Jump to content

The Big Ol' Counterfeit Jersey Thread


Recommended Posts

as someone with a history degree, LogoDude and LightsOut both have points that are valid, and very easy to argue without a solid answer. End of argument, please.

my point in bringing up the founding fathers argument, is that breaking the law can be seen as a noble thing if the law-breaker firmly believes that they are supporting a greater good. The founding fathers committed treason in order to create this country. Is refusing to pay the markup for Reebok and whatever sports league and so purchasing an illegal counterfeit jersey an act of justifiable defiance? I'm not saying that it is, but I am certain that some, perhaps many, will.

I brought that up because of the large amount of people citing illegalities as the primary reason not to buy one, and they had little resistance to that argument. Sometimes, laws are wrong, or at least shouldn't exist. For anyone who wants to take up that idea and run with it, be my guest.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

This is good argument and discussion. Let's keep it up

He wins the legal argument... now it's just a matter of morals and your conscience...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the 6th time, we (you and me specifically) aren't supposed to be arguing on the forums, as per moderators request. But, since you responded to something I posted (which wasn't directed at you at all)

And for the 6th time, that's not true, we were asked to stop the mosque argument. Please stop bringing out that old line everytime your views are debated.

...At the expense of behaving like tyrants towards the natives, on the natives' land.

The damage to the Indians was done long, long before the Constitution - from the early fighting in Jamestown to King Philip's War in New England. Therefore the Founders aren't at fault for English/Indian tension.

See: slavery.

Not in the east.

WTF is your obsession with the mental hospital these days? I didn't go to one. You're very misinformed anyway if you think a mental hospital lets those in need of their help out after two days.

"And for the 6th time, that's not true, we were asked to stop the mosque argument."

And for the 7th time, it is true. I'm not going to dig it up but at one point a moderator did state on a forum that we (you and me specifically) need to stop arguing over the threads.

"Not in the east."

Slavery was widespread in Massachusetts, among other eastern states.

"WTF is your obsession with the mental hospital these days? I didn't go to one. You're very misinformed anyway if you think a mental hospital lets those in need of their help out after two days."

straitjacket_new1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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?

I honestly disagree. I think while the observation is basically true, there needs to be distinctions made. This statement paints an unfairly cynical view of humanity, when a lot of people really do strive to do what is right. A person who is ethical and lawful in every respect except for occasionally exceeding the speed limit is not the same as one who is able to justify theft.

That said, this argument is perfectly reasonable when attacking any argument made from moral authority. Moral authority does not exist and can not be the basis for any argument, because this observation is true. Arguments must be made using logic and pragmatism. I try to live what I see to be an honorable life. I think we all define for ourselves what is honorable and moral and ethical. And I think we all do our best to stay within the lines we set up for ourselves. So for the most part, I see everyone as moral and ethical, even if they don't make the same decisions I would make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slavery was widespread in Massachusetts, among other eastern states.

Actually, in Massachusetts and New England as a whole, the rockier soil meant that farming was mainly for sustenance because growing your own food was tough enough without growing an endless amount of cash crops too. The lack of true commercial farming discouraged the start of plantations in New England and New Englanders turned to codfishing as a primary industry. Rhode Island was involved in the Triangle Trade for slaves but IIRC, they were sold or traded to southern plantations.

And in the Middle Colonies, the atmosphere of equality and democracy led to a widespread anti-slavery sentiment.

But yeah, how 'bout them uniforms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well theres no doubt that these look like low quality trash but one thing I like about the fake Edge jerseys is that the hemlines appear to be straight on the front. This is a significant improvement on the Minnesota Wild's new third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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?

I honestly disagree. I think while the observation is basically true, there needs to be distinctions made. This statement paints an unfairly cynical view of humanity, when a lot of people really do strive to do what is right. A person who is ethical and lawful in every respect except for occasionally exceeding the speed limit is not the same as one who is able to justify theft.

That said, this argument is perfectly reasonable when attacking any argument made from moral authority. Moral authority does not exist and can not be the basis for any argument, because this observation is true. Arguments must be made using logic and pragmatism. I try to live what I see to be an honorable life. I think we all define for ourselves what is honorable and moral and ethical. And I think we all do our best to stay within the lines we set up for ourselves. So for the most part, I see everyone as moral and ethical, even if they don't make the same decisions I would make.

I agree that people strive to do what's right, but I think everyone is guilty of something. George Bush thought what he was doing was right, and many thought he was wrong. Barack Obama tries to do what he thinks is right, and many think he is doing what's wrong. I try to do what I think is right, and many (I guess) think it's wrong. The definition for "right" is very vague.

With your comment about the speed limit thing, I disagree. Going over the speed limit is the cause of many accidents. So how is going over the speed limit not as wrong as theft? In many ways, I can see speeding as being even worse than theft - in that speeding is an actual danger to the safety of yourself and others.

Nice sig btw... NHL '94? I'm not even a much of a hockey fan and I loved NHL '95 and '96 for Genesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me of the time Favre signed with the Vikes, I saw so many fakes it was hilarious! I didn't even need to look for more than 5 seconds. Wrong fonts, super thin piping, huge Vikings logo on the back with a white outline. I like knowing the difference because it's funny to see people with no clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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?

I honestly disagree. I think while the observation is basically true, there needs to be distinctions made. This statement paints an unfairly cynical view of humanity, when a lot of people really do strive to do what is right. A person who is ethical and lawful in every respect except for occasionally exceeding the speed limit is not the same as one who is able to justify theft.

