Copyright Extended to Performance

[David Alexander]

A couple of points....

It doesn't matter a whit what Andy Leviss or anyone else says the contract says in "everyday language." What matters is what the contract says.

Further, it doesn't matter what verbal interpretations or representations the lawyer who wrote it may put forward. If he needed to clarify the language verbally, then he should have clarified it in the contract itself so there were no ambiguities. Verbal representations means nothing. All that matters is what the contract says when you sign it.

The only way to protect yourself is to have your own lawyer read it over and answer questions. Period.

For Thomas Wayne....

I have no doubt that the device is well-made and that you will sell a number, but I also know people. So you think the first batch of fifty who bought the device (those insiders) will keep it a secret? How 'bout the second batch...or the third?

My observation, bolstered by Pete Biro's memory of what happened with the Harbin book can be expanded on. Within weeks of the book's publication a certain well-known guy in Southern California was selling photocopies to "friends" for $35. He did this with impunity...even though Al Mann caught hell some years later for producing a slightly larger copy. No one ever said a word to this guy and he died respected by his peers.

And if you think the price (investment) will keep people quiet, think again. A friend walked into a magic shop in his home town two years ago and found a local semi-pro had set up a new prop, something he'd just bought for over $5,000, a custom-made illusion that he wanted to show off to the local club guys. They dutifully ooed and ahed and learned the secret without paying a dime.

Magicians are people and sooner or later several will be talking, bragging, showing off. It's just a matter of time.

[opie]

I have the same little problem with this gimmick....a fish line and sinker in a tube...Wow! I doubt if I could reproduce that for less than $1800.....

Just read Ed Mishell's Hold-Out Miracles and chuckled the whole time about somebody dumb enough to spend so much money on something that inconvenient to use and then sign some sort of agreement not to pass it on except to somebody dumb enough to sign the same kind of agreement....Fat chance there will be very many second or third party signers of that contract....Duh!

This topic isn't even worthy of this forum.

opie

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
[...]
For Thomas Wayne....

I have no doubt that the device is well-made and that you will sell a number, but I also know people. So you think the first batch of fifty who bought the device (those insiders) will keep it a secret? How 'bout the second batch...or the third?
[...]

Not surprisingly, you miss my point entirely. Your suggestion in your intial post (and subsequent ones) is that you believe the "secret" of the Fitch/Kohler holdout will soon be freely circulating among magicians and that, presumably, they will no longer be interested in buying it. Nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by the many magicians who HAVE seen everything there is to see about the system and are still lined up to buy a set. THAT was my point.

As for someone building their own bootleg copies, they'll need some rather sophisticated machinery to duplicate the most important parts of the system, and if [somehow] they do, they'll need to keep me from finding out 'cause they're my inventions and I'll take any such piracy VERY personally.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
I have the same little problem with this gimmick....a fish line and sinker in a tube...Wow! I doubt if I could reproduce that for less than $1800.....

Just read Ed Mishell's Hold-Out Miracles and chuckled the whole time about somebody dumb enough to spend so much money on something that inconvenient to use and then sign some sort of agreement not to pass it on except to somebody dumb enough to sign the same kind of agreement....Fat chance there will be very many second or third party signers of that contract....Duh![...]

I KNOW you couldn't produce the sets I'm building for less than $1800.

And I also know what you mean about chuckling; I personally laugh right out loud about somebody dumb enough to think what we're producing is "a fish line and sinker in a tube". I mean, how stupid can some people be, right "opie"?

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

[opie]

Well, shut my mouth!!!!! You mean it is even simpler than a fish line and sinker in a tube? Wow, then, since I couldn't make it, could you give us a drawing of it? I sure would like to see the genius that went into something simpler than that which costs more than $1800 to make.....Your Mom must be proud!

Is your lawyer a cousin? In Arkansas and Texas, we all have a cousin who is a lawyer and a sheriff deputy....

opie

[David Alexander]

Thomas Wayne said:
Not surprisingly, you miss my point entirely. Your suggestion in your intial post (and subsequent ones) is that you believe the "secret" of the Fitch/Kohler holdout will soon be freely circulating among magicians and that, presumably, they will no longer be interested in buying it. Nothing could be further from the truth, as evidenced by the many magicians who HAVE seen everything there is to see about the system and are still lined up to buy a set. THAT was my point.

As for someone building their own bootleg copies, they'll need some rather sophisticated machinery to duplicate the most important parts of the system, and if [somehow] they do, they'll need to keep me from finding out 'cause they're my inventions and I'll take any such piracy VERY personally.
_____________________

Ah me... a little snot along with a response and an incorrect interpretation of what I said as well.

I did not suggest that people wouldn't be interested in buying your device once information was circulating. That is your presumption (or projection). What I've said, and rather clearly I thought, was that just because your buyers have signed an agreement doesn't mean they will adhere to it.

