First, don't mention specific products or individuals here. This topic is not the place to make accusations, it is merely to discuss the hypothetical cases I describe below.

I realize that some of the questions might seem to have obvious answers. Elsewhere, to my great surprise, I read some opinions that were the opposite of my own views, which is what prompted to write this topic.

If you know of any other specific cases that I describe below or topics discussing such cases, I do not want them mentioned here, just the purely theoretical cases that I list below.

Each hypothetical case involve an advertisement for a magic document that states that only 25 (or any other fixed number) of copies of the document will be sold and then no more will ever be sold after the limit is reached.

For the first two cases, assume the creator, seller, and advertiser, are all the same person.

25 people subsequently purchase the document. Each buyer realizes that even limited exclusivity is valuable for show business, and perhaps even more important for performance magic.

Here are the 4 cases to discuss:

1. The seller sells additional copies of the document and then maintains he or she is justified in selling more documents beyond the original advertised limit because of the behavior of pirates who violate the copyright by distributing the document on file sharing sites. Assume that it has only been a short time since the original 25 sales, perhaps a year, and all of the original buyers are still alive. Is the seller behaving ethically or unethically in this case?
   
   
2. The seller justifies selling more of the items because they claim enough time has passed, even though the original advertisement mentioned no time limit, it merely stated no more items would be sold after the specified limit was reached. Assume the original buyers are all still alive and the time period is on the order of a few years. Is the seller behaving ethically or unethically in this case?
   
   
3. After a few years, the seller sells the document to a third-party who then resells the item. Is the third party ethically bound to the limit set by the original seller?
   
   
4. The creator and all the buyers are long dead and it has been so long the copyright has expired. Is it then ethical to copy and resell the document?
   

If a creator/seller sold more copies of something advertised as a limited edition for any reason, would you ever trust their word again?

In each question above, I am not referring at all to what is legal, and not even ethics as mentioned by magic societies, merely your own personal ethics.

However, I wonder if there is a legal issue too, particularly in the first two cases. I am not a lawyer, but I would think that in those cases the seller would be considered to have committed false advertising, and the buyer could successfully sue the seller in small claims court, or a higher court if the document was very expensive. Would anyone who is a lawyer please confirm or deny if those cases would constitute false advertising?

Personally, I consider the first two cases, A and B, to be unethical behavior. Case C the original seller is being unethical, but I'm not sure about the third-party who purchases the item for resale. I have no issue with Case D because I can't see how anyone is hurt, although I wonder if perhaps the original seller's request for a limit should still be honored long after they are no longer alive.

Finally, If someone posts a view that you completely disagree with, feel free to respond why, but don't discuss [i]any attributes of the person you disagree with at all, merely information about the cases[/i]. I don't want this topic to become about the people discussing the issues, just about the issues.

Bill-

I assume you are too good a person to intentionally try to give me a stroke...

Yes- I bought a very limited edition, quite expensive to my budget, because of the very specific number of items that would be produced, and the reputations of both the magician and the supplier.

Not all that long after, the same thing was offered by the same company, at half the price I paid. Yes, it was about 2% smaller, which would only be noticed if you had the two together. Yes, I complained and got my money back, less postage, my time and use of money.

I will NEVER fall for such a scam again. These were respected names, I thought I was helping an aging magician.

Was I hurt? yes? I lost respect for a famous magician, for a company I will not deal with again, and had to tell my grandson, for whom I bought the item, that It had to be returned and why.

Bottom line, nothing motivates like personal greed! Protect yourself at all times!!

Off to take a valium...

Jim

I'm not a lawyer, however, I do have a Bachelor of Legal Studies, and have spent a number of classes studying issues similar to this. One of the elements of false advertising is, that the advertiser (the seller in this case) must knowingly print the statement as false. If the magician released a product saying it was limited, fully intending to release it again a few years later, then false advertising would be an issue. Of course something like that is easier to prove in other industries, with magic you're typically dealing with one or two people, as far as the chain goes anyway.

Edit:

I had a more lengthy response to this, but I had a couple of names mentioned, merely as examples (non accusatory) and will post the rest after I edit appropriately.

"Limited edition of 25" should mean what it's always meant........25 in total sold to the public.....forever.

Most folks have a bit of tolerance for "artist copies" in addition to the 25 (or whatever the number is), allowing for an artist lettered run of "A" to "E" (or similar) for family, friends, and the artists own collection.

The rest (over 25) is plain scam-artist material. Third parties who claim to have no knowledge of the "limited run" discussion, but who aid in all sales over 25 are equally as guilty of being a rip-off artist.

It's not gray, it's black and white.

If you promise an edition of 25, and then go on to sell 500, you're a crook, and so is everybody helping you out along the way.

Obfuscation and smoke screen seem to be the typical response on this issue from the guilty parties.......and I'd urge everybody to see right through it and call them on it publicly.

If the rights are sold, "limited edition" no longer applies, legally or ethically. However, with that said, why would the creator sell the rights knowing it would be produced again?

I think that's where the issue lies.

I think the word "intent" may need to be examined as well.

Whatever the legal issues may be, if you released a limited edition of 25, and then sold the rights to somebody who was then not obligated to abide by the limited edition edict, then let's examine the intent of both parties.

Obviously the intent of the creator/seller is as crooked as a dogs hind leg, as he knows he's destroying whatever value his original 25 buyers may have thought they had in the limited edition. (I don't just mean dollar "value", but also exclusivity).
The seller intends only to make as much money off his creation as is possible. He has no other "intent" but to rip off his first 25 customers (if it in fact was limited to 25), and to maximize his own profit.

The intent of the rights-buyer is also that of a common rip-off artist. They're simply using the concept that they aren't required to abide by the original limited edition to sell however many more copies they're able to sell.......again, profit at the expense of integrity and honesty.

In a small market industry like magic, everybody knows what's been marketed as a "limited edition" and what hasn't, so it follows that everybody also knows full well they're ripping customers off.........as I said, they're all little more than common crooks.