|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts 
|
Again if the seller is making false claims there ya go. At that point the 'agreement' should be void, or at least I would think morally so.
You just seem so interested in grinding out everything you possibly can and that is not a healthy attitude. People who make false claims get what they get. If they make a false claim and you rely on that claim there are measures you can take to remedy that legally. NOBODY should knowingly support lies to sell products. Unfortunately it is too often people don't have time, or money or resources to push back. That is the sad part.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts
|
It often doesn't come in the form of an "agreement," it comes in the form of a statement by the seller of rights reserved, with the threat (express or implied) of litigation should the buyer "violate" the purported reservation of rights. The buyer is then left with a take it or leave it option. That's not an agreement. That's an attempt to reserve rights that a seller does not have, through intimidation or force. One goes into a purchase with the assumption that sellers trying to restrict use are doing so according to law, unless there is a disclosure by the seller saying, in effect, "Hey, this isn't supported by law, but I want you to agree to be bound by it anyway," and that just never happens.
When a seller attempts to restrict rights, unless it is done in the UCC context of agreements between merchants, he can't do it unless the law allows. To then call a temporarily deceived buyer a "jerk" is unfair, IMHO. Indeed, to me the "jerk" is the one who takes money and then attempts to limit the buyer's actions through a false assertion of rights that the seller does not actually hold. The takeaway is this: if you don't want your method used indiscriminately, then don't sell it. On the other hand, if you put it into the stream of commerce with the intention of making money off of it, then you recognize that your assertions are subject to the limits of the law. An attempt to inhibit performance by implying that you have the right to prohibit such things, and if you do so under the implied threat of legal action, you're not only the jerk in this transaction, you could be liable for restraint of trade, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and other causes of action depending on jurisdiction. Sorry Danny, but sellers in the stream of commerce don't get to dictate terms except as provided by law. That's the way this works. We're trying to have a society here.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Nonsense. If I agree to terms that can't be enforced I will follow them because I made the agreement.
We are trying to have a society here. Maybe fewer lawyers might be a good start.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts
|
Danruns said, "An attempt to inhibit performance by implying that you have the right to prohibit such things, and if you do so under the implied threat of legal action, you're not only the jerk in this transaction, you could be liable for restraint of trade, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and other causes of action depending on jurisdiction."
The seller shows little integrity and acts unethically by deceiving buyers. Threatens litigation against those who breach the agreement when in fact they have no legal course to do so, taking advantage of consumers who are not aware of their rights. Those who support this kind of practice is just as unethical and their integrity should be in question, not the buyer who did the right thing by being informed of their rights.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
|
Micheal Leath Inner circle 1048 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: Though I agree on an ethical level, I also think that it is important the buyer is aware of what is legally enforceable. Sellers should not be making false claims about the legality of the agreement. Of course, what 1 lawyer says is legal, another will say is not. Most of the time it depends on who is paying them how much. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
I am not saying anyone should make claims about legality or anything. I am talking about personal behavior.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts
|
Less lawyers and more cons. Honor amongst thieves
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
|
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: You're lecturing us about personal behavior and ethics, and you went there? Classy. 
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Nice edit but I saw it. Was that your version of class?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: Yes, the edit was my version of class. I had half a dozen other examples to add, and rather than adding them I decided to delete the first one. So, yes. But I did find them interesting, including the ripoff alert and some other things. Nevertheless, because they went to the poster and not the content of the posts, I thought better of it and removed the first example. My conclusion was that escalating the ad hominems was a poor choice, so I decided to just leave yours and delete mine.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Oh but in a show of class you decide to leave just enough of one here in a very transparent attack.
Then you claim not to do it and call it class. I ask again is that your version of class? Oh no you're not escalating. You're just an innocent little lamb. Pretty sad.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2016, danaruns wrote: By the way miss high and mighty this is where it all goes south. Looking down on others just for a viewpoint. Indeed we are trying to have a society here.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2016, Dannydoyle wrote: I have no idea what you're on about. I stated my opinion, which is an informed one. You're taking it personally for some reason. I don't know you. I'm not attacking you. But you seem to be getting seriously bent out of shape. Just take a breath. There are real, hard and fast elements to what creates a binding agreement. Those who attempt to create such an "agreement" limiting another person's rights under threat of legal action when they do not actually have the right to dictate in that manner are, in my opinion, in the wrong, and the buyer has no legal or moral obligation to refrain from the allegedly restricted use. Indeed, if we're calling someone a bad guy here, it's my opinion that the bad guy is the seller who is claiming a right he does not have and who is unlawfully trying to interfere with the career of the buyer. Hey, but if you as a buyer want to so limit yourself, fine. Go for it. No one really cares, and no one is saying you shouldn't. It's a free country, knock yourself out. But don't preach that everyone else needs to limit themselves just like you, as that makes you no better than the deceptive seller. And if you're the seller in such a situation, it is my opinion that you are the offender, you are the one who is acting unethically, and you are the one doing wrong. The fact that you are taking this so personally is kind of odd.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
When you wrote we are trying to have a society that is an attack. You know it. I take that personally because you addressed me personally. When you post that other crap it is an attack. No question about it. Don't pretend differently. Not odd. An anonymous fave attacking on the Internet. Big shock.