[opie]

Watch it David....He's got a cousin who is a lawyer....opie

[Steve V]

(as a side note, Opie's name is Opie)

This thread has taken a direction that surprises me. As for the Kohler etc. hold out I think some are implying it may not be worth the price or the lease agreement is a bit much. First thing is that Thomas Wayne is one of the worlds greatest craftsmen, this isn't hyperbole, this is a fact based on his position in the wood working and machining world. His character does not lead to the production of anything that is below excellent. He spent a lot of time on the hold out (and no I've never seen one and doubt I will) and created some of the components based on idea's. He came up with new ways of working the holdout. Someone said $2000 was expensive? Go try to find just a basic Thomas Wayne pool cue, in fact do a google search and see what you find. You'll pay more for the cue than for the holdout.

Another thing, do any of you think that Bob Kohler, Bob Fitch, and Thomas Wayne would try to rip anyone off or put out a product that they wouldn't stand behind with their reputations on the line? Come on. These three are the real deal, Kohler knows how to do magic for an audience, Fitch knows about presentation, Wayne a technical artist, and the others who assisted them as well.

I don't hear one peep of complaint from those that purchased the holdout. I think they appreciate the effort Kohler has put into protecting not only themselves but their customers. I think that Kohler and company are doing what they need to do.

You don't like the idea of the lease or the cost? Don't buy it then. I just wouldn't advise going after any of these gents in the manner I see it going.
Steve V

[Richard Kaufman]

I think the personal issues here should be kept to a minimum.
I take the word of anyone who cares to offer it that Thomas Wayne is a world-class craftsman and that the holdout system being offered is the best of its kind in the world.
The makers and manufacturers of this holdout system seem to be, in my opinion, poor judges of human nature. Further, it doesn't matter a whit what the document you sign has written in it, it only matters what is RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW. And, you can always get a lawyer to agree with your point of view. They look for work, like anyone else.
Frankly, and entirely from an outsider's view, the people who are making and marketing this holdout system are asking for trouble (and creating the very paradox that will cause trouble later) by making the expensive selling price and legal "contract" an issue. They are inviting people to violate the contract and, as David Alexander observes, someone is bound to do just that sooner or later. The thought that the makers will bring a successful lawsuit against this eventual violator seems, shall we say, remote.
The people who are manufacturing and marketing this item want to sell as many as possible: not five, and not ten or twenty. If they could sell 500 they'd be extremely happy. They are in business to make money, not to divulge their wonderful secret to a select few. (This is not a criticism--it is capitalism.) However, the very notion that they want to sell more than ten or twenty virutally guarantees that the "contract" will be violated and at that point they MUST bring a lawsuit or lose the ability to enforce ANY of the other contracts. I shall ponder the look on the face of an attorney, or a judge, when faced with a lawsuit over something that cost $1800. Not something, mind you, that the manufacturer supplied to a client who didn't pay--but to a client who DID pay. And not something that is a complete and dark secret in the magic world, but something most of us know and understand, albeit in a more primitive version, but in a basic form nevertheless.
The idea that the seller has infinite and indefinite approval over who the purchaser might sell or give it to, and that purchaser's potential re-purchaser, and that potential re-purchaser's potential re-purchaser ... well you can see the absurdity of it. I am not an attorney, but I think you'll find as many or more attorneys who think the idea is not legally defensible as those who do. Remember, it doesn't matter what the signed agreement says, it only matters if the law recognizes agreements of that type.
A much simpler and less troublesome solution would have been to simply make the holdout system $5000 and forget the lease/contract. That way you would be certain that anyone who paid that huge amount of money would keep his or her trap shut.

[opie]

Steve, nobody is going after anybody that I know of....Some of us have expressed our opinion about the cost and wondered about its construction....

The "going after" is being done by some "wayney" who may be protesting a bit too much, especially if he has a product worth all that money....

A friend of my dad's, a professional gambler, showed me one of those things when I was about seven. (I saw several others while working as a dealer at Town House Magic in St. Louis). He showed me how it worked and all that...I remember asking what would happen if he got caught with it, but do not remember his answer, but I recall it was not something nice.

I do remember thinking that, if I were going to be a professional gambler, I sure would not use one and would get good enough so that I did not need one.....

Personally, I have a phobia against gimmicks or anything other than sleight of hand for my magic....and I really have a dislike for anybody telling me I cannot express myself, regarding my opinion about anything. I spent 26 years in the military preserving that right....

.....I guess this little outburst of my opinion will probably cause him not to send me a copy of his plans, huh?

opie

[Guest]

QUOTE] Originally posted by David Alexander:

Ah me... a little snot along with a response and an incorrect interpretation of what I said as well.

