Ebay Ethics?

[BlueSky]

First - you knowingly bought a fake jersey. IMO, that makes you trash.

Second - you knowingly posted about buying a fake jersey on a board frequented by pro designers who are being robbed whenever someone buys a fake. That makes you dumb trash.

Third - you even have to ask the question about getting your illegally reproduced fake jersey for "free". That makes you cheap, immoral trash.

Fourth... well, you don't want to know.

Why some people on here get their Underoos* in such a bunch over low-cost alternatives is beyond me. Counterfeiting only happens when the market has out-priced itself. Everyone knows these counterfeit items are of less quality (which keeps me away,) but they are of an acceptable price to most people. Very few people look at a $300 jersey and think they are getting everything they paid for, and most of them would reside on this board.

* A licensed product of Fruit-of-the-Loom Corp.

Thanks...the overpricing is a point I wanted to make but couldn't put into the right words. IMO BBTV's comments would apply to someone who chooses to buy an unlicensed (or fake or whatever) jersey when a reasonably priced, licensed alternative is available.

Next we can debate the definition of 'reasonably priced.'

Seriously though, I think the gap between the NFL's leadership and the average fan widens every day. It's the same problem many businesses have: the executive conundrum, or what I call kings and peasants. Many executives are making millions and traveling by limo and private jet. Yet the rank and file is supposed to respect and follow them and the execs are supposed to understand what it's like on the front lines? Not going to happen. So while I'm sure people at Goodell's pay grade would think nothing of dropping $300 on a luxury item they want - and let's face it, an authentic jersey is not an essential - for most Joe Fans, it's a hell of a stretch.

For those of you p.o.'d at the state of the airline industry, the same thing is at work with a small twist. In the old days, all the leaders and managers had worked their way up from front-line jobs. While there are other factors too, if you graphed three trends - the decline in service, the number of airline decisionmakers who have zero field experience, and idiotic ideas like extra fees for luggage and seat assignments - it would look like an 'X', with service headed down as the number of clueless suits and stupid fees and policies headed up.

I'm sure it's not unique to the airline industry, that's just the one I got to watch from the first row.

[OnWis97]

I gotta get back on my high horse. "They're too expensive" is justification? I don't dispute that they are too expensive. Decent replicas at a decent price were easier to get in the 1980s then they are now. It's kind counter-intuitive. I've thought for some time that if they were priced more reasonably they'd make up for it in volume (though that's just my gut). But if the leagues want to charge $1000 for their jerseys that's their business. If we smartly don't want to pay for it, then we'll just have to go without. "They made us do it with their high prices"...the same justification people used when pirating music once CDs hit $15.

As for the "market" argument...well, that's why the market is regulated. Without copyright rules the incentive to create would be virtually eliminated. There is also a market to go into malls and steal overpriced designer clothes...that does not make it OK just because they are "overpriced."

Stealing is stealing. My candy bar to IP example merely points out that someone would not commit a "small" grab and run theft, but would commit a very "expensive" IP theft. Is it that they don't "get" that it's the same thing? Is it that they've somehow rationalized it? (that's probably it for most people). Is it that the chance of getting caught is small?

Next we can debate the definition of 'reasonably priced.'

Nobody has to debate you. You proved the opposition's point here. "Reasonably priced" is very subjective. If we have some moral right to steal things that are not reasonably priced...well, that's an argument that can be made about anything. There are a lot of people that would love to ride around in a BMW but cannot afford it...perhaps I should build some crapmobiles to look like Beemers, slap the logo on and sell them for 15 grand. Hey, if Beemers were more reasonably priced, it would not have come to that.

[krilow]

If the person was selling it as a authentic or a replica then yes you have to peruse this. We can't let fake jerseys continue to flood ebay.

[BlueSky]

I gotta get back on my high horse. "They're too expensive" is justification? I don't dispute that they are too expensive. Decent replicas at a decent price were easier to get in the 1980s then they are now. It's kind counter-intuitive. I've thought for some time that if they were priced more reasonably they'd make up for it in volume (though that's just my gut). But if the leagues want to charge $1000 for their jerseys that's their business. If we smartly don't want to pay for it, then we'll just have to go without. "They made us do it with their high prices"...the same justification people used when pirating music once CDs hit $15.

As for the "market" argument...well, that's why the market is regulated. Without copyright rules the incentive to create would be virtually eliminated. There is also a market to go into malls and steal overpriced designer clothes...that does not make it OK just because they are "overpriced."

