Ebay Ethics?

[BlueSky]

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.

1. Whether you agree or disagree, that's a valid point. Would just love to see the league's profit margin on their merchandise. Is an authorized retailer selling these at a loss?

2. No, not at least in my argument. My point was that we're all hypocrites to some degree or another, more of a 'people in glass houses' thing, not an excuse for doing something.

If it hasn't come through in my posts, I'm conflicted on this issue because I see valid points on either side. So I'm taking the devil's advocate approach.

Here's something to think about: say a person buys a knockoff. You guys are flailing around screaming "Thief!" because this person took money from the NFL, NFLPA, the players, and so on. Fair enough, but that argument assumes the person bought the knockoff instead of the authentic. What if that person never would have bought an authentic anyway because of the price? What exactly have they stolen? The "wronged" parties never would have gotten the money anyway.

As for the sneaking into a theater thing, come on. It's ten bucks for God's sake and people also have the alternative of waiting for the DVD and paying ONE DOLLAR at a Blockbuster kiosk to see it. So the cost argument really doesn't work on that one as well as it does on the jerseys.

[Morgan33]

Not going to get into the Knock-off debate, but here is a guy selling Vintage Series Replica's with Fight Straps lazily attached trying to pass them off as Authentics

http://shop.ebay.ca/jetson08/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=25

Notice how the pictures are strategically shot so you never see the inside collar tags, or the double stitched elbows? I've been looking for an Authentic NorthStars jersey from 1991 forever and when I called him on this he admitted they were indeed Vintage Replica's with fight straps attached. If I hadn't noticed the CCM logo was Green (instead of Black as it should be) I would have bid on it expecting to recieve an Authentic. Thats pretty reprehensible if you ask me.

[OnWis97]

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

1. Whether you agree or disagree, that's a valid point. Would just love to see the league's profit margin on their merchandise. Is an authorized retailer selling these at a loss?

The point is valid how?

• That the league overcharges and makes a big margin? Agree.
  
• That it does not seem wise to charge this much for fabrics and could be better served allowing more fans to own their uniform (therby advertising the product? Agreed
  
• That, right or wrong, this is likely to lead to unlicensed merchandise? Agreed.
  
• That it makes unlicensed merchandise OK? Here is where the slope gets awfully slippery.
  

[ElwoodCuse]

Yeah, that's not a valid point all. The correct response to "something I want costs more than I want to pay" is "don't buy it", not "break the law in order to acquire it anyway".

[BlueSky]

Yeah, that's not a valid point all. The correct response to "something I want costs more than I want to pay" is "don't buy it", not "break the law in order to acquire it anyway".

What law is being broken? Everybody keeps going on about that, but you can openly buy knockoff handbags and watches on the streets of New York City. So what law, statute, or regulation are you citing? It's got to be in writing somewhere, doesn't it? Who's responsible for enforcing it, and why aren't they?

[gosioux76]

Yeah, that's not a valid point all. The correct response to "something I want costs more than I want to pay" is "don't buy it", not "break the law in order to acquire it anyway".

That might be the correct response in some utopian world in which nobody makes mistakes. But here in the real world, all the consumer sees are choices. They have the option of a $300 authentic or a far cheaper eBay alternative.

Nwtrailtrakker's example notwithstanding, whether one option is produced legally doesn't come into the equation for most people.

That the low-price option exists at all is the issue. And the reason it exists is because these leagues have created products that most of their customers want but can't afford. The league created the demand but refuse to supply it a reasonable price for most consumers, so the market provided an alternative.

You want the illegal sellers out of the equation? The answer seems pretty simple. Lower prices.

[Jt0323]

Yeah, that's not a valid point all. The correct response to "something I want costs more than I want to pay" is "don't buy it", not "break the law in order to acquire it anyway".

What law is being broken? Everybody keeps going on about that, but you can openly buy knockoff handbags and watches on the streets of New York City. So what law, statute, or regulation are you citing? It's got to be in writing somewhere, doesn't it? Who's responsible for enforcing it, and why aren't they?

exactly. I can legally buy a knock of jersey from china without breaking any laws. If i sell it, well thats a different story

[chakfu]

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?

Because "stealing" cable is not literally "stealing" anything, it's illegally accessing a television signal without permission. But it's not like your neighbor turns on his tv and all his programs are gone because someone stole them.

[oldschoolvikings]

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?

Because "stealing" cable is not literally "stealing" anything, it's illegally accessing a television signal without permission. But it's not like your neighbor turns on his tv and all his programs are gone because someone stole them.

Hmm, that's funny, because I always thought the definition of "stealing" is "taking something that doesn't belong to you and not paying for it".

In other word, illegally accessing a television signal without permission.

[chakfu]

Hmm, that's funny, because I always thought the definition of "stealing" is "taking something that doesn't belong to you and not paying for it".

In other word, illegally accessing a television signal without permission.

But is accessing a television signal actually "taking" something?