I did not suggest that people wouldn't be interested in buying your device once information was circulating. That is your presumption (or projection). What I've said, and rather clearly I thought, was that just because your buyers have signed an agreement doesn't mean they will adhere to it.[/QUOTE]

Sure you did, David; you DID suggest it - at least to me - when you wrote:

"[...] The whole thing smacks of hype and clever marketing, all towards supporting the mystique of an over-priced toy for magicians. Doubtless there will be a few people who will spring for it, if only for bragging rights that they have something the other club guys don't have. (Gee, sorry, but I can't show it to you, I'm legally bound.")[...]"

Then you told a nice story that you felt illustrated the current issue ("I've seen this happen before."). That story told of how you learned the secret of an expensive trick and decided not to buy it because you now knew how it worked and you weren't impressed.

Then, getting back to the subject at hand, you belittled a complex system you've NEVER SEEN, comparing it to existing holdouts that share almost nothing in common with the Fitch/Kohler system – save gravity, of course.

Finally, you concluded by writing:
"[...] It will be interesting to see how quickly this is knocked off and available in a cheaper form."

My read of your post is that you felt once the "secret" was out, two things would happen: 1] those "in the know" would not buy it (per your personal example that you had seen "happen before"), and 2] that once others knew the "secret" of the Fitch/Kohler system they would steal the designs and ideas and build their own, perhaps even market them.

If I've truly arrived at an "incorrect interpretation" of what you wrote, I'd love to hear how you would EXPECT it to be interpreted. You call it overpriced and you give an example of how knowing the secret of an expensive trick led you to avoid purchasing it. Then you presume to describe it – though, in fact, you've never actually seen it in any manner whatsoever. Finally, you ponder how long it will be – once the "secret" is out – before others steal it and try to sell it for less money.

I think my interpretation of what you suggested is spot on. As for the "snot", I offer that for guys like you who will so readily criticize something that they have never seen, and know virtually nothing about.

Lastly, about the "infamous lease"... I personally have nothing to do with that aspect of the system. As far as I know, that was devised by an attorney who has a geat deal of knowledge and experience in the field of intellectual property rights; it's my understanding that it is modeled after highly enforceable software leases. I DO know that one of the primary purposes of the lease is to prevent falling victim to the kind of television exposure that we have seen in recent years. Toward THAT end, a television studio (with their deep pockets) might be just the kind of target an ambitious attorney would glady go after.

As for protecting the actual construction and design, I have my own methods for defending my property rights and they have proven quite effective over the years; I'm not personally worried about "knock-offs".

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

[opie]

Thomas, I am real sorry I called you a "wayney"...It was a too-quick reaction to your little snide "opie"....And I think it is terrible that what's his name brought snot into the forum...I think we should all just give each other a Billy Bob hug and have a brew....

Besides, I can really relate to you.....Some of my dad's friends were pool hustlers and other con artists and gamblers....A couple of them were shot in front of their homes and prison killed a couple of them....Not that you are like them or anything like that; I was just impressed that you make quality pool cues and all.....I guess you do spend a lot of time in a pool hall, eh?

Anyway, just wanted to apologize and let you know that I wasn't trying to get under your skin; I was just trying to understand what kind of innovation to the existing holdouts I know of could be worth a couple of grand....

I gotta go to bed now; my wife is calling me....

"opie"....(I kinda like that; I may write it in quotations the rest of my life....)

[David Alexander]

Well, you read incorrectly.

In my story, I dug through the dealer hype and learned what the device really was, as opposed to what I had been told it was. I learned it was impractical for its intended purpose. The "secret" of how it operated was far less material to my decision than the handling, use, and appearance which was not accurately described by the person (the inventor) who offered it to me. Had it been a practical prop, it would have been well worth the asking price. As it was, regardless of how it worked, it wasn't. It was nothing more than expensive dust catcher designed to be sold to the magic collector market.

I have been in magic a very long time and am familiar with dealer hype...something that every magician has experienced: buying one thing, only to receive something far different. My example was to illustrate: dealer hype and the certainty that getting information is relatively easy.

So, when something like what you are offering comes along, selling at a very high price, with highly unusual conditions attached, accompanied by a number of claims, you will forgive some of us for being more than a little cynical.

I wish you well in this endeavor. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out once the market is sold.

[Guest]

Oh boy.

Point by point.

I know Mr. Fitch (we were friendly and spent time together way back in the 70's and 80's) and know that he would never be involved in any kind of "rip-off".

I don't know Mr. Wayne and Mr. Kohler personally, but I've seen Mr. Wayne's work and read his posts here and elsewhere and have great respect for both his craftsmanship and attitude towards magic.

As for Mr. Kohler, my friend Tim Conover is working with him on a project, and that's good enough for me.