Stealing is stealing. My candy bar to IP example merely points out that someone would not commit a "small" grab and run theft, but would commit a very "expensive" IP theft. Is it that they don't "get" that it's the same thing? Is it that they've somehow rationalized it? (that's probably it for most people). Is it that the chance of getting caught is small?

Next we can debate the definition of 'reasonably priced.'

Nobody has to debate you. You proved the opposition's point here. "Reasonably priced" is very subjective. If we have some moral right to steal things that are not reasonably priced...well, that's an argument that can be made about anything. There are a lot of people that would love to ride around in a BMW but cannot afford it...perhaps I should build some crapmobiles to look like Beemers, slap the logo on and sell them for 15 grand. Hey, if Beemers were more reasonably priced, it would not have come to that.

If people would buy them, you might be tempted.

To play devil's advocate, buyers aren't stealing the jersey. The actual offense is being committed by those who manufacture the jersey without a license. In some cases - it's impossible to know how many - people who buy the products really don't know they're fake. Some may suspect and some obviously know. So are there degrees of trashiness?

Here's a point I tried to make earlier: we're all hypocrites to some degree. I know a guy who enjoys regaling everyone with tales of how he buys a matinee movie ticket and sometimes stays until midnight, watching as many as four or five movies. It grates on my nerves to no end. His excuse is the same one presented here, that movie tickets are "too expensive." That's where it gets subjective because come on, that's crap. Right? Well, to me but obviously not to him.

IMO, using this example, the NFL would make more money by pricing their products more reasonably because they'd make it up in volume. I'm not paying $30 for a SB Champs hat, but when it goes on clearance - like the Steelers gear from last year did - maybe I'll buy one for $15 or maybe I'll never buy one at all. But price it at $20 off the bat and I'd buy one. You might say, what's ten bucks? To some, not that big a deal, but for a hat, $30 is past my tipping point.

[Gothamite]

Anybody who buys a fake jersey to save money is an accomplice to theft. Again, that's why receiving stolen goods is a crime.

If the person was selling it as a authentic or a replica then yes you have to peruse this. We can't let fake jerseys continue to flood ebay.

That's not really at issue here, though. eBay has taken action against the seller to prevent the sale of fakes. At issue is whether or not he could/should petition eBay to get his money back, thereby getting the fake for free.

My answer: of course not. Personally, I think it's bad enough he participated in the theft, he shouldn't be paid for it.

[Hontas]

A little over the top, perhaps. Decided to take out some alcohol-fueled frustration on idiots on the interweb. It was either that or kick small dogs. I feel comfortable with my decision. But yeah... prob a bit harsh.

People who call other people trash for buying an unlicensed jersey on eBay are trash.

People who then blame it on alcohol are low down dirty dog trash.

You don't wanna know the rest.

[OnWis97]

Anybody who buys a fake jersey to save money is an accomplice to theft. Again, that's why receiving stolen goods is a crime.

If the person was selling it as a authentic or a replica then yes you have to peruse this. We can't let fake jerseys continue to flood ebay.

That's not really at issue here, though. eBay has taken action against the seller to prevent the sale of fakes. At issue is whether or not he could/should petition eBay to get his money back, thereby getting the fake for free.

My answer: of course not. Personally, I think it's bad enough he participated in the theft, he shouldn't be paid for it.

Unless he did not realize, got his money back and destroyed the jersey. That would be a reasonable action out of someone that truly had made the purchase without realizing it was a counterfeit.

I am sure there are tons of people (that don't frequent boards like this) that don't know that "unlicensed" sports clothing are even produced or don't understand the concept of such a thing. They may get some of the "legal" blame, but "morally" I'd go a bit easier on them (so yes, there are degrees of "trashiness", I suppose).

Generally, those of us here know that if it seems too good to be true, it likely is. But the general public does not likely get that.

[Gothamite]

Anybody who buys a fake jersey to save money is an accomplice to theft. Again, that's why receiving stolen goods is a crime.

If the person was selling it as a authentic or a replica then yes you have to peruse this. We can't let fake jerseys continue to flood ebay.

That's not really at issue here, though. eBay has taken action against the seller to prevent the sale of fakes. At issue is whether or not he could/should petition eBay to get his money back, thereby getting the fake for free.

My answer: of course not. Personally, I think it's bad enough he participated in the theft, he shouldn't be paid for it.

Unless he did not realize, got his money back and destroyed the jersey. That would be a reasonable action out of someone that truly had made the purchase without realizing it was a counterfeit.

Perhaps, but that's not the case here.