It's semantics and it's still illegal anyway, but I think "stealing" cable is "stealing" in more of a metaphorical sense than a literal one. And is more akin to trespassing than real theft.

[chakfu]

Hmm, that's funny, because I always thought the definition of "stealing" is "taking something that doesn't belong to you and not paying for it".

In other word, illegally accessing a television signal without permission.

Out of curiously, tried to find what kind of laws "stealing" cable breaks:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/nynj/support/cabletheft/cabletheftfederalstatutes.html

There's not a word in the federal statute about theft or larceny or stealing. It talks about unauthorized reception or interception of cable service. Perhaps because it's not "stealing" something in a literal sense. With the potential damage to the system and other users and such, maybe it's closer to vandalism if it involves splicing into the cable company's hardware.

The only reference to "cable theft" is what the cable company put on the heading of the page - probably because they want to you to think "stealing" cable is every bit as bad as stealing an old lady's purse.

Illegal downloading and copyright violation and cable theft are certainly illegal, but it's common sense that they're less damaging than physical theft of an object (on a similar scale.)

Steal a CD from the store, and they lose both an item from their inventory that they paid for, as well as a potential sale - they're losing the 10 dollars they paid the distributor plus the 5 dollar profit they might have made.

Download that CD, and they lose the potential sale, but nothing from their inventory - they only lose the potential profit (mitigated by the fact that someone else can now buy that CD before it's sold out!)

What if you download the CD but never listen to it? If you buy a used copy of the CD, or just decide to go without the CD, it's basically the same outcome as if you downloaded it.

Still illegal, but a much more of an ethical gray area than actual "stealing" of a tangible item. I think the "stealing" term is a little bit of hyperbole thrown around by those with a vested interest on cracking down on these crimes, perhaps in cracking down a little harder than is warranted.

Heck, that Time Warner site even talks it being "passive theft" if you move into an apartment, notice that the cable was never turned off, and fail to report it. In what other industry would you be penalized for keeping something small and consumable that was mistakenly given to you for free (besides banking!). Heck, if you have no intention of subscribing to cable in the first place, you'd be costing them money to send someone out to turn off the cable!

[OMMF]

Heck, if you have no intention of subscribing to cable in the first place, you'd be costing them money to send someone out to turn off the cable!

You're not going to stop trying to find ways to justify this, are you?

[BlueSky]

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?

Because "stealing" cable is not literally "stealing" anything, it's illegally accessing a television signal without permission. But it's not like your neighbor turns on his tv and all his programs are gone because someone stole them.

Of course it is. You're stealing the money you would have had to pay the cable company to get the programming you've accessed. This example is one of the reasons this isn't cut and dried for me. But most people can afford cable, especially if they're willing to make choices and sacrifices like not spending money on other discretionary items (cigarettes and liquor come first to mind).

Will one of the smokers on the board do me a favor? Calculate what you personally spend on cigs in a year. I'm guessing even you might be shocked. I'd do it but I have no idea what a carton costs other than that it's damn expensive. Here's my best guess: we'll go conservative at .5 packs a day = 182.5/yr, divided by 10 packs/carton = 18.25 cartons/yr X what, $25 a carton? That's $456 a year or $38 a month. What's basic cable cost?

When people say they "can't afford" things (even essentials like a mortgage, health insurance etc.), what they're really saying is "I can't afford this and the lifestyle I think I'm entitled to." They don't want to make choices.

And yes, I am aware I just argued for the other side of the knockoff jersey issue, the one I've been debating against.

[JayJaxon]

I collect authentic or game worn baseball jerseys so I have no choice but to pay the big bucks when I go after one. That is just because I know what I am going for. Most people do not care as long as they get an affordable product. What I am so amused by is those of you posting while up on your high horse talking about how morally wrong it is to knowingly buy a fake. Give me a break people. I'm willing to bet that at least some of you have done it yourself, or would do the same thing if given the same choices. It's just a case of being a douche for the sake of being a douche. These are some of the same people that are probably looking for movies on Pirate Bay as he is posting about how wrong it is to take money from the NHL because someone doesn't want to pay $250. As a collector, it is not in my best interest to get fakes. But they are always going to be out there. You can't stop people from buying them either. Yes it makes my search harder. But it makes my eye for authentics better too. The ones that knowingly buy fakes do not need to justify themselves. They wanted to represent their team and they didn't want to shell out half a months pay to do it. It is not the same as stealing a purse or an item from a store. It's just plain retarded to compare it to that anyway. It's not hurting you or your family in any way, so just leave them alone.

[hjwii]

And, really, who wants to get beer and ketchup and nacho cheese all over a $200 jersey?

(I so want to argue here, but I've tried before and made a total fool of myself. Hell, I can't even win arguments at home when I'm right...)

