Double standards?

[Scott Fridinger]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:


Puzzled by the routine example cited, about what is "new" or worthy of publication? Has the routine proved so useful to you and your students that it merits inclusion in our literature? Is there something in that routine that might lead others to change the way they construct routines? Are the presentation themes so strong that they merit publication as a script?

Johnathan, those are the questions I was asking, when does a routine become publishable. Are there critera that exist that should be followed?

[Edward]

After reading this thread I believe Euan has a valid point. There are double standards for known magicians and for the rest of us. So I have come to the point, after reading posts on ethics here and on other forums, of developing my own standard of ethics. If it conflicts with what others think then so be it!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Edward:
... So I have come to the point... of developing my own standard of ethics....

What do you see as a good standard in this matter?

[Guest]

To, Euan (whoever this might be, I don't really care), your post reads like you have an axe to grind with Ron Bauer. Already mentioned by others, why did you wait two years to show your moral/ethical stance?

My viewpoint is that Bauer did not rip off Kane's effect; he gave due credit in his booklet. He offered new handling and an exciting new presentation which gave the effect new life a good lead in and a valuable pay-off which ties it up for the audience. I have performed Ron's version many times and it kills I always get a tremendous round of applause at the conclusion.

You don't get it do you? The art of magic is about personality and presentation, and the role of the tricks are secondary. Bauer himself expresses that multiple magicians performing his version of the Gypsy Curse (verbatim) will perform it differently than one another.

If someone creates a better presentation for a standard effect and markets that, I will probably buy it.

In terms of music, a band can do a "cover" of a song (not much different than how the song sounded from the original band); or a "version" of a song, i.e., "Take the A-Train," has had countless of different versions/arrangements from the like of Count Basie to Duke Ellington. Each artist adds their own self within the classic, and makes it different for themselves and their audiences.' In my opinion, Dingle did a "cover" of Gypsy Curse and Bauer did a "version."

If you want to get on your high horse, then why don't you step up in arms about Johnson Products and other manufacturers' who ripped off Presley Guitar's "Cigarette thru Quarter." Or, how about this, create a web site that list the dealers/ manufacturers' who at present day rip off the products of inventors that would be a great resource that I would visit often. And I would only purchase from those reputable dealers.

I know you only said you were "just thinking out loud," but I bet you didn't know that Vernon said, 'most magicians stop thinking too soon.' So you might want to think a lot more before speaking your mind (or lack thereof).

[Guest]

I was wrong. I apologize. Steven Youell is NOT Euan. Euan is after all, SOMEBODY...


...who has to be stopped! Let's begin by demanding that he stop making money off of other peoples work.

I'll kick it off with a review of one of his "books", that he is selling for money,(if you call the pitifully small sales he's experienced to date "money"...). So, a free, (and thankfully brief), overview follows:

"Cardboard Capers"... I object to the title. The title, however is just part of the issue. I object to all of his books, I'm just using Cardboard Capers as an example. This title borrows too heavily from published work by magicians who, unlike him, have been in the trade for more than three or four years. E.G., Paper Capers, Baker's Capers, Coin Capers, Cabaret Capers, Cottontail Capers, Capers With Color and so on! And what about this Cardboard? What does cardboard have to do with the content of his book?(He probably meant pasteboard - on the other hand cardboard means "unconvincing, phony, flat, and two-dimensional", so maybe he DID mean cardboard - I do!)

A quick skimming of the table of contents of this particular "book" reveals that he is selling other people's material for monetary gain while demanding credit by association. A closer look will reveal that not even a beginning student of card magic would find the contents to be anything other than a collection of tiny tweeks, at best.

The bottom line is that selling other peoples material for profit is unethical.

And now, on to things that matter...

Best, PSC

[John M. Dale]

Me. E,

This website may be of interest to you (or anyone else looking for the original rather than the fake.)

John M. Dale

[Guest]

I don't see that the Ron Bauer book on the
Gypsy Curse is bad for Peter Kane. You can't do the Ron Bauer handling unless you already own the specially printed cards marketed by Kane, or you buy them from through Ron Bauer.

I also don't see that a ten-dollar book on presenting a trick is "exposing" the secret, when you can buy the trick itself for $7.50, secret and all.

Bill Malone's videos include intensely valuable presentation work on several standard marketed items.

So does Rene Lavand, in print and on video.

Senor Lavand's "Pygmalion" and "The Little Martian" are tricks that if you went into a magic store, you could buy them.

But you couldn't do with them what he does.

[Ryan Matney]

Originally posted by Scott Fridinger:
Isn't 90% of all NEW magic, just someone elses?
I have a routine which I use based off of Greg Wilson's ambitous card using a blank deck. I have expanded the use of the blank deck to include an Ace production (Acrobatic Aces/Ammar, Daley's Last Trick/Daley with Bannon's plot using Hammon's Gemini count, Jazz Aces/Kane&Ortiz (which is a very clean handling using double blanks), Ambitious/Greg Wilson, and finally Ultimate Fusion/Ortz. After all of this discussion, could I write this up giving full credit or would that be stealing?