Now, I already paid for the item through ebay with paypal. I've received the item, and frankly I knew what i was getting, and am very satisfied with my purchase.

So, is it wrong for me to pursue this, and try to get my money back? I mean, its not like I would be required to send the jersey back. I would just ultimately be getting the jersey for free.

[BlueSky]

Anybody who buys a fake jersey to save money is an accomplice to theft. Again, that's why receiving stolen goods is a crime.

If the person was selling it as a authentic or a replica then yes you have to peruse this. We can't let fake jerseys continue to flood ebay.

That's not really at issue here, though. eBay has taken action against the seller to prevent the sale of fakes. At issue is whether or not he could/should petition eBay to get his money back, thereby getting the fake for free.

My answer: of course not. Personally, I think it's bad enough he participated in the theft, he shouldn't be paid for it.

If you can't reference a law stating that, it's not true other than in your opinion. I understand it's splitting hairs but again I'm playing devil's advocate here. Are you really suggesting buyers of unlicensed jerseys could be subject to arrest?

[Gothamite]

Heck, until a judge agrees, that interpretation just my opinion. That's the nature of the law, to say nothing of the Interwebs.

I don't know what jurisdiction he is in or is subject to. So I can't reference the law in his specific case. But I was speaking generally - receiving stolen goods is a crime. A federal one if the property crosses state lines (I believe he said it was shipped from Pennsylvania).

I believe that the theft of intellectual property is every bit as serious as the theft of more material property. Now, would intellectual property qualify under that law? I have no idea. I was speaking from a moral standpoint. Since he asked our opinion, and all that.

[BBTV]

A little over the top, perhaps. Decided to take out some alcohol-fueled frustration on idiots on the interweb. It was either that or kick small dogs. I feel comfortable with my decision. But yeah... prob a bit harsh.

People who call other people trash for buying an unlicensed jersey on eBay are trash.

People who then blame it on alcohol are low down dirty dog trash.

You don't wanna know the rest.

While I shouldn't have worded it the way I did, nor posted that harshly in a public forum, that is how I feel about anyone who buys knock-off, counterfeit, unlicensed, or otherwise fake merchandise. It's one thing when a grandma unknowingly orders a fake jersey for her grandson because it's cheaper and she doesn't know any better, but I would expect much more from anyone in this community. So I'm not sure if "trash" was the appropriate word to use in this particular case, but yeah - it's how I feel about the issue.

[williamherbert]

Can we put a moratorium on the "you wouldn't steal an old lady's purse, but you download music for free??" parallel? I'm not saying either one is right, but they are decidedly different concepts.

If I take an old lady's purse, she is deprived of her money, license, pictures of her grandkids, etc. I've been robbed a couple times, I know how frustrating it is.

If you download music (for example) you are making a digital copy for yourself, while not depriving anyone else of that same item. It is depriving the record company and artist of money, granted, but you have not deprived the owner of anything.

You can call it theft if you want to, but it's not the same as stealing a candy bar, which is a zero-sum situation. If someone bought a candy bar and then put it into a cloning machine and offered the clone to you, you might shun your friend's offer and go back into the store to purchase one for yourself. Or you might not. That depends on how high your moral high-ground is. And if you had a friend who was talented enough to sew a Todd Marinovich jersey that looked exactly like the real thing, would you turn it down so you could go to the Finish Line and buy the $299 version? When companies price themselves out of the market they make it an awfully tough decision.

Sorry to get all non-uniformy, but I hate when people parallel using Bit Torrent with shoplifting. They might both be wrong, but they ain't the same.

[chakfu]

Can we put a moratorium on the "you wouldn't steal an old lady's purse, but you download music for free??" parallel? I'm not saying either one is right, but they are decidedly different concepts.

Sorry to get all non-uniformy, but I hate when people parallel using Bit Torrent with shoplifting. They might both be wrong, but they ain't the same.

Thank you...it may be illegal, it may be in some sense similar to stealing; but it's not the same as physically stealing something. Has anyone ever been prosecute for theft for doing something like "stealing" cable or sneaking into the movies? (serious question. Maybe they have.) Those two things are a lot like downloading pirated music or software, and I'd say they're a lot more like trespassing than they're like stealing.

[capn89]

First - you knowingly bought a fake jersey. IMO, that makes you trash.

Second - you knowingly posted about buying a fake jersey on a board frequented by pro designers who are being robbed whenever someone buys a fake. That makes you dumb trash.

Third - you even have to ask the question about getting your illegally reproduced fake jersey for "free". That makes you cheap, immoral trash.