Apparently comprehension was not taught in your alleged law courses. I am talking simply about behavior. Not Court room bs and legal wrangling. If I agree to terms no paper that Asus I don't have to will make me not stick to those terms. Forget legal threat, forget all the mumbo jumbo. If I agree then I enforce it myself. I know this is rough for you to get but some people just act that way. Now go ahead do your opposition research. Go pretend you are informed. If the only reason you do the right thing or keep your word is simply because a law tells you to that is all I need to know about you. If a seller makes bs claims about legality of limiting rights that is wrong.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts
|
1. Attack you? Get over yourself. You are mistaken as to the impetus for "we're trying to have a society here." To think it was an attack on you. What it means is that society is governed by rules. In America those rules are codified into law. They both reflect and define the parameters of cultural imperatives that we collectively deem vital. Fidelity to those -- going in both directions -- is a prerequisite to social order. Thus laws are not superfluous, they are the glue that holds our society together. I have more to say, but I've already exceeded what I think you will take from this, but I'm happy to discuss that if you truly want to (but I don't think you want to).
2. You're clearly trying to start a flame war here, and I choose not to participate. 3. You have not responded to a single point or fact in my post, therefore there is no reason to respond to you. So quit humping my leg. Substantive discussion on the topic is welcome, but this baloney is for children.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
I stand by my less lawyers position. Thanks for showing why. Thank God even with the ridiculous amount of them they are still not a majority.
Too bad you didn't choose not to participate prior to participating.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Blaine G New user 87 Posts
|
Can we please take a deep breath?
Danaruns is legally correct about the sellers rights Danny is correct that sometimes the law does not clarify true right or wrong behavior please ease up |
|||||||||
|
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts
|
So, what did we all learn? I think the legalities have been explained quite well. I think this post is very important for other magicians to understand so that other dealers and sellers cannot use deceptive practices to con buyers into a set of conditions or rules that contradicts and go against the legal rights of consumers. Creators, and dealers have legal ways to protect their goods if they should choose to use those means, and consumers have a right to protection from shaddy business people who prey on the vulnerable.
The example I gave is a clear indication of shaddy business practices. The dealer went on to make false claims in the ad about obtaining trade secret protection and PA certificate for the routine. This is a blatant lie. They created a non legal binding agreement and portrayed it as legally binding. It doesn't get more deceptive than that. That is what I call immoral, unethical, and in some places illegal. To this day, that ad is still on their website. In fact a few years back there was a discussion about this very ad I shared here, and questions about obtaining trade secret and PA protection were raised. It was made clear back then that the person who came up with the ad and performance agreement was not being truthful, and in fact was caught lying even more. Yet, this person is praised by some in the magic community.
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
|
EZrhythm Inner circle Only three EZ payments for a PDF of my 1855 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jun 3, 2016, mastermindreader wrote: ...AND BOTH the seller AND the buyer sign a valid contract. I say valid because their are elements to a contract that make it so. Merely posting the restriction on a web site or included in the product packaging is not a valid contract. Here is an interesting wiki. Only partially related to the thread but still FWIW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectu......_methods
How many magicians does it take to change a lightbulb? Regardless, for magicians darkness is a time for d'lite.
|
|||||||||
|
Danny Kazam Inner circle 1516 Posts
|
This is taken from straight off their website. It starts off with a blatant lie and continues to give false misleading information. The person who wrote this knows what they said isn't true. I won't mention their name, but I'm sure it's easy to find out. I mean, the guy claims the Blades is protected under copyright law using a specific copyright that protects performing arts. First redflag in the first paragraph. He didn't even know what it was called. Keep in mind a few years ago the person stated that they had a lawyer right up the agreement. Either the lawyer was a hack, or another lie.
More lies continue about the method being protected by California Trade Secret Agreement. We know it can't be protected if it's being sold to the public. The whole thing is deceitful and so is the person who originally wrote it for writing it and trying to pass it off as legit. Quote: On Jun 21, 2016, Danny Kazam wrote:
Keep your dreams alive. Understand to achieve anything requires faith and belief in yourself, vision, hard work, determination, and dedication. Remember all things are possible for those who believe.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sellers' attempts to limit rights (8 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 3, 2016 04:36 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|