purchase of the jersey in and of itself is not illegal. But by doing so, you are contributing to an illegal industry. Counterfeiters require customers to continue what they are doing. What you say seems logical, but how does the word "knowingly" apply? For example, if I buy a stolen TV unknowingly, that may or may not be technically illegal, but I doubt I'd be prosecuted. However, if I say "where'd you get this" and the seller said "I burglarized some guy's house", then if I purchase it, it's definately illegal. So if I knowingly purchase a counterfeit, is it illegal? I don't doubt that most people who purchase these things have no idea that they are counterfeit. All of these horrible looking Twins jerseys I see, well, most people don't really notice what's wrong with them. We on this board sort of have the "burden" of "getting it" when it comes to the details of jerseys. I suppose the "good" is not "stolen", so if I knowingly purchase a knock-off I may not be guilty of a crime. But either way, I'd be at least an indirect contributor to an illegal industry. If it's not a crime, I guess it's up to the individual purchaser's moral code.
  6. Here's my $0.02: Since inflation eats away at the buying power of your money every year, why work for it when you can counterfit money? Like you said, there are some glitches and errors on the bills, but so what? Oh yeah, it is illegal....just like ripping off the team and company's intellectual properties. Funny money no laughing matter in recession Here's my two cents. Why purchase a shirt, when I can walk into a store, put it on in the dressing room, put a jacket over it and walk out with it for free? We've been around and around on this topic here, but I remain surprised how many people think that while physically taking property is wrong, intellectual property theft is OK. Above someone said the IP theft is "less criminal" than the over-pricing of the jersey. That is in not true any any real or technical sense. It may upset you more or even be more "immoral" in one's opinion, but the latter is legal and the former is illegal. I have not purchased a jersey in years and likely never will again, as the "official" replicas stink (the quality has plummeted over the years) and the authentics are too expensive. I agree that they are overpriced, but I don't have a right to them. It seems to me that they'd make a ton more money charging a semi-reasonable price, but I am obviously wrong. Regardless, IP protection exists for a reason and while the leagues may "deserve" low sales, they don't "deserve" IP theft. Rationalization is all it is. I see a lot of horrible jerseys at Twins games. The numbers are huge and of the wrong font. I thought they were legal, poor quality replicas, but perhaps they are Chinese counterfeits. If so, then my observation is that Chinese counterfeits have skyrocketed in popularity over the last year or two, based on what I am seeing at Twins games. My other observation is that I, in my uniform geekdom, notice and can barely stand to look at them, but I don't think most people even notice.
  7. Switch Northwestern and Wisconsin and I think it's good. Wisconsin gets Iowa and Minnesota, which it wants. Northwestern gets in-state Illinois. From a "balance of power" standpoint that probably puts extra weight on the "Northish", but Northwestern is just a hair below Wisconsin anyway. I suspect the goal was to go 2 and 2 of the "Big Four" (Mich, OSU, PSU, Neb), then split the next tier (Wisc, Iowa), then split the "bottom two" (Indiana, Minnesota). But things change. Right now, Michigan is not in the big four...Wisconsin and Iowa round out the big five, making the bottom division tougher. But in a few years, who knows. Michigan State may build a Rose Bowl Team. Or Purdue. Minnesota may even build a good program if the Vikings move (they had a great one until the Vikings arrived). Things change and basing it on today's balance (and the assumption the Michigan will be back) is a bit short sighted. By the time Wisconsin opens it's season on Saturday at UNLV (a game I'll be attending), I'll be over it, but I did see one article suggesting that Wisconsin was the only school with a legitimate complaint. I think swapping NU and UW would mean that none do.
  8. As a Wisconsin Fan I am disappointed. Some thoughts * We are separated from our three nearest geographic opponents. * While competitive balance is not too bad, I'd say we're i the slightly tougher division at the top with PSU/OSU, but putting Northwestern/Iowa/Michigan with Nebraska evens it somewhat. * It's totally random. Obviously the straight E/W split would have been unfair to the East, so I cannot really complain that it did not shake that way, but it's such a mess. * Minnesota/Wisconsin is the oldest Bowl Subdivision rivalry. I really hope they protect that game. They should, but unlike Mich/OSU, there is not much money to be made from it and we know that tradition that does not raise the money is meaningless. But I'd guess this is one of the protected rivalries. * Wisconsin is among the best in the nation in terms of fans traveling to road games. I wonder whether the Iowas/Northwesterns did not want us for that reason. I would guess Wisconsin fans will be among the most upset.
  9. I am with you on this. Great colors without being gaudy (which I feel the yellow caused) and brown and orange look great on the gray road uniform (though perhaps pinstripes would be long gone on that by now). abso-freaking-lutely. I love the yellow home uniform they had up until the year before Gretzky.
  10. ^^^^ Winner of the "unpopular opinions" contest.
  11. Forgot one. While I hated most of the NBA jerseys with the graphics, I loved the Sonics Jersey. It was not so much what was on it, but the color scheme. Also, I hated the Barkley-era Suns uniform, which is very popular around here.
  12. My favorite NHL uniform of all time is the Christmas Devils. They took a unique uniform away and went with same ol' same ol', but it's wildly popular. I love the creamsicle Buccaneers. I hate two beloved Wild uniforms: The red with the circle crest (marginalizing the great logo) and the green alt that barely uses red. Most people prefer animal head logos (Jags, Panthers, etc.), but I like full body logos (Jags former sleeve logo, Bubbles the Lion) I loved the old AZ Cardinals Uniform (with animal head...d'oh) While I agree with most of you that monochrome in the NFL sucks, I disagree with all the white on white lovers. I think that's just as bad. Block numbers. I'd prefer block numbers on almost any uniform. The Steelers should have kept 'em, and the original Jags with Block numbers was better. I don't like almost any others...Hate the Brewers, Wild (on the whites), T-Wolves, Wisconsin hoops, etc. Block numbers to me seem "bold" and I'd honestly be OK if every team used 'em.
