Champions/European pin badges

[Voll Blau]

Just realised I've not really got any mementos of our title winning/European season. Scouted ebay but a lot of the stuff looks a bit moody. Anyone able to recommend me somewhere I can get decent champions/Champions League related LCFC pin badges? The fella on the corner doesn't quite seem to have the same selection since the club did him for copyright infringement a few years' back.

[Fox92]

I've added a few Champions badges to my collection ... nothing European (yet) though.

 

Got mine from eBay but they are officially licensed by the club (but they don't seem to be in the club shop)... Both are the blue 'Champions' scarf and the badge with 'Champions' beneath.. If you've scouted eBay you've probably seen them. 

 

I look at the guy on the corner before every home game, he has a couple of good ones. I got one the other day from him. But as you say his collection isn't as good as it once was... There is also a man that comes into Local Hero now prior to home games but there seems to be a lot of 'matchday badges' nowadays which don't interest me at all. I've added quite a bit to my collection over the past four or five months tbf.

 

But I still find away games are the best place to get them (especially places like Manchester United and Liverpool) ... the lack of badges around our ground in comparison to other clubs is appalling... that copyright thing the club have is shocking.

[ousefox]

That copyright thing that protects their brand?

[Guest Lako42]

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

 

 

 the lack of badges around our ground in comparison to other clubs is appalling... that copyright thing the club have is shocking.

Appalling..........

 

Any stick

[Fox92]

27 minutes ago, Watson said:

That copyright thing that protects their brand?

 

20 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

Appalling..........

 

Any stick

Seriously?

 

People selling badges for a couple of quid really won't effect them.

 

I'm proud of my badge collection and it's shocking I can't go to my home ground to get more... as I said away days are better to get them and other clubs are brilliant for it. These clubs aren't worried about their own "brand".

[ousefox]

12 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

 

Seriously?

 

People selling badges for a couple of quid really won't effect them.

 

I'm proud of my badge collection and it's shocking I can't go to my home ground to get more... as I said away days are better to get them and other clubs are brilliant for it. These clubs aren't worried about their own "brand".

One person doing it may not affect them, but if one person does, what is to stop others? I mean personally if I ran the business I wouldn't be arsed about a few people doing it but surely you can understand why they do. Now of all times they will want to protect their brand given its at its peak value.

[Harry - LCFC]

3 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Just realised I've not really got any mementos of our title winning/European season. Scouted ebay but a lot of the stuff looks a bit moody. Anyone able to recommend me somewhere I can get decent champions/Champions League related LCFC pin badges? The fella on the corner doesn't quite seem to have the same selection since the club did him for copyright infringement a few years' back.

I've actually got a spare if you want to buy it from me, mate. I originally got two for £4 (they only came in twos) from ebay so I'd be happy to sell you my spare for £2 if you want it.

 

Here's it is:

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Watson said:

One person doing it may not affect them, but if one person does, what is to stop others? I mean personally if I ran the business I wouldn't be arsed about a few people doing it but surely you can understand why they do. Now of all times they will want to protect their brand given its at its peak value.

I don't see what right they have to tell others they can make and sell. Seems like a clear infringement on their personal freedom to me.

[ousefox]

3 minutes ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I don't see what right they have to tell others they can make and sell. Seems like a clear infringement on their personal freedom to me.

Sorry, I don't want to be harsh but come on, just think about what you are saying. You must know why copyright laws exist.

[Harry - LCFC]

1 minute ago, Watson said:

Sorry, I don't want to be harsh but come on, just think about what you are saying. You must know why copyright laws exist.

Not at all.

 

How can you be harsh when you haven't given a response?

[ousefox]

2 minutes ago, Harry - LCFC said:

Not at all.

 

How can you be harsh when you haven't given a response?

Because I really can't fathom how someone can't see why copyright is necessary.

[Harry - LCFC]

11 minutes ago, Watson said:

Because I really can't fathom how someone can't see why copyright is necessary.

I'll make your argument for you then.

 

Without copyright protections the creators of intangible goods such as recipes, books and designs would not be able to earn an income on their produce. This is because any potentially profitable idea would be copied by other suppliers who would take much of the market from the individual or company who had the original idea. Therefore copyright is necessary in order to create an incentive for people to continue to innovate.

 

There are three ways I would respond to this argument:

• Copyright protections require enforcement measures that strike me as morally dubious. What right does anyone have to tell someone that they may not use their time and labour to produce and sell what they want to?
• Responding to your (probable) argument about economic incentives, I would say the owner of the brand would still be well placed to earn a decent income in most cases. People like buying from an official source. I think we can say with confidence that in this specific case, LCFC would probably still do alright even if other suppliers had were allowed to pop up to take advantage of their newfound fame.
• It restricts the growth of culture. Think of all the things that wouldn't get made if brand owners were able to stop others from using, changing or even referring to original content. As you will know, there was an explosion of street art, online artwork, books, videos and music after last season. Even things like pubs decorating their interior with LCFC stuff or the website we're talking on might have to change under really expansive copyright laws. I've no idea how many of the things I've mentioned required legal permission but I'm sure some of them didn't and we benefited because of that.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, Watson said:

That copyright thing that protects their brand?

'Brand' isn't a word that should be anywhere near football imo. 

[ousefox]

1 hour ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I'll make your argument for you then.

 

Without copyright protections the creators of intangible goods such as recipes, books and designs would not be able to earn an income on their produce. This is because any potentially profitable idea would be copied by other suppliers who would take much of the market from the individual or company who had the original idea. Therefore copyright is necessary in order to create an incentive for people to continue to innovate.

