The manufacturer can try to impose any restrictions he or she likes, that doesn't mean they are recognized by law or that the owner or buyer are legally bound by them.
KenAbbott wrote:You can lease cars. You can lease real estate. You can lease collegs books, furniture, tractors, artwork, and a ton of other goods. What is it about a holdout system that makes a contractual agreement less enforceable than any other goods?
Mike Carr wrote:Entering into a contract, even one memorialized by a writing and signed under seal, do not make these provisions enforceable under the U.C.C. and/or any laws of the several states.
Donal Chayce wrote:Mike Carr wrote:Entering into a contract, even one memorialized by a writing and signed under seal, do not make these provisions enforceable under the U.C.C. and/or any laws of the several states.
And by including unlawful or unenforceable clauses in a contract, you run the risk of having the entire contract--and not just the clause(s) in question--voided by the court.
That's why those of us who work in and around contract law always include a provision that states that if any clause is deemed unenforceable, that clause is effectively deleted from the agreement while the rest of the agreement remains in full force and effect.
NCMarsh wrote:That all sounds good. Forgive a curious non-lawyer and born contrarian:
Is there a determinate life for software agreements? Regular payments? Are there not burdensome limitations imposed by a software agreement (i.e. I can only use the software I've paid for on a limited (and low!) number of my own computers)? Doesn't this limit on my use of the product seem more onerous than having the guy I sell my holdout to sign a piece of paper?
RobertAllen wrote:Speaking of Life Savers, is the 'agreement' stated in the front of that book at all enforceable? It was a joke? I'm assuming it's not enforceable since among other things no contract was presented to and agreed to before purchase of the book, but it's always left a bad taste in my mouth when I read that in the book.
erdnasephile wrote:From reading the text, it's clear that Mr. Weber wasn't trying to restrict anything.
Ray Eden wrote:If the item is purchased and owned by the purchaser than how can television performances be prohibited.
Tom Stone wrote:erdnasephile wrote:From reading the text, it's clear that Mr. Weber wasn't trying to restrict anything.
I think you are mistaken. To me, it looks like all commercial rights to the material is reserved, but allows non-commercial use, like in impromptu and informal situations.
Which seems perfectly reasonable in my eyes.
erdnasephile wrote:Mr. Stone: I just reread the Weber text. You are correct in terms of Weber reserving the manufacturing, distribution, film, TV, etc. rights listed above the copyright notice. Thanks for pointing out my misstatement.
The part I meant to refer to was the "full permission" paragraph underneath the copyright notice, which really does appear to be using hyperbole in jest. For example, the text grants improvisational performance rights to you "...anywhere on the planet and in the universe, twenty-four hours a day...", etc.
You had mentioned that such things are enforceable in Europe--would such a restriction mean that the material could not be used in a formal, but not televised, show without Mr. Weber's permission?
I'm quite pleased that some magicians treat trade secrets with respect and attempt to use the legal system for assistance. I often wonder why this isn't met with more enthusiasm amongst other magicians; instead it seems there's too much energy devoted towards criticizing these attempts
Jonathan Townsend wrote:Some of us simply choose to respect the wishes of those who want their work kept private.
Dave Mithaca wrote: The lease is simply designed to open up the possibility to go after people who reveal the secrets on the various exposure programs.
Kent Gunn wrote:
I've always thought people who use the word hubris were exhibiting a bit of it themselves. Obviously I'm including myself in this group.