  13. So if the Big Ten remains at 12 (doubtful, but for the sake of argument...) Does Nebraska provide the juice in the west to go with East and West? EAST: PSU OSU MICH MSU IN PUR WEST: WISC MINN IOWA ILL NW NEB The balance is still definitely in the East. But it beats a lame North/South split or a random split.
  14. If I am not mistaken, that's the same script as the Brewers used on the road in the Ball-in-Glove days. I'm surprised that the Bucks were considering using that. Though it would have been a nice jersey.
  15. By the way, am I wrong or is there inconsistency between the link (http://wsrings.stadiumpage.com/) and the Jeter photo? The 2000 ring on the link does not appear to be in the photo. And the one on his middle finger is not on the page.
  16. Agreed. Rings were better before they became to "blingy". Now it's usually diamonds on diamonds. The Yanks from 96 to 09 did pretty well overall, though the oval one is kind of goofy.
  17. Gotcha, like Kentucky plays Men's soccer in C-USA. Well, in ice hockey (men and women) Big Ten schools play in the CCHA or WCHA, so I would initially say "no". I will talk to those in the depts. who I know on Monday or Tuesday, since Feb. 15 is Presidents Day and generally a state holiday. That may be different, as the Big Ten does not have hockey (due to only 5 schools fielding teams). I immediately thought of baseball as a sport that Texas may want to keep out of the big ten. I have no idea whether the Big Ten would allow such a thing, but money talks...so they could probably make it happen.
  18. I won't mention the autograph signings I went to as a kid, cuz those guys were all cordial but short. Paul Molitor. I flagged him down at old County Stadium and chatted briefly after BP when I was about 12. It was cool that he took the time. Chuck Foreman. I was a kid with my parents at a restaurant. Chuck (a very good Vikes RB from the 1970s) was before my time. My dad recognized him. So, being about 10 and into autographs, I went to his table where he was with who I assumed was his wife. (I'd never do that now...guys should be able to eat in piece, but I was a dumb kid). Anyway, he signed and was totally cool about it. He asked me my name and personalized it. I appreciated it. Tony Oliva. I think I was about the same age (10 to 12) as the above two instances. Spring Training with my parents. Tony was batting coach for the Twins. We were at the facility hours before the game, hoping we could find players to sign the pile of cards I brought. Nobody around, so we wandered aimlessly and were in a batting cage. Suddenly I hear this thick accent say something like "hey, you're not supposed to be here." But he was joking. He signed my card and chatted for a while and said some funny things. He was definitely a great guy to meet. When we were on our way out he says "hey" and I turn around and he flips me a ball (very Mean Joe Greene moment). That was easily the best run-in I've had. Barry Sanders. I was in high school when the Super Bowl came to Minnesota. I'm in line for the field goal kick with two friends and one says "that's Barry Sanders." I turn around, and, sure enough...My friend and I went over and shook hands with him. Quiet and cordial, but clearly did not want to be bugged. He had an agent/manager or someone with him that said "no autographs" as it was clear that other started to notice his presence. Not a great story, but Barry is easily in my top 5 athletes, so I thought it was cool. The above are the biggest stars. During my time at the University of Wisconsin there were tons around. My two stories are Tony Simmons, a WR who went on to a short career with the Patriots (and someone else). It was at a bar. He was drinking water. Two of my friends and I spent about 20 minutes talking football with him. He was pretty cool. The other was Paul Grant, a Center who was drafted by the T-Wolves (I looked him up and he has 16 NBA games under his belt). I mention it because I struck up two conversations at bars with him and he was just really cool and answered questions and just enjoyed talking to people. And I am sure, at 7 feet tall, he was bugged a lot. And one I don't count because I don't remember it. In 1979 when I was five, I was with my parents and met Herb Brooks. My dad claims to have said something like "it's going to be a rough trip to the Olympics" to which he claims Herb replied "we're gonna win the gold." I have no bad experiences. I think as a kid, I had some say they did not have time to sign, but that's fine. If someone is cordial about not giving you time, that's all I ask. They don't owe me conversations and don't have the time to please everyone.
  19. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/12/15/bigten-expansion/index.html?eref=sihp This is an interesting piece that illustrates why expansion may be a bad idea, financially (which is obviously all that matters). The example of Iowa probably missing the BCS this year after the conference title game is key. I hate conference title games. Anyone who thinks they exist for the integrity of a conference race is kidding themselves. But it's big TV business and would probably help the Big Ten become a deserving BCS conference once again, so begrudgingly, I'd like to see it happen.
  20. Puck could tie it up by pointing out how much of that homegrown talent would be lost by teams in other markets.
  21. A good look at the Penguins ring here. It's tremendous. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0910/championship.rings/content.1.html?eref=sihp http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0910/championship.rings/content.1.html?eref=sihp
  22. I thought it was entirely at New Hope. I stand corrected.
  23. It's Minnesota...I'd say it's pretty possible. Most high schools and citieshave their own arenas here. That's where they shot them. So in that regard, every team (at each level) has their own (often municipal) arena. I used to be able to look at them and tell you which ones they shot at. That was 15 years and far too much living I'm afraid. The first Mighty Ducks movie was done at the rink my high school played at. And we shared it with one other high school. And, I suspect, other youth hockey.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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