However, and it's a big however, I think to many involved in this thread, those are not the issues. Surely no one thinks this is some kind of scam.

But restricting the venues in which this tool may be used legitimately and secretly, and requiring the approval of the manufacturer to resell the system (which may or may not be given, at whim and without recourse) reminds me (and perhaps others) of Jeff Busby's handling of the Paul Fox Cups. It seems a bit too much, a little out of bounds. And may ultimately, as Mr. Kaufman has offered, be counterproductive to the creators' ends.

I have no doubt that the device is beautifully constructed, and that both it, and the methods devised for using it are probably worth every cent that's being asked for it. But those two clauses seem almost pugnaciously challenging, as well as practically constricting. I can easily picture someone with too much money taking it as a dare. I can also see people who might make great use of this tool passing it by for these reasons.

Finally, as to the reference to software leases, I live in that world, and can tell you that many of them (Microsoft is particularly bad in this regard) are not legally enforceable.

Perhaps the license should be reconsidered. But that's not for us to decide. However, I do hope that the principals involved are liistening to whatever reasonable objections they hear about this aspect of their project.

Best,

Geoff

[Guest]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
Well, you read incorrectly.[...]

I don't really think I have, though you EXPAND on your thoughts nicely.

[...] My example was to illustrate: dealer hype and the certainty that getting information is relatively easy.

So, when something like what you are offering comes along, selling at a very high price, with highly unusual conditions attached, accompanied by a number of claims, you will forgive some of us for being more than a little cynical.
[...]

And my response was to explain why this is different than your example, and how a high percentage of magicians who have received FAR more information and exposure than you gained in your historic "two phone calls" have STILL opted to buy the Fitch/Kohler system. None of those guys [who previewed the system] were being asked to fall for what you insultingly call "dealer's hype"; everyone of them got to see EVERYTHING that the system has to offer (except, of course the DVD instructions - which are still in production).

Notice I used the word "buy" in the above statement; no one involved in this project is imagining "repossessing" holdout hardware. Regardless of the ridiculous lengths to which the magic rumor-mill has gone in complaining about this "lease" idea, one of the primary goals is to PROTECT and ENHANCE the customer's investment, not detract from it. The sheer complexity and difficulty of manufacturing these holdouts is enormous, and the combined 40+ years of performing experience and the couple-dozen pet routines being offered are immeasurably valuable to the magician who wants to take his abilities to the next level. As I understand the lease concept, the idea is to protect those who invest this kind of money (and time) from exposure television and rip-off manufacturers. If nothing else, think of it as a noble experiment.

Finally, I'm surprised that someone who has been involved in magic as long as you say would think that there is nothing that can remain a secret. When I look back on the many posts I've read in this very forum wondering about "Scarne's Aces" or Chris Kenner's last "3Fly" vanish, your sureness about the inability of your peers to keep secrets is laughable. There are many things currently being done with this [and other] holdout systems that continually fool the pants off magicians just like you (and me). There are all kinds of magic secrets - in fact a veritable myriad of them - that you know nothing about. The Fitch/Kohler Holdout system may just turn out to be one of them.

Regards,
Thomas wayne

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
Thomas, I am real sorry I called you a "wayney"...It was a too-quick reaction to your little snide "opie" [...]

Actually, I hadn't meant it to be snide at all; I often put pseudonyms (which I assumed "opie" was) within quotation marks. I had no idea "opie" was your REAL name.

My condolences.

Regards,
Thomas Wayne

[opie]

Your condolences--heart-felt sympathies--are appreciated.....Thank you....

....it is indeed rare to meet a pool shark who has a sensitive nature; most are hard, insensitive sociopaths who would take a kid for a penny....I am happy to know that you are not after young kids' pennies....

Again, thank you for your warm words....

....Now that we are pals and everything, could you send me a copy of those plans? I really would like to see how the thing differs from the classic designs....

Thanks a million....you da man!......opie

[Alain Roy]

Opie wrote: could you send me a copy of those plans? I really would like to see how the thing differs from the classic designs

Opie, I know you're joking. But look at what Mr. Wayne posted on February 8th at 5:17pm, in this same thread:

Most of the components are new and have never been used in magic before; many are distinct inventions and ALL are being protected through the U.S. Patent process, as well as several other I.P. security methods available to those serious about protecting their intellectual property.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I have looked at patents before. My understanding is that patents generally swap legal protection for trade secrets. When a patent is granted, the patent is available for all to view. You may in fact get to see the plans, for free. Now whether you can understand them (some patents are rather cryptic) or legally use them is another question.

It used to be that IBM had a web page where you could look up patents for free. I just checked it out, and it is gone, replaced by a pay web site at delphion.com. Bummer, that was a great resource for people trying to understand some patents.

