Law enforcement warns of counterfeit goods ahead of Super Bowl

[Stevicus]

Law enforcement warns of counterfeit goods ahead of Super Bowl - UPI.com

Feb. 9 (UPI) -- With Super Bowl LVII days away, law enforcement announced the seizure of more than 180,000 items of counterfeit sports merchandise, while warning the public to shop with reputable dealers.

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center announced the results of Operation Team Player, an annual law enforcement initiative, during a press conference Wednesday with a selection of the seized football goods on display.

James Mancuso, IPR Center director, said the value of the counterfeit sports merchandise seized over the past year was worth nearly $23 million.

The amount and value seized is a significant drop from the more than 250,000 counterfeit items seized during last year's crack down, which was worth about $97.8 million.

However, Mancuso said that in connection to their investigations in the past 12 months, the initiative has netted 66 arrests, which he described as being "a significant increase" over previous years.

"Whether it's a fan spending their hard-earned money on a jersey, which they believe to be authentic, or a legitimate store losing business to a competitor selling cheap knockoffs, intellectual property theft is a real crime with real victims and devastating financial impacts," he said.

onnie Jarrett, senior counsel at the NFL, added that with the growth on e-commerce, criminals have gravitated online as well, and a football fan can potentially not only become a victim of buying illegal merchandise but also have their financial information stolen.

Over the last year, she said, the NFL has enforced actions against hundreds of thousands of counterfeit e-commerce listings, ads, sites and sellers.

"Counterfeiting crimes don't only prey on the fans, they also hurt the Arizona businesses, legitimate retailers and the licensees who support the local economy and play by the rules," she said.

"Protecting NFL fans continues to be a top priority during this week's Super Bowl events just has it's been year round."

"Our message to NFL fans is simple: Watch out for criminals who are looking to scam consumers and illegally profit off the popularity of the NFL, your favorite team and the Super Bowl," Jarrett said.

Operation Team Player was initiated in June 2013.

The Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles are set to square off on Sunday in Super Bowl LVII at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz.

I admit that I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. I don't question that the makers and sellers of these cheap knockoffs are breaking the law, though I would still question why there seems to be a need for such zealous enforcement. "Operation Team Player"? I also question whether this is really about "protecting the fans." It seems more likely motivated by protecting the exorbitant profits of the NFL.

The article notes that they seized $23 million in fake merchandise over the past year, although the NFL made more than $17 billion, so $23 million seems like chump change compared to that. And how much did the taxpayers have to pay on enforcement, arrest, trial, and incarceration of the culprits? Seriously, is it really worth this degree of attention, intensity, and zeal? Does the average fan even care if they're wearing an officially licensed jersey as opposed to a cheap knockoff?

Besides, I thought law enforcement was short-staffed these days. Do they really have the resources and manpower to do this, especially when there's likely numerous illegal, unlicensed lemonade stands being run by kids that they need to stop at all costs?

 

[Revoltingest]

Law enforcement warns of counterfeit goods ahead of Super Bowl - UPI.com

I admit that I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. I don't question that the makers and sellers of these cheap knockoffs are breaking the law, though I would still question why there seems to be a need for such zealous enforcement. "Operation Team Player"? I also question whether this is really about "protecting the fans." It seems more likely motivated by protecting the exorbitant profits of the NFL.

The article notes that they seized $23 million in fake merchandise over the past year, although the NFL made more than $17 billion, so $23 million seems like chump change compared to that. And how much did the taxpayers have to pay on enforcement, arrest, trial, and incarceration of the culprits? Seriously, is it really worth this degree of attention, intensity, and zeal? Does the average fan even care if they're wearing an officially licensed jersey as opposed to a cheap knockoff?

It's still a whole lotta theft from those who own
the rights to the logos. Would you do away with
intellectual property rights?

 

[Stevicus]

It's still a whole lotta theft from those who own
the rights to the logos. Would you do away with
intellectual property rights?

No, but I can't see making enforcement a top priority. If they happen to catch it in the course of performing their other duties, then sure, arrest them. But to set up a special operation and act like it's some kind of holy crusade to "protect the fans"? Give me a break.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's still a whole lotta theft from those who own
the rights to the logos. Would you do away with
intellectual property rights?

With child prostitution and trafficking being such a major issue with Super Bowl weekend I'd say they have their priorities out of whack if they're making counterfeit items a priority.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I can't see making enforcement a top priority. If they happen to catch it in the course of performing their other duties, then sure, arrest them. But to set up a special operation and act like it's some kind of holy crusade to "protect the fans"? Give me a break.

Why is it that people oppose something
by saying it shouldn't be a priority. Crafty.

 

[Revoltingest]

With child prostitution and trafficking being such a major issue with Super Bowl weekend I'd say they have their priorities out of whack if they're making counterfeit items a priority.

Well, as long as there are child prostitution & trafficking,
then nothing else should be addressed, eh. Only after
those things are eliminated, can government combat
other crimes, eg, drunk driving, consumer fraud,
monopolistic practices, securities fraud, bank robberies,
auto theft, crooked cops.
Sure, why should you care about stealing things you
don't care about from other people, eh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, as long as there are child prostitution & trafficking,
then nothing else should be addressed, eh. Only after
those things are eliminated, can government combat
other crimes, eg, drunk driving, consumer fraud,
monopolistic practices, securities fraud, bank robberies,
auto theft, crooked cops.
Sure, why should you care about stealing things you
don't care about from other people, eh.