That said, this argument is perfectly reasonable when attacking any argument made from moral authority. Moral authority does not exist and can not be the basis for any argument, because this observation is true. Arguments must be made using logic and pragmatism. I try to live what I see to be an honorable life. I think we all define for ourselves what is honorable and moral and ethical. And I think we all do our best to stay within the lines we set up for ourselves. So for the most part, I see everyone as moral and ethical, even if they don't make the same decisions I would make.

I agree that people strive to do what's right, but I think everyone is guilty of something. George Bush thought what he was doing was right, and many thought he was wrong. Barack Obama tries to do what he thinks is right, and many think he is doing what's wrong. I try to do what I think is right, and many (I guess) think it's wrong. The definition for "right" is very vague.

With your comment about the speed limit thing, I disagree. Going over the speed limit is the cause of many accidents. So how is going over the speed limit not as wrong as theft? In many ways, I can see speeding as being even worse than theft - in that speeding is an actual danger to the safety of yourself and others.

Nice sig btw... NHL '94? I'm not even a much of a hockey fan and I loved NHL '95 and '96 for Genesis.

That's basically how I see things. People strive to do what's right, and don't always succeed. It's even hard to stay within what we personally decide is right sometimes.

I see speeding as unlawful but not unethical (except when it directly endangers other drivers). I see theft as both unlawful and unethical. Not that the law is without merit, as it is a safety issue. I would respond to the political thing, but this thread is already spawning too many tangents (except to say, it really irritates me that while both conservatives and liberals are necessary for honest and open debate, both sides have degenerated to the point that neither can believe that a sane and rational person would disagree with them and the world would be better off without the other side) Well, this was a really good discussion while it lasted. I think I'll go back to harmlessly lurking again.

The sig is from NHL 94. I made a bunch of them a while ago with "modernized" uniforms. I think you can still dig it up in the concepts section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright guys, I know you guys are all "picking apart the fakes" but being from Texas, I've been to Dallas Cowboys Pro Shops a few times. Everytime i go i love to look at the jerseys, but i ALWAYS notice that even the $ 200-300 "Authentics" cannot get the number font correct. the "9" is not the same "9" Tony Romo wears on the field and to think that they are charging this much and can't even get it right makes counterfits sound reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so here's my biggest thing when it comes to fake jerseys. Take a look at each of these examples.

Buster Posey Jersey

Joe Thornton Jersey

Josh Freeman Jersey

Emmit Smith Florida Jersey (Probably not historically accurate)

Sure, they're not perfect, but they're TWENTY FIVE BUCKS. Unless the pictures are completely deceptive, those are the nicest $25 dollar jerseys I've ever seen. If counterfeiters overseas can sell a jersey that is fully stitched with multiple layers of tackle twill on the logos and numbers for that cheap of a price and still make a profit, then why can't the real companies at least make their prices reasonable? There is no earthly reason why anyone should spend $300 dollars on a shirt that cost almost nothing to make.

And sure, that website is based overseas and charges a $20 flat rate for shipping. But even so, two jerseys plus shipping is STILL cheaper than it would be to buy one :censored:ty replica at the mall. I get the argument of intellectual property theft, but when there is such a stranglehold on that property that prices are gouged as bad as they are, and there is an alternative out there that is nearly as good for a fraction of the price, can you really blame people for taking the cheaper alternative? IMO, this is a problem that the major sports leagues caused themselves by monopolizing the industry. I just hope that the solution to these types of problems come when the leagues decide to offer the highest quality products at reasonable prices, rather than continuously spend money to shut these operations down. If they were to do that, then there would be no reason why anyone would have (want) to look for an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monopolizing the industry.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as someone with a history degree,

Hey I have one of those! Cool!

my point in bringing up the founding fathers argument, is that breaking the law can be seen as a noble thing if the law-breaker firmly believes that they are supporting a greater good. The founding fathers committed treason in order to create this country. Is refusing to pay the markup for Reebok and whatever sports league and so purchasing an illegal counterfeit jersey an act of justifiable defiance? I'm not saying that it is, but I am certain that some, perhaps many, will.

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.

I brought that up because of the large amount of people citing illegalities as the primary reason not to buy one, and they had little resistance to that argument. Sometimes, laws are wrong, or at least shouldn't exist. For anyone who wants to take up that idea and run with it, be my guest.

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.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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?


monopolizing the industry.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as someone with a history degree,

Hey I have one of those! Cool!

my point in bringing up the founding fathers argument, is that breaking the law can be seen as a noble thing if the law-breaker firmly believes that they are supporting a greater good. The founding fathers committed treason in order to create this country. Is refusing to pay the markup for Reebok and whatever sports league and so purchasing an illegal counterfeit jersey an act of justifiable defiance? I'm not saying that it is, but I am certain that some, perhaps many, will.

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.

I brought that up because of the large amount of people citing illegalities as the primary reason not to buy one, and they had little resistance to that argument. Sometimes, laws are wrong, or at least shouldn't exist. For anyone who wants to take up that idea and run with it, be my guest.

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.

Also, for the sake of argument, to anybody (and I'm not citing anybody, I haven't even reread the thread to see if anybody acted this way) who sees themselves as a moral role model, following the letter of the law and refusing to break it, have you ever gone over a speed limit? run a yellow light and had it turn red in the intersection? Got a ticket? They're all laws on the books, and not very obscure ones. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

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?


monopolizing the industry.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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