You can go to the US Patent Office's web page and look at patents: http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm

I did a couple of brief searches and didn't find anything relevant. I really wasn't persistent though, and it may be too new to be on the web page. I did find an interesting patent: 6,174,241. It was applied for by Mark Setteducati and Anne Benkovitz, for "Book-form magic set", and seems to cover their very cool book they did a while back. It has some very detailed explanations of how the book is put together and some interesting diagrams, though it doesn't read like a standard magic book.

-alain

[Ray Banks]

Seems like to me this all started out as a discussion on performance rights, real or implied.

Somehow we got channeled into the discussion on the Fitch-Kohler holdout and the many legal things related to it. And now there are more and more people aware of the new gizmo (that's Texas talk for things that work but can not be explained) :D

Better advertising can not be purchased.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Ray Banks:
Seems like to me this all started out as a discussion on performance rights, real or implied.

Somehow we got channeled into the discussion on the Fitch-Kohler holdout and the many legal things related to it. And now there are more and more people aware of the new gizmo (that's Texas talk for things that work but can not be explained) :D

Better advertising can not be purchased.

True Ray... but as Derren Brown proved a few years ago with the mythical "I Control You" manuscript, getting magician's to "talk" (good or bad) is great for business, recognition, etc.

As I have mentioned on other forums (and in that I'm guilty for being one of the hotter heads that admittedly MISUNDERSTOOD certain issues around the Hold Out thingy) READ WHAT IS SAID ON Bob's Web site about the deal. If I can glean an acceptable and more forgiving understanding of what is said with my 5 barely functioning brain-cells, then I'm certain most of the brainiacks in these parts will be able to see that it is not intrusive or as controlling and greed-oriented as some feared.

Sure, I have problems with the whole limited performance rights issue. At the same time, I've helped push through deals that hinged on such (our deal with S&R on Shadow Vision exclusivity in Vegas for example). The biggest reason I don't like this concept is because of how it can be abused, allowing "advantage" to certain individuals over others e.g. David C can do it on Tv but David B can't type of thing.

Now if a client has exclusivity throughout a given region on a new piece that deal should have a termination point or, as an alternate, some kind of financial arrangement should have been made so as to allow for life-long exclusivity. Right now I have systems in negotiation that involve such wordage. Let's face it, if an established entertainer is willing to invest his/her money into something "new" with a designer, they do deserve certain spiffs... we all want them adn when you buy something that cost as much as the average family sedan, you tend to expect a little something for that venture... right?

Bottom line is, these issues of exclusivity need to have cut off points unless an effect is 100% your own and merely contracted out, not to go onto the general market... then again, we find a kindof Catch 22, don't we? When the price is right, most of us will be inclined to sell out... it's amazing how it all runs in circles, ain't it?

[Guest]

Bob Kohler for President!

The pen/bill/cigarette thru quarter used to be one of my most requested effects. Nowadays, however, even when I borrow a quarter and use a switch that is virtually imperceptible, there's usally someone in the group who whispers something such as, "I saw a fake quarter with a flap just like that on tv."

The same thing with the floating bill. To this day I still get goose bumps recalling the emotions I experienced the first time I saw a dollar bill levitate right in front of my eyes! REAL MAGIC. Nowadays, however, everybody and his brother seems to own a UFO. Las Vegas magic shops are practically handing UFO's out to tourists the second they get off the plane for crying out loud. More and more people are finding out that magicians use "invisible strings." I'm dreading the day that the instructions for the crazy man's handcuffs or a double lift will be printed on the back of boxes of Cheerios.

Bob Kohler and his team are to be commended for attempting to set up some type of legal basis for protecting magical trade secrets. The "lease" experiment undoubtedly won't be the last word in the evolution of strategies to fight against the opportunists of the world. Although, instead of taking a pessimistic, closed-minded, and all around negative attitude about the issue, we, as magicians, should use Mr. Kohler's idea as a catalyst.

With all of the smart, resourceful, and unique individuals in the magic community, I'm positive that we could UNITE to help protect our wonderful art against the masked morons of the world. Thanks, Mr. Kohler, for getting the ball rolling! :p

[Pete McCabe]

Bill McCloskey wrote (to Tom Cutts):
For example you list a trick called Vortex by Peter McCabe. Would I need to contact Peter to attain performance rights before I could perform this trick?

Just for the record, anyone who read "The Vortex" in the issue of AM/PM (actually it appeared in two issues, counting the I.B.M. Convention Special Issue) has my unconditional permission to perform the trick in any venue of their choosing, using the exact presentation included in the article should they so desire.

This is not to say that I believe the same does or should apply to anyone else's tricks. I respect other magician's rights to put whatever restrictions they like on their effects, as I respect magicians rights to object to these restrictions and refuse to purchase these effects.