It is kinda fun to read this argument every other month.

Stringing together a routine or act made up of a bunch of other people's tricks is not the same as coming up with a trick or plot.

So yeah, it would probably be a bit jammy to publish it.

I don't think most people that have responded to this thread have understood the original question.

[John Carey]

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

[Guest]

Originally posted by Ryan Matney:
I don't think most people that have responded to this thread have understood the original question.

That's been my thought, all along. The original question as "Why is it acceptable for one person to essentially rip off a marketed item when it's considered high treason when someone else does it?"

And it's seemed (to me) to be a reasonable question, in the circumstances (despite its split infinitive). Not, I hasten to add, that I necessarily think that anybody's ripped anybody off in this case. But the question still stands. And it seems (to me) to stand very often in the magic community.

Dave

[Temperance]

Originally posted by mr.e:
[QB] To, Euan (whoever this might be, I don't really care), your post reads like you have an axe to grind with Ron Bauer. Already mentioned by others, why did you wait two years to show your moral/ethical stance?

This has already been answered.

My viewpoint is that Bauer did not rip off Kane's effect; he gave due credit in his booklet.

Yes, it's ok to rip things off as long as you give credit. Paul Gordon has taught us this, if nothing else.

He offered new handling and an exciting new presentation which gave the effect new life a good lead in and a valuable pay-off which ties it up for the audience. I have performed Ron's version many times and it kills I always get a tremendous round of applause at the conclusion.

This is still up for debate. As I said before, several times 'do you think there is significant change to the handling and effect to require the issuing of credit? If so, what is it.'

You don't get it do you? The art of magic is about personality and presentation, and the role of the tricks are secondary.

I 'get it' just fine; the 'art' of magic is in the creation and performance of original material. Anything else is at best false art.

If someone creates a better presentation for a standard effect and markets that, I will probably buy it.

That's your choice.

In terms of music, a band can do a "cover" of a song (not much different than how the song sounded from the original band); or a "version" of a song, i.e., "Take the A-Train," has had countless of different versions/arrangements from the like of Count Basie to Duke Ellington. Each artist adds their own self within the classic, and makes it different for themselves and their audiences.' In my opinion, Dingle did a "cover" of Gypsy Curse and Bauer did a "version."

This analogy doesn't fit as if you want to do a cover of someone else's song, you have to pay them royalties. Not so in magic.

If you want to get on your high horse, then why don't you step up in arms about Johnson Products and other manufacturers' who ripped off Presley Guitar's "Cigarette thru Quarter." Or, how about this, create a web site that list the dealers/ manufacturers' who at present day rip off the products of inventors that would be a great resource that I would visit often. And I would only purchase from those reputable dealers.

That's already been done.

I know you only said you were "just thinking out loud," but I bet you didn't know that Vernon said, 'most magicians stop thinking too soon.'

You lose on that bet.

So you might want to think a lot more before speaking your mind (or lack thereof).

So I have 'no mind'? Excellent, I have reached satori.

Euan

[Temperance]

Originally posted by pchosse:
...(A load of Falicious Ad Hominem attacks)...
The bottom line is that selling other peoples material for profit is unethical.

FINALLY you get it! That IS the bottom line. So why are you arguing (by throwing falicious insults around) against it?

Euan

[Guest]

I have wondered whether we'd be having this discussion at all had the title been Ron Bauer's presentation for Sudden Death Gypsy Curse. Or the rather long-winded Ron Bauer's presentation for Peter Kane's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse.

Should've called it The Protocols of Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse. That would have sold like hot cakes.

Dave

[John Carey]

W :help: HERE CAN WE BUY SATORI?
DOES IT COME WITH A B****Y DVD

Richard, end this nonsense now please!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by john carey:
W :help: HERE CAN WE BUY SATORI?
DOES IT COME WITH A B****Y DVD

Richard, end this nonsense now please!

John, first you make a point of snoring in the midst of a discussion, then you interject some non-sequitors and a plea to authority for the conversation to be ended. There are other threads to read, and this one is wobbling between civil-productive discourse and personal agendas. How about helping us move the discussion in the civil-productive direction?

One can expect to find much that is not of personal interest and often some things that one finds offensive in an environment that supports free speech.

One is free to ignore what one finds impertinent. As an adult it is often useful to at least acknowledge the issues behind that which might spur others to express themselves, even if they do so in a way one finds offensive.

[Jeff Eline]

Does it matter that you still have to purchase the Peter Kane effect to do the Ron Bauer handling? That seems to be the difference for me.

Bill Malone teaches his handling of Mike Skinner's Ultimate Three Card Monte, but you still have to purchase the cards to do the effect.

Mike Close teaches his handling of the Dean Dill's box.

It seems many magicians include other's material in their books,DVDs, lecture notes - SO LONG AS you still have to pay the originator for their work.

[Temperance]

He also sells the gaffs on his site so you don't