OK, good Lord, so its a fake replica... :deadhorse:

Everything is a "knock off" of something else pretty much.

Ermmm... Not so much; nobody who is entirely correct would ever be so churlish.
You're welcome?

I agree, and I'm a self-professed poseur! :thumb:
I don't mind wearing a nice Canondale jersey while riding my CAAD10, but to wear an actual team jersey (or even something close to it)?...eh, not for me.
I like to look good, but not fake. :D

For what it's worth, when an advertisement is posted on some platform, what the owner of the platform that it was placed on does with the platform afterwards is, first and foremost, a contractual matter.

It's still something the owner is controlling. If the owner disagrees with the details of contract, they won't enter into it.

That's why your logo jersey isn't advertising.

Still "all irrelevant" (it appears).

:thumb:
Now you're on to something!
A real property owner agrees to display an advertiser's (sponsor's) graphics on a billboard for a certain amount of time. If, subsequently the billboard owner allows it to fall apart or become vandalized, or if they keep it up longer than agreed to and have someone re-paint it over and over again and the advertiser has a problem with it, that's really a contract issue - a question of whether the IP is being used as agreed. Similarly, in the case of the team kit, the sponsors agreed to have Biemme produce garments with their graphics on them. Now, if Biemme subsequently licensed the design of the kit or assigned its production to another maker, that would be a contractual matter. As it happens, Biemme explicitly denied that they permitted the (re)production of the kit, so presumably they held up their end of their bargain with the sponsors. That's what matters, and that's proof the HK kit is pirated.

We can be sure that A&S, Mokambo and the others agreed to the manner of placement of their logos on the design of the kit, but whether there were any stipulations regarding material and construction specs, extent of distribution or the assignability of production, etc., and what they may have been, we don't know. However, the fact that the kit was ever for sale by Biemme to anyone besides the team itself indicates a certain lack of exclusivity and opens up the possibility that cheaper versions were not illegitimate.

Ergo, it must not exist?

You said it was "ALL irrelevant". Yet you are still going on about it.

I basically repeated what I said earlier. "Agreement" is the result of a choice made by the company that owns the copyright/trademark.

I suppose it's nice that you are finally catching up.

Whether or not it was "exclusive" is not relevant.

Correct. It's a legal fiction where innovators invoke the violence of the state to protect themselves from competition because it's easier than coming up with more creative ways of protecting their thought capital.

So, if you spent years writing a novel, you'd be fine if I just copied and sold it without paying you anything?

"Theft is just a legal fiction where owners invoke ... because it's easier than sufficiently-protecting possessions."

In other words, if I can manage to steal it, I can own it.

IP protection is actually based in the Constitution of the United States.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion from what I said. Intellectual Property is a legal fiction. That's a fact not an opinion. I personally don't believe in using violence to solve problems. That's an opinion. Feel free to disagree. Most people do.

I don't see it in there, but that wouldn't change the fact that IP is a legal fiction.

:rolleyes: Oh dear.
...and I just love the way you throw around the word "violence". Talk about fiction.

You don't agree that laws are enforced with violence or threats of violence? I thought that was a generally accepted fact.

It's in there. It's called the Copyright Clause. Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 8. But that only proves it's a legal fiction.

As per usual... people are carelessly slipping in and out of what the law is vs. what the law should be.

Unsurprising.

If you don't support legal protection for intellectual property then you are willing to allow anyone else to take the content of your novel and sell it as their own. Legal fiction and the threat of violence is what lets people profit from their work when their work is easy to copy. Take the fiction and violence away and the incentive to create easily copied things (like books, movies, software, processes, etc.) is greatly diminished.

I disagree. There are plenty of more creative ways to monetize thought capital, and there are lots of examples of IP laws stifling innovation. Just look at patent trolls; whole companies set up to do nothing other than use our IP laws to extract value from true innovators. The pharmaceutical industry is another great example of the failure of IP laws. There are lots more. IP laws don't do as much to protect innovators as people are led to believe.

I hope you ordered the jersey from this store: https://spexcel.aliexpress.com/store...topselling_tab

All the other stores have very bad jerseys. Nice designs but still very bad fitting jerseys.

Think about it for a minute. If the agreement was to produce kit of a specific design for the exclusive use of the team, if even original Biemme kit was made and sold to anyone else, not only would it be relevant, it would be decisive. On the other hand, if there was no such stipulation and Biemme made "extras," in some indeterminate quantity and quality, we wouldn't know if anyone's rights were violated unless we knew the terms of the agreement.

For all we know, Biemme have the right to sell whatever quantity or quality they want, including assigning the manufacture to the cheapest, sloppiest factory on the planet. And it could be that the only reason they don't is because it has their own name on it.

All this is as irrelevant as ever to my decision (whether or no to buy the stuff), but it's still relevant to this train-wreck of a discussion. ;)

Eh, sort of. People should make a case by case distinction.

I have zero qualms about intellectual property if the owner is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Their concerns should never be taken into account for anything.

Barring that...it comes down, IMO, to whether the person would ever actually consider buying the product at full price. Like back when Napster was big...if a person would realistically consider paying $20 for an artists CD, it might have been immoral for them to download it off of Napster. If there was a zero % chance they ever would have bought the CD, it is a victim-less crime.

Also...taking a look at the polling...the group of people who think this is no big deal is growing...over 30% now.

Interesting :)

And let's not forget that "easy to copy" is not the same as easy to come up with. It's not just a matter of profit, it's a matter if basic compensation, too.

Basic compensation is profit.

So you think there should be no protection for copyrighted works, like novels? How will writers monetize their work?

OPie will be happy about these replicas! : https://www.ebay.com/itm/Light-weigh...t/123085130937

There's replicas of Oltre XR4, Cervelo R3/S5, S-work sl5, Pinarello F10, etc, it's all out there.

"The Congress shall have the power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"


Encompasses patents as well as copyrights.


The right to control your IP is no more a "legal fiction" that the right to control your personal property. Seek immediate medical attention for inane rationalization lasting longer than four hours.

Not if you're talking business. Profit is what's left after you pay the bills, and compensation includes what it takes to pay the bills.

I'm still looking at this as an author. If I sell some books I get basic compensation, and it's profit. It isn't loss.

Another train wreck you caused:

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...freewheel.html

Calling a shirt or shorts "Progress of Science and Useful Arts" is an awfully loose use of the term.

I would say branded and marketed anything is not covered under the constitution if this is the best you can come up with.