[Guest]

Originally posted by MJ Marrs:
Bob Kohler for President!

The pen/bill/cigarette thru quarter used to be one of my most requested effects. Nowadays, however, even when I borrow a quarter and use a switch that is virtually imperceptible, there's usally someone in the group who whispers something such as, "I saw a fake quarter with a flap just like that on tv."

The same thing with the floating bill. To this day I still get goose bumps recalling the emotions I experienced the first time I saw a dollar bill levitate right in front of my eyes! REAL MAGIC. Nowadays, however, everybody and his brother seems to own a UFO. Las Vegas magic shops are practically handing UFO's out to tourists the second they get off the plane for crying out loud. More and more people are finding out that magicians use "invisible strings." I'm dreading the day that the instructions for the crazy man's handcuffs or a double lift will be printed on the back of boxes of Cheerios.

Bob Kohler and his team are to be commended for attempting to set up some type of legal basis for protecting magical trade secrets. The "lease" experiment undoubtedly won't be the last word in the evolution of strategies to fight against the opportunists of the world. Although, instead of taking a pessimistic, closed-minded, and all around negative attitude about the issue, we, as magicians, should use Mr. Kohler's idea as a catalyst.

With all of the smart, resourceful, and unique individuals in the magic community, I'm positive that we could UNITE to help protect our wonderful art against the masked morons of the world. Thanks, Mr. Kohler, for getting the ball rolling! :p

MJ... if that's the case then prove to them how impossible it is for you to be using such cheesey items.

How?

(I don't know if Bill remembers seeing me do this... ) Years ago Johnson's Products was featured in the L.A. Times and there in full color was the Quarter fully exposed! My pet bit for my close-up and I had to do it for a private party that afternoon @ the Castle.

Long story short I did some brain-storming with a friend, came up with some very cool alternative handling and USED THE ARTICLE AS MY CLOSE UP PAD... the closer was asking "How in the heck I can do all that with something that ugly & clunky?"

You could of heard a pin drop in the room...

Rick Maue talks about how to "Turn the Tables" on people when they "think they know" how this or that is accomplished. As he reveals in "The Book of Haunted Magick" this can sometimes mean blending a second MO to the original. As I understand it however, his new book OSCAM will offer other routes of thought. The point is, if you do exactly what they think you're doing but you take that thought away from them by using said technology "differently" YOU WIN and they get ticked off because the press is playing them for being fools and not telling the truth as to how things are done.

Take a deep breath, do some more research, play with ideas, and create things that are magickle vs. doing neat tricks... you'll be surprised what the end results can be. ;)

[Brad Jeffers]

Any day now, I expect to see some enterprising individual repackaging the $50 Jack Miller hold-out with the following add copy ... "You've seen similar items advertised for $1800! Now you can get the Original Jack Miller Hold-out for a mere $99.99! That's right, a mere $99.99! With the Original Jack Miller Hold-out, there are no contracts or legal documents to sign. You have unrestricted, unlimited performing rights! Don't be fooled by the johnny-come-latelies. Except no substitition! Get the Original Jack Miller hold-out system. We are so confident in the quality of our product, that we offer the following guarantee ... Compare the Original Jack Miller Hold-out system with any other model. If you are not completely satisfied that the Original Jack Miller Hold-out isn't just as effective as the competitions brand, just return it for a full refund (minus shipping charges) - NO QUESTIONS ASKED." That last line is the cool part, as in order to compare it to the $1800 model, you have to buy the $1800 model! :D

[opie]

Alain, I was willing to drop this whole mess after I said my piece about not believing that the holdout was worth the money and responding to a slight about my name, but your post just has to be addressed.....

If somebody will point out one "never-before-used-in-magic" innovation about the holdout, I will ...well, hell, you tell me what you would like for me to do and we will negotiate.....

....other than that, I am finished with the whole topic....it is worth no more of my time.....opie

[Jim Riser]

Originally posted by Brad Jeffers:
Any day now, I expect to see some enterprising individual repackaging the $50 Jack Miller hold-out with the following add copy ... "You've seen similar items advertised for $1800! Now you can get the Original Jack Miller Hold-out for a mere $99.99! That's right, a mere $99.99! With the Original Jack Miller Hold-out, there are no contracts or legal documents to sign. You have unrestricted, unlimited performing rights! Don't be fooled by the johnny-come-latelies. Except no substitition! Get the Original Jack Miller hold-out system. We are so confident in the quality of our product, that we offer the following guarantee ... Compare the Original Jack Miller Hold-out system with any other model. If you are not completely satisfied that the Original Jack Miller Hold-out isn't just as effective as the competitions brand, just return it for a full refund (minus shipping charges) - NO QUESTIONS ASKED." That last line is the cool part, as in order to compare it to the $1800 model, you have to buy the $1800 model! :D

Brad;
May I use this ad copy for my next holdout?
Jim :eek:

[CHRIS]

Originally posted by MJ Marrs:
More and more people are finding out that magicians use "invisible strings." I'm dreading the day that the instructions for the crazy man's handcuffs or a double lift will be printed on the back of boxes of Cheerios

My experience is that laypeople are much smarter than you describe them to be. They know that one can show two cards as one (double lift) or they often suspect strings rightly or wrongly so. I am surprised that you think they are 'now finding out'. Anyone can come up with these explanations on their own.

