That is simply false. Just because politicians choose to take money from Larry to give to Peter and Paul does not mean Peter and Paul have lost their rights. I agree that governments at every level should not be trying to increase individual's finances. If what your arguing was true, every time someone went on Welfare or government assistance they would have to curtail their natural rights. That isn't what happens. People on welfare can own property! Your rights on not based on government assistance. They are self evident, and exist no matter what the government does, even when the government is violating them it doesn't mean they don't exist, it means the state is in the wrong.that has received public tax paying funding for his private property football team to play in. If you're going to accept public money for your brand new, state of the art, football stadium, then you better not offend anybody in the American public... That means anybody, no matter how small the group is, or how unimportant that group is to "you" personally.
They've taken his right away from him so that people outside the Washington Redskin's can make money on their brand. It would be like people putting out pornography and selling it under the Playboy Bunny symbol and name without giving anything to Hugh Hefner, and claiming that the product being purchased is being produced by the Playboy Company even when it isn't. It would be like a group of people calling themselves the WWE and touring the world claiming that they are the same company owned by Vince McMahon even when they aren't. It's the same as someone writing a Harry Potter novel without getting permission from J.K. Rowling.DESTROY??? How is it being destroyed?
When you buy a product based on a named brand, what you are doing is financing something that you are endorsing by buying it, with the caveat that you are buying from the individuals that you think you are. In other words I can not build a McDonald's, use their golden arches, sell their hamburgers, and take credit for it because I don't own McDonald's! People would be coming to my fake McDonald's not because they want to endorse me, but because they think they are getting the same standard that can be found in other McDonald restaurants including prices, styles, and taste. In other words I am making money off of their brand and image, which is the same thing as stealing from them.
People expect a certain type of product when they pay for something. What they have done is said that outside forces can now make money off of the Redskin's name without the approval of the Washington Redskins. It's like writing books under and author's name without their permission. Or putting out songs claiming you are a certain band when you aren't! I maybe able to get a group together that sounds like Metallica, that doesn't mean I can use their name, brand, and songs without their permission, because I don't own that trademark, and ultimately they are not Metallica!
What they have done is stripped Snyder of his property rights, and that is wrong.
And so are other people who have nothing to do with Snyder or the Redskins! They are going to be making wealth off of something they have absolutely nothing to do with! They are stealing from Snyder, his company, and the people who work for him.Synder is going to make a ton of money, if and when the fan base has to buy new merchandise!!!
You are underestimating what is happening here. What is happening is the state is telling the world that Dan Snyder does not own the rights to the Washington Redskin's trademark and brand. Which means that any griffter, second rate store, or any company at all, can make and create products with the Washington Redskin's brand on it and sell them without giving anything to Snyder. That's wrong. That is an abuse of his rights plan and simple.You're blowing this way out of proportion. No way in hell is this stand off (by Snyder) "destroying" Synder's brand!
I don't have a problem with a person, group, or organization freely choosing to change their name. I have a problem with the state denying a person their rights because of political motivations which is what is happening.By the way, was there an uproar when St John's changed their nickname from the "Red-Men', to the "Red-Storm"? Not in the least!!!
Your simply wrong, and do not seem to understand what is going on. What is happening here is nothing less then the destruction of a person's property rights at the alter of a political cause, because of a vocal minority of Moral Orels, who is using the power of the state to get what they want.So please spare me with this drama filled diatribe about government dictatorship, and Sydner being a victim here.
No it isn't. It's a trademarked brand that Daniel Snyder owns. It is his property rights, and it's his choice how to use those rights. No moral outrage changes that. Every person has rights. Hugh Hefner has rights,J.K Rowling has rights,Marilyn Manson has rights, and yes Daniel Snyder has rights. And no matter what you or anyone think about their products and brands it does not change that fundamental fact.It's a friggin nickname. Just change it already so we can stop talking about this!!!