[Morgan33]

I collect authentic or game worn baseball jerseys so I have no choice but to pay the big bucks when I go after one. That is just because I know what I am going for. Most people do not care as long as they get an affordable product. What I am so amused by is those of you posting while up on your high horse talking about how morally wrong it is to knowingly buy a fake. Give me a break people. I'm willing to bet that at least some of you have done it yourself, or would do the same thing if given the same choices. It's just a case of being a douche for the sake of being a douche. These are some of the same people that are probably looking for movies on Pirate Bay as he is posting about how wrong it is to take money from the NHL because someone doesn't want to pay $250. As a collector, it is not in my best interest to get fakes. But they are always going to be out there. You can't stop people from buying them either. Yes it makes my search harder. But it makes my eye for authentics better too. The ones that knowingly buy fakes do not need to justify themselves. They wanted to represent their team and they didn't want to shell out half a months pay to do it. It is not the same as stealing a purse or an item from a store. It's just plain retarded to compare it to that anyway. It's not hurting you or your family in any way, so just leave them alone.

Well put, agree with everything you said

[Howie_16]

I collect authentic or game worn baseball jerseys so I have no choice but to pay the big bucks when I go after one. That is just because I know what I am going for. Most people do not care as long as they get an affordable product. What I am so amused by is those of you posting while up on your high horse talking about how morally wrong it is to knowingly buy a fake. Give me a break people. I'm willing to bet that at least some of you have done it yourself, or would do the same thing if given the same choices. It's just a case of being a douche for the sake of being a douche. These are some of the same people that are probably looking for movies on Pirate Bay as he is posting about how wrong it is to take money from the NHL because someone doesn't want to pay $250. As a collector, it is not in my best interest to get fakes. But they are always going to be out there. You can't stop people from buying them either. Yes it makes my search harder. But it makes my eye for authentics better too. The ones that knowingly buy fakes do not need to justify themselves. They wanted to represent their team and they didn't want to shell out half a months pay to do it. It is not the same as stealing a purse or an item from a store. It's just plain retarded to compare it to that anyway. It's not hurting you or your family in any way, so just leave them alone.

While I feel that I can spot a knockoff jersey easily in 2010, is it possible for the "Knock-offers" to put out better and better products to the point where very few people could tell in 2013? The biggest reason why many here in Calgary don't buy Flames knockoffs is because the red is too dark. What will happen if they get the red correct next year?

Yes, buying an unlicenced jersey is against the law, but so is smoking marijuana. [stirs the "pot" again]

[JayJaxon]

I collect authentic or game worn baseball jerseys so I have no choice but to pay the big bucks when I go after one. That is just because I know what I am going for. Most people do not care as long as they get an affordable product. What I am so amused by is those of you posting while up on your high horse talking about how morally wrong it is to knowingly buy a fake. Give me a break people. I'm willing to bet that at least some of you have done it yourself, or would do the same thing if given the same choices. It's just a case of being a douche for the sake of being a douche. These are some of the same people that are probably looking for movies on Pirate Bay as he is posting about how wrong it is to take money from the NHL because someone doesn't want to pay $250. As a collector, it is not in my best interest to get fakes. But they are always going to be out there. You can't stop people from buying them either. Yes it makes my search harder. But it makes my eye for authentics better too. The ones that knowingly buy fakes do not need to justify themselves. They wanted to represent their team and they didn't want to shell out half a months pay to do it. It is not the same as stealing a purse or an item from a store. It's just plain retarded to compare it to that anyway. It's not hurting you or your family in any way, so just leave them alone.

While I feel that I can spot a knockoff jersey easily in 2010, is it possible for the "Knock-offers" to put out better and better products to the point where very few people could tell in 2013? The biggest reason why many here in Calgary don't buy Flames knockoffs is because the red is too dark. What will happen if they get the red correct next year?

Yes, buying an unlicenced jersey is against the law, but so is smoking marijuana. [stirs the "pot" again]

I don't know a lot about NHL or other jerseys, but for baseball there are tons of things to look for in order to spot a fake. I spend a lot of time going over a potential purchase and asking questions. Sometimes I will request additional pictures of certain parts of the jersey to verify the authenticity. If the seller is not willing to do these things, then he can sell to someone else. But like I said before, I collect authentic jerseys. Most people do not care to take that much time for their purchase. Heck, I have spotted fakes at legitimate businesses before. A few collectors I know have spotted them too. The seller often has no idea they are fake. So of course most buyers are not going to know either.

[chakfu]

Of course it is. You're stealing the money you would have had to pay the cable company to get the programming you've accessed.

I don't buy it. You're depriving the cable company of a potential profit. Illegal, yes; unethical, yes; but only "stealing" in a fairly abstract sense. Which is why you could be prosecuted for illegal interception of a broadcast but not for larceny, theft, robbery, or shoplifting.

I'm not sure that it's literally possible to "steal" something that isn't physical property. And as far as these things can be compared, I think most would agree that these sorts of metaphorical robberies are CLOSER to being victimless crimes than actual theft of property.

I'm arguing semantics and to an extent the degree that different crimes are unethical; I'm not condoning anything.

[chakfu]

We can agree that murder is worse than shoplifting. I would think we can agree that shoplifting is worse than stealing cable or buying a bootleg.