BBTV

Randy Johnson in an Astros uniform is the better comparison. Piazza only played 5 games with the Marlins. CC and Randy Johnson both played in the post season with their temporary teams.

For those of us that don't worship at the alter of the NFL, this would be...? (Unless you were commenting on the colours of New Orleans Saints being black, white and pewter while the Cleveland Browns being Charcoal and Slate, I apologize...) (Just noticed the photobucket name: norb_Taylor.jpg. Who the fail is Norb Taylor?) Could "norb" mean "New Orleans Running Back"? Did they have a Taylor back then? Or is that someone famous who finished up with the Saints and just doesn't look familiar?

To be fair, Pennsylvania has two NL teams (in-state rivals, if you will) in real life. They're not really rivals though. Philadelphia's sports rivalries are with the New York and New Jersey teams. The non-sports "jealous younger brother" rivalry that some (albeit few) idiots think exists would clearly be with New York. Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia is only really a rivalry in Pittsburgh - though there, I'd say that the non-sports factor is even greater than the sports factor. True, but the point was that PA's only two teams are in the same league. And one of JH4XCC's objections was that having CIN and CLE be in the same league was a problem. Oh, well then it's certainly not a problem. It's only a problem when they're in the same market, as in a non-shared-revenue league, keeping them split gives more of the smaller teams access to dates with the bigger / higher-revenue-generating clubs. Or in the case of the NFL, it allows them to sell NY as a market to two separate networks. Cleveland and Cincinnati, both being relatively smaller markets, would cause no such issues if grouped together.

To be fair, Pennsylvania has two NL teams (in-state rivals, if you will) in real life. They're not really rivals though. Philadelphia's sports rivalries are with the New York and New Jersey teams. The non-sports "jealous younger brother" rivalry that some (albeit few) idiots think exists would clearly be with New York. Pittsburgh vs Philadelphia is only really a rivalry in Pittsburgh - though there, I'd say that the non-sports factor is even greater than the sports factor.

Oh yes...what a great time for jerseys: Everyone forgets how crappy those were and they still cost $40 bucks. Just with inflation that'd be $60 bucks today. I know everyone likes to knock Nike, Reebok and Adidas but the quality of replicas has dramatically improved since the 90's. (Below is replica's only) Baseball: Back then they were screened on jerseys, sometimes on cotton. Today they are sewn on polyester which is more like the authentics. I believe replica's used to be like $50 and today they are $80, right in line with inflation and add a few bucks for better quality. Basketball: At least the magic ones have stripes now. Champion replica's resembled today's JC Penny level jerseys (which are a notch below the replica) which retail for...$45 bucks! Screw You adidas! Hockey: These have decreased in quality I will not argue. I will argue that the fabric and construction is about the same or better. Football: Better fits for someone wearing them out, better quality material, closer authentic fonts in most cases (not all...see Bears replica vs. onfield) I know everyone thinks the prices have jumped astronomically but when you look at the prices vs. inflation they haven't gone up all that much and the quality has improved a ton. All of this is true. I think the reason that people are so down on replica NHL sweaters is because the quality of the pre-RBK replicas (once they were all air-knit) was so good, that it really makes the current edge replicas seem cheaply made (which I would agree that they are.) RBK probably looked at the old replicas as too good of an alternative to an authentic for the consumer, and had to widen the gap enough to justify the different price points. As a Flyers fan (though one who doesn't buy sports jerseys), the only reason I would ever pay extra for an authentic vs a replica would be because the CCM replicas always had a black outline around the crest, while their authentics did not. The Starter, NIke, and other replicas got it right though. While not as good as the previous generation (produced by Nike, CCM, Starter, Pro Player, etc.), today's replicas are still ahead of the ones that were sold in the '80s/early '90s, when some were cheap poly doubleknit (or whatever replica baseball jersey material is called) or wide-holed mesh. Back then, the lower-end ones even had screened-on crests.

Why are you guys arguing with this kid? You realize that not only can you not win, by even putting forth the effort, you're losing. When he grows up, he'll either be in jail for taking something that he feels he deserves to have because he wants it, or will have matured and understand why this is a crime and who it hurts, and why it isn't about anyone being an "authentic jersey freak".

Look at the Federko banner. The fonts used are different.

Those banners aren't the same.

No, it's not "kinda" related at all, considering those are officially licensed products. If you only have $40 to spend on a jersey, that's what you're entitled to - not an illegally reproduced knock off of a $200 jersey. Though I'd argue that if you only have $40 to spend, you have other priorities besides buying shoddy-looking sports jerseys.

You couldn't even get the number font right. Just go away.

So what is the "right" uniform for Cliff Lee now? When he got traded from Cleveland to Philadelphia, I'm fairly certain the early shots of him in Phillies pinstripes made it into this thread. Since then, he spent half a season in Phila., half in Seattle, half in Texas, and is now back in Philadelphia. I'd argue that his success in the 2009 post season (and the national exposure he got from being on that team) got him associated with the Phillies, even after he left (and now that he's back, it's even more so.) I don't think I'm letting local media coverage cloud my opinion, but of course that's always possible. Just curious.

No, it's an real website. I clicked on it and it went to an actual page.

Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing at all. To me, it's a lot like that. It's bothering someone because they bought a cheaper product that still gets the job done. As in, "I overpaid, so everyone else should too. And if anyone finds a way to get a similar product for less money, then I'm going to be jealous." Wouldn't it be more like the Lexus owner being peeved at the Toyota owner who threw Lexus emblems on his car? Not really, because if I buy a counterfeit item, I'm not buying it with the intention of "masking" it's counterfeit-ness or making people think that it's real. It's more like "I chose not to break the law or support people who do, and if anyone finds a way to save money by stealing or supporting theaft, then I'm going to be upset." Your analogy is horrible. It's nothing like a Lexus owner downing a Toyota driver.

So if price is all that matters, why buy a TV for $2000 when you can get the same one for $500? So what if that the ones you are buying for $500 were stolen out of your neighbors' homes, that's not your problem, you're getting a deal. Of course, buy purchasing these obviously stolen TVs, you're creating a market for it and encouraging thieves to break in and steal more TVs to sell, but who cares - you got yours. Well, until it gets stolen and sold to your neighbor for $500. Just because one is a physical product with a forced-entry method of stealing and one is IP which is easily stolen without anyone getting physically harmed doesn't really make it much different. Except to most of you of course.

Wouldn't it be illegal to buy if you knew it was being illegally sold? Not that anyone could actually prove that.

Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing at all.

That's all anyone's really asking here. If you understand the law, if you understand the concept of IP rights and you still decide to buy a counterfeit then that's your call. Right. I couldn't care less if you buy the jersey or not, as long as you don't act like there's not only nothing wrong with it, but you're some kind of crusader against the big bad businesses who are destroying society by selling sports jerseys at a certain price point.

I want to gouge my eyes out after reading this crap. Of course one of the reasons to grant an exclusive license is to make the price higher! It's called business, goddam business. Of course it's better for the consumer if there's no exclusive license, but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion, and frankly, I really don't think that you have the faculties to participate in this discussion anymore. If we are discussing ways that leagues could reduce the amount of counterfeiting, and one of those ways was to allow multiple licensees to make products therefore lowering the prices, then maybe it'd be relevant. But we're not. And what you're failing to grasp is that a lot of times retailers / manufacturers don't have the right to lower their prices in order to compete. Many times, retail stores prices are set by the manufacturer - they can't just have a sale on a certain item unless the manufacturer says it's OK (it's not like this with everything, but with a lot of things.) In this case, it could be part of the licensing agreement that prices remain at a certain point so as not to "cheapen" the NFL's brand (they don't want to be looked at as a league who's gear is worth $9.99 or something like that.) So if a Puma jersey was on sale for $65, chances are that the Nike, Reebok, Majestic, etc. versions would be too. We're having different discussions here, and frankly, you're off base on both of them. You're arguing the legality and ethics of something that you just "don't like". There's a lot of things we all "don't like", but that doesn't lessen the legitimacy of them.

If you have to go that far to justify it, then it's wrong. Who are you to analyze their production costs, labor costs, rights fees, etc., and then decide what the fair markup should be? You know far less than you think. Why exactly is it necessary to go out of your way to specify that the bootleggers were white?

Get real - it would be FOX and CBS doing the drafting. Seriously. And it would never ever ever ever ever work.

Sean Taylor isn't doing any writing anytime soon. Actually, he's not doing much of anything anytime soon. Nice way to take a joke and become a jackass. Idiot... Explain how anything that Brass97 posted is not true.

Also, going after Ice Cap for an avatar is beyond weak. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything at all in this discussion. I'll admit - I've downloaded MP3s. I know it's wrong, I know it's illegal, I know it hurt the artist, yet I chose to do it anyway. That's something I have to reconcile with myself (of course I wouldn't go on a musicians forum and brag about stealing music.) Nobody is calling anyone a bad person for buying a fake jersey. But at least admit to yourself that it's wrong, that it is a crime, and there's a reason that it's a crime. Honestly - it is black and white. Quite honestly there is not a single valid argument against it. I've tried to be open minded and consider what's been posted here (really, I have) but honestly most of you guys are just flat out making no sense.

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. At least a hundred times. It's crap, but it's normal and it's still a licensed replica. Also, the quality or accuracy of officially-licensed replicas or even on-field jerseys is NOT repeat NOT the issue here. NOT. NOT.

Knowing you are buying an illegal knockoff and having absolutely no clue that you are a two different things, but that has not been the argument in this thread. Just because many get away with it does not make it less illegal. Right on both counts. No disrespect BlueSky, because you're generally a pretty reasonable and intelligent poster (if not just a tad Saints-centric ), but I'm having a tough time at this point deciding if you are just trying to keep the debate going at any cost, or if you really don't understand the differences between the situations you posted and what we've been discussing here.

Please stop trying to make whatever point you're trying to make by posting pics of bad NFL knockoffs since they're no worse than what the league itself puts on the field. Before Techfit came along, if somebody bought an "authentic" identical to Addai's game jersey from www.cheapchineseripoffjerseysthatreallypissofficecapandco.com and posted it here, you guys would have torn it and the poster apart while LYAO all the while. We had another whole discussion over the Giants' widely disparate pants stripes. If you think the NFL is concerned about visual integrity, you're wrong. What we have here is relative morality. We could list illegal acts and the percentage of people who believe that act is wrong would vary from act to act. Murder for example, probably 99.9% or better believe it's wrong. Rolling through a stop sign (which irritates the hell out of me when people do it btw), the percentage would obviously be very different. We can agree it's illegal, but is it wrong? That's where Ice Cap and crowd's black and white fades to gray IMO. Explain to me how stealing isn't wrong?