I said it's priorities. If you prioritize IP enforcement as a top thing iver things like human trafficking then your priorities are severely skewed.
I'm not one these "one or the other" types who think multitasking is magically impossible. Its not doing one or the other. It's where priority lie and deciding if people or material junk is more important.

 

[Stevicus]

Why is it that people oppose something
by saying it shouldn't be a priority. Crafty.

How many laws are out there on the books currently? Are all of them worthy to be given equal priority in enforcement?

 

[Revoltingest]

I said it's priorities.

That's bogus rationalizing, ie, that the highest
priority you have means ignoring others.
Government multi-tasks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's bogus rationalizing, ie, that the highest
priority you have means ignoring others.
Government multi-tasks.

Where did I say ignore the other? I didn't.
As I said (and you requested I not hack up your posts but present the whole thing).

I'm not one these "one or the other" types who think multitasking is magically impossible. Its not doing one or the other. It's where priority lie and deciding if people or material junk is more important.

 

[Revoltingest]

How many laws are out there on the books currently? Are all of them worthy to be given equal priority in enforcement?

Tricky you are...making it about equal enforcement now.
Before, it was to ignore laws because of "priority".
Like the other poster, it's about not caring when
others suffer a loss you don't care about.
Say it's not a "priority".

 

[Revoltingest]

Where did I say ignore the other? I didn't.

Invoking plausible deniability now, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

I said it's priorities. If you prioritize IP enforcement as a top thing iver things like human trafficking then your priorities are severely skewed.
I'm not one these "one or the other" types who think multitasking is magically impossible. Its not doing one or the other. It's where priority lie and deciding if people or material junk is more important.

It's not clear what you're arguing now.
But what is clear that you oppose
enforcement of trademark rights.

 

[Stevicus]

Tricky you are...making it about equal enforcement now.
Before, it was to ignore laws because of "priority".
Like the other poster, it's about not caring when
others suffer a loss you don't care about.
Say it's not a "priority".

When did I say "ignore laws"?

 

[Revoltingest]

When did I say "ignore laws"?

You artfully avoided saying it.
But I'm good at inferring intent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Invoking plausible deniability now, eh.

No, I know what I said and didn't say.

It's not clear what you're arguing now.
But what is clear that you oppose
enforcement of trademark rights.

No, what I'm doing is calling bull**** on the cops making copyright enforcement a top priority while there is great human suffering.
And, yes, I do agree with enforcing those laws to keep counterfeits off the street. It's a deceptive practice that leaves people with junk. It should be enforced like other consumer protection laws. But not at a higher priority than human trafficking and sex slavery.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I know what I said and didn't say.

No, what I'm doing is calling bull**** on the cops making copyright enforcement a top priority while there is great human suffering.
And, yes, I do agree with enforcing those laws to keep counterfeits off the street. It's a deceptive practice that leaves people with junk. It should be enforced like other consumer protection laws. But not at a higher priority than human trafficking and sex slavery.

You guys have reminded me of my fundie friend.
I once asked him his stance on legalizing gay marriage.
He said he dint oppose it, but there were higher priority
matters to address.
It's a way to oppose something, without expressly
opposing it. Plausible deniability? Nah.
To quote one of RF's greatest posters....
Bull ****

 

[Stevicus]

You guys have reminded me of my fundie friend.
I once asked him his stance on legalizing gay marriage.
He said he dint oppose it, but there were higher priority
matters to address.
It's a way to oppose something, without expressly
opposing it. Plausible deniability? Nah.
To quote one of RF's greatest posters....
Bull ****

Well, you're reading it that way, and of course, you're free to believe whatever you want to believe. Even if you're wrong.

Your analogy about gay marriage doesn't really apply, since there's a difference between discussing a proposal about the law, as opposed to how to enforce a law that's already on the books.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you're reading it that way, and of course, you're free to believe whatever you want to believe. Even if you're wrong.

Your analogy about gay marriage doesn't really apply, since there's a difference between discussing a proposal about the law, as opposed to how to enforce a law that's already on the books.

You're missing the point, ie, it's not about
which issue is low or high priority.

Y'all cloak opposition in a...
"It's too low a priority to do anything about right now."
...type of argument.

 

[Stevicus]

You're missing the point, ie, it's not about
which issue is low or high priority.

Y'all cloak opposition in a...
"It's too low a priority to do anything about right now."
...type of argument.

Well, I would say that there's a middle ground between sending in SWAT to do house-to-house searches and "doing absolutely nothing at all."

I would see it as more of incidental charge, such as someone being pulled over for speeding and a cop noticing a car full of fake NFL merchandise. Then they've got somebody, and I never said they should enforce it when they see it. They just don't need to go that extent.

I also object to the rhetoric used about "protecting the fans," which is, of course, bull ****. I notice even you aren't defending that, as we seem to agree on that point.