I am not saying that exposure or overselling to the masses is good. I just think these two issues are not as much connected as you believe they are.

Chris Wasshuber
preserving magic one book at a time.

[CHRIS]

Originally posted by opie:
If somebody will point out one "never-before-used-in-magic" innovation about the holdout

Maybe their claim of 'space age plastics' was never used before in magic. Perhaps this makes the sinker slide better in the tube with less noise :-)

Chris Wasshuber
preserving magic one book at a time.

[Alain Roy]

Opie,

I have no idea what is new, nor do I wish to pass any judgement. My point was that if patents are applied for, you will be able to examine them online for free and decide for yourself. Maybe it will be a while before the patents show up. Have patience.

-alain

[Guest]

I would like to thank those in this discussion for the restraint shown...no one person has called anyone a "censored" or "white trash"...Even the use of profanity has been limited!! You guys keep this up and we'll let you post on the real board with the grown-ups...

"Rosie"

And by the way "Opie", I still love your name. Say hello to Aunt Bea for me. I want her oatmeal raisin cookie recipe..if she hasn't patented it...

[opie]

Chris: Absolutely....
Alain: Thanks...
Rosie: It is Aunt Bea's Pound Cake Cookies and you can find the recipe on google....:0P

[Guest]

Originally posted by Rosie:
I would like to thank those in this discussion for the restraint shown...no one person has called anyone a "censored" or "white trash"...Even the use of profanity has been limited!! You guys keep this up and we'll let you post on the real board with the grown-ups...

"Rosie"

I really hope you're not one of those sealth moderators from the Cafe... I'd heard about their campaign to find misplaced residences of Mayberry... :rolleyes:

Thanks the Gods I'll never @#%$ing Qualify for that kind of #$%% :D

[opie]

tsk, tsk....:0P

[David Alexander]

Keeping things "exclusive" is an excercise in futility if the object is protecting an effect.

Alternate methods of producing effects come along all the time. Clever people, with the goal of producing the same effect often come to the same solution while others find a different ways of accomplishing the same effect. All that is needed is time, attention, and occasionally, money.

What is important is what the audience sees, not the gimmick that causes it - a distinction so often missed by the enthusiast/amateur.

If the goal is producing a desired effect as opposed playing with (or selling) an expensive, well-machined and "exclusive" device, then it doesn't matter if the ball or billet or piece of rope or whatever is pulled up your sleeve by a wooden clothes pin attached to a lead fishing weight (something that served Jack Miller for decades) or a precisely machined adjustable weight made from space-age material on a string made of the braided hair of Tibetian virgins. The results, from the audience's viewpoint, are the same.

Anyone who watched Robert Harbin put his personal Zig Zag together at his Hollywood lecture all those years ago will understand exactly what I am saying.

[Pete McCabe]

David Alexander:

If the goal is producing a desired effect as opposed playing with (or selling) an expensive, well-machined and "exclusive" device, then it doesn't matter if the ball or billet or piece of rope or whatever is pulled up your sleeve by a wooden clothes pin attached to a lead fishing weight (something that served Jack Miller for decades) or a precisely machined adjustable weight made from space-age material on a string made of the braided hair of Tibetian virgins. The results, from the audience's viewpoint, are the same.

Anyone who watched Robert Harbin put his personal Zig Zag together at his Hollywood lecture all those years ago will understand exactly what I am saying.

David:

I didn't see Robert Harbin's Hollywood lecture all those years ago, so perhaps this is why I don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that it's not possible that one holdout might work better than another, and that this difference might translate into a superior effect on the audience?

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by David Alexander:
If the goal is producing a desired effect as opposed playing with (or selling) an expensive, well-machined and "exclusive" device, then it doesn't matter if the ball or billet or piece of rope or whatever is pulled up your sleeve by a wooden clothes pin attached to a lead fishing weight (something that served Jack Miller for decades) or a precisely machined adjustable weight made from space-age material on a string made of the braided hair of Tibetian virgins. The results, from the audience's viewpoint, are the same.

Saying that it doesn't matter which one you use is like saying that it doesn't matter if I write this on my old laptop with the monochrome screen or on my high end Windows XP workstation.

It doesn't matter to the people reading it (the "audience") but it makes all the difference in the world to the "performer".