 

There are three ways I would respond to this argument:

• Copyright protections require enforcement measures that strike me as morally dubious. What right does anyone have to tell someone that they may not use their time and labour to produce and sell what they want to?
• Responding to your (probable) argument about economic incentives, I would say the owner of the brand would still be well placed to earn a decent income in most cases. People like buying from an official source. I think we can say with confidence that in this specific case, LCFC would probably still do alright even if other suppliers had were allowed to pop up to take advantage of their newfound fame.
• It restricts the growth of culture. Think of all the things that wouldn't get made if brand owners were able to stop others from using, changing or even referring to original content. As you will know, there was an explosion of street art, online artwork, books, videos and music after last season. Even things like pubs decorating their interior with LCFC stuff or the website we're talking on might have to change under really expansive copyright laws. I've no idea how many of the things I've mentioned required legal permission but I'm sure some of them didn't and we benefited because of that.

 

1 hour ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I'll make your argument for you then.

 

Without copyright protections the creators of intangible goods such as recipes, books and designs would not be able to earn an income on their produce. This is because any potentially profitable idea would be copied by other suppliers who would take much of the market from the individual or company who had the original idea. Therefore copyright is necessary in order to create an incentive for people to continue to innovate.

 

There are three ways I would respond to this argument:

• Copyright protections require enforcement measures that strike me as morally dubious. What right does anyone have to tell someone that they may not use their time and labour to produce and sell what they want to?
• Responding to your (probable) argument about economic incentives, I would say the owner of the brand would still be well placed to earn a decent income in most cases. People like buying from an official source. I think we can say with confidence that in this specific case, LCFC would probably still do alright even if other suppliers had were allowed to pop up to take advantage of their newfound fame.
• It restricts the growth of culture. Think of all the things that wouldn't get made if brand owners were able to stop others from using, changing or even referring to original content. As you will know, there was an explosion of street art, online artwork, books, videos and music after last season. Even things like pubs decorating their interior with LCFC stuff or the website we're talking on might have to change under really expansive copyright laws. I've no idea how many of the things I've mentioned required legal permission but I'm sure some of them didn't and we benefited because of that.

Apologies - I have a lot of work on so don't really have time to argue about the morality of branding in any depth! The main reason I commented in the first place was to state why Leicester have used copyright law as they have.

 

1. The fact they have bought the brand as part of the club - brand has huge value. We live in a capitalist (legal) system, whether you like it or not, and the owners have paid for something in the knowledge that others cannot profit from it

2. Well there's no doubt about that in many cases - however director's have a legal duty to act for the benefit of the company and not allow this to happen. There are also plenty of smaller businesses that would be ****ed if someone used their brand name and copied their product - I would even argue removing copyright laws would favour big business more than anyone at the expense of smaller companies (the driving force of our economy - you simply can't underestimate the economic incentive). As soon as a product looks a little bit successful, a big business can make it and sell it themselves with greater resources. Hardly fair?

3. I guess I can't argue with that.

 

There's some legal and moral reasons for you - also note there is no country in the world I can think of that doesn't have fairly strict copyright laws - even Cuba!

 

 

[ousefox]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

'Brand' isn't a word that should be anywhere near football imo. 

That's a fair enough opinion but that's the world we live in unfortunately. The chances of our owners coming anywhere near us if there wasn't a brand they could advertise on our shirts, or our logo they can use in Thailand, are very low. Of course, foreign owners and money in football is another argument I can't quite decide how I feel about myself. There are obvious downsides, but the money the taxman gets is astronomical. 

[mad biker]

4 hours ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I've actually got a spare if you want to buy it from me, mate. I originally got two for £4 (they only came in twos) from ebay so I'd be happy to sell you my spare for £2 if you want it.

 

Here's it is:

 

 

 

 

I don't see what right they have to tell others they can make and sell. Seems like a clear infringement on their personal freedom to me.

I`ll have the badge if he doesn`t want it, looks good.

[Harry - LCFC]

25 minutes ago, mad biker said:

I`ll have the badge if he doesn`t want it, looks good.

He said he wants it I'm afraid. There may be some available online if you're really interested.

 

The website I bought mine from wasn't ebay now I recall, it was this one: http://www.thepinbadgewarehouse.com/apps/webstore/

They've sold out of the one I bought but they do other decent stuff if you're keen on pin badges. Perhaps something to keep bookmarked for a later date.

[Bert]

3 hours ago, Harry - LCFC said:

I'll make your argument for you then.

 

Without copyright protections the creators of intangible goods such as recipes, books and designs would not be able to earn an income on their produce. This is because any potentially profitable idea would be copied by other suppliers who would take much of the market from the individual or company who had the original idea. Therefore copyright is necessary in order to create an incentive for people to continue to innovate.

 

There are three ways I would respond to this argument:

• Copyright protections require enforcement measures that strike me as morally dubious. What right does anyone have to tell someone that they may not use their time and labour to produce and sell what they want to?
• Responding to your (probable) argument about economic incentives, I would say the owner of the brand would still be well placed to earn a decent income in most cases. People like buying from an official source. I think we can say with confidence that in this specific case, LCFC would probably still do alright even if other suppliers had were allowed to pop up to take advantage of their newfound fame.
• It restricts the growth of culture. Think of all the things that wouldn't get made if brand owners were able to stop others from using, changing or even referring to original content. As you will know, there was an explosion of street art, online artwork, books, videos and music after last season. Even things like pubs decorating their interior with LCFC stuff or the website we're talking on might have to change under really expansive copyright laws. I've no idea how many of the things I've mentioned required legal permission but I'm sure some of them didn't and we benefited because of that.

How to bore someone to tears in seconds 

[Stadt]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

How to bore someone to tears in seconds 

So bored by it you had to quote it