Fourth... well, you don't want to know. you're an ***hole.

Finished it for you.

[oldschoolvikings]

Can we put a moratorium on the "you wouldn't steal an old lady's purse, but you download music for free??" parallel? I'm not saying either one is right, but they are decidedly different concepts.

If I take an old lady's purse, she is deprived of her money, license, pictures of her grandkids, etc. I've been robbed a couple times, I know how frustrating it is.

If you download music (for example) you are making a digital copy for yourself, while not depriving anyone else of that same item. It is depriving the record company and artist of money, granted, but you have not deprived the owner of anything.

You can call it theft if you want to, but it's not the same as stealing a candy bar, which is a zero-sum situation. If someone bought a candy bar and then put it into a cloning machine and offered the clone to you, you might shun your friend's offer and go back into the store to purchase one for yourself. Or you might not. That depends on how high your moral high-ground is. And if you had a friend who was talented enough to sew a Todd Marinovich jersey that looked exactly like the real thing, would you turn it down so you could go to the Finish Line and buy the $299 version? When companies price themselves out of the market they make it an awfully tough decision.

Sorry to get all non-uniformy, but I hate when people parallel using Bit Torrent with shoplifting. They might both be wrong, but they ain't the same.

Wait. There's a market for pirated Todd Marinovich jerseys?

[elsephen]

I've said this 1,000 times.

But anyone that complains about "stealing" from people that charge 200+ dollars for a 10 dollar piece of material really need to see the bigger picture.

So the buyer of a fake jersey is wrong- but stealing from consumers and making 240 dollars off a sweat-shop worker's labor is peachy-keen?

yeah. I see what you mean. lol

Want to fix it? Charge a fair amount for your product. Not hard. Every other company does it- why can't pro sports? Especially when you consider how disposable the jerseys are. You buy a football jersey these days, and the player is gone within 3 years with few exceptions. Now you're just left with an outdated piece of cloth that you paid far too much for. Time to shell out another 200...

[BlueSky]

I've said this 1,000 times.

But anyone that complains about "stealing" from people that charge 200+ dollars for a 10 dollar piece of material really need to see the bigger picture.

So the buyer of a fake jersey is wrong- but stealing from consumers and making 240 dollars off a sweat-shop worker's labor is peachy-keen?

yeah. I see what you mean. lol

Want to fix it? Charge a fair amount for your product. Not hard. Every other company does it- why can't pro sports? Especially when you consider how disposable the jerseys are. You buy a football jersey these days, and the player is gone within 3 years with few exceptions. Now you're just left with an outdated piece of cloth that you paid far too much for. Time to shell out another 200...

Well said, especially the bolded point. Ironically, both jerseys are likely coming from very similar facilities, the only difference being price and more diligent QC. Fair or unfair, wouldn't it be different if the authentic version was coming from a U.S. plant? Then it would be obvious why the cost was (reasonably) higher and frankly, paying the difference makes some sense.

Both sides have good arguments, but Gothamite, equating buying a knockoff with receiving stolen goods is a stretch to put it kindly.

[OMMF]

Has anyone ever been prosecute for theft for doing something like "stealing" cable or sneaking into the movies? (serious question. Maybe they have.)

Why did you put stealing in quotes?

[OMMF]

When companies price themselves out of the market they make it an awfully tough decision.

Except they aren't. No one needs to have an authentic jersey. It is a luxury, a non-necessity. Therefore, the market is there for the people who can afford them. If you can't, fine. But just because someone makes another market at what they consider to be fair doesn't mean that the original manufacturer priced themselves out of it. It's this terrible notion that you have this right to anything you want and no matter what it takes, you are going to get it. Yes, the analogies given are weak but they speak to a broader problem and that is personal entitlement. As soon as people realize that, really, you can't have everything, it would be a lot better.

[ElwoodCuse]

There are a lot of people that would love to ride around in a BMW but cannot afford it...perhaps I should build some crapmobiles to look like Beemers, slap the logo on and sell them for 15 grand. Hey, if Beemers were more reasonably priced, it would not have come to that.

I actually saw on a "horrors of custom cars" websites way back in the day someone who took a Mitsubishi 3000 GT and repainted/rebadged/etc. the car to look like a Ferrari. It was hilarious.

But I agree, this is some lame-ass justification going on here.

"It's the league's fault! If they didn't charge $300 for a jersey I wouldn't have to buy a knockoff!"

"Oh yeah? What laws do YOU break? Probably something, so it's ok for me to do this." Boo hoo.