That being said, if the new computer didn't offer signficant improvement over the older model I wouldn't have shelled out the $$$$.

[David Alexander]

Yes, something like that, but not with the idea that more expensive automatically translates to "better effect" or even necessarily "better working."

With regard to Harbin -

Harbin put his Zig Zag together in front of us. It wasn't constructed very well because, as he explained, he built it to work and when that was accomplished, he didn't rebuild or rework it. He simply made his idea work. I recall clearly how the door was held shut by the wrapping of a string around a nail...not even a brass latch. This was the same prop he had used on the Palladium television special and hundreds of dates around England. We gave him a standing ovation when he finished putting it together.

Still, while we, the magicians in the audience noticed these little details, a few days later when Harbin performed for a lay audience, the audience loved the effect (and him, of course) and responded accordingly. I doubt there would be one lay person in ten thousand who would notice the "difference" between what Harbin did with his home made prop and, say, the Zig Zag built by Owen Magic for Blackstone, Jr. which was of far superior workmanship. Blackstone did it well, but because his was "better" made does not automatically translate to "better effect."

Indeed, on that, Harry did it much like Harbin did, and got maximum effect. Too many others simply present it as a throw away. Even though their props are probably better built than the original, they don't get a fraction of the effect Harbin did.

Another illustration:
An old friend of mine did a club date act around LA for decades. His finale was the sub truck. His trunk was an old piece of crap...made from two sheets of plywood, unpainted, scuff, scratched, beat to hell. It looked like a packing crate on wheels. "Unprepossessing" would be a mild term. It looked like something he carried his props in, which it was.

He did the illusion quite effectively for many years, without the bag, or handcuffs, or a change of costume, or coming out of the trunk smoking a cigarette....nothing like that. He and his wife simply changed places with the trunk locked and roped, while they were covered by a tent held by audience members.

I once asked him why he didn't do any of the additional stuff done by several other people then working club dates around LA. He told me that all the audience would remember was that he and his wife changed places quickly. That this guy was an excellent entertainer and that audiences liked him a lot, goes without saying.

To drive the point home, I had a similar experience when I was working as Billy Eckstine's opening act...in fact, the show was me and then Billy. He told me one day that he'd "worked with guys who do that cigarette trick like I do."

Well, I did the Frakson act, a unique production of cigarettes, unlike anything anyone else ever did, including Cardini. I started to say something and realized Billy was right, from his point of view, I produced lighted cigarettes in the air just like those other guys. I kept my mouth shut but learned another lesson.

[David Alexander]

Originally posted by Bill Duncan:
[Saying that it doesn't matter which one you use is like saying that it doesn't matter if I write this on my old laptop with the monochrome screen or on my high end Windows XP workstation.

It doesn't matter to the people reading it (the "audience") but it makes all the difference in the world to the "performer".

That being said, if the new computer didn't offer signficant improvement over the older model I wouldn't have shelled out the $$$$.[/QB]

Maybe, and maybe not. If you want to use a computer metaphor, Bill Buckley was a dedicated user of a very early work processing program, Wordstar, I think it was. He refused to change over to "better" programs when they became available because he was comfortable and used to what he was using. It took him years to make the change.

I have a friend who uses the Nikola memorized deck. He's happy with it and sees no need to change over to a "newer" and "better" system because he knows what he has and it serves his purposes. He is a highly succesful performer and I respect his approach.

I know several noted writers who continue to write best selling books on manual typewriters...and one is reported to still write in longhand. One friend writes on a 15-year old Mac and is only changing over to a newer computer because his screen is dying.

Indeed, there is a business in my old home town that still keeps its inventory on an IBM punch card computer. They could easily afford a PC, but they prefer to stay with what they have. It's like watching a stegosaurus doing the books.

Some times people balance "improvements" which they may or may not need, against the learning curve and financial investment, and make their decisions accordingly. They know that "newer" and "more expensive" isn't always "best" for them.

[Guest]

David.. you bring out a very important point in your first of the above two posts and how folks percieve what we do. Rick Maue brings this out in his first book (Book of Haunted Magick) when he covers the bit of how people can remember everything about seeing a magician at this party or that convention but rarely remember the name of the magician or how he was any different from all the other guys doing card tricks...

It's as that legendary philosopher Pogo stated long ago as he peered into the mirror I have seen the enemy, and we is it!

[Guest]

Or, to put it another way, some guys can only do a Diagonal Palm Shift with their own, new deck. Other guys can do it with either their own, new deck, or with that old, sticky, crappy, warped deck in that dusty drawer that your aunt May has been playing Gin Rummy with for the last eight years.

Elegant tools are always a pleasure to use, but for some, they're a necessity, for others, merely a pleasure.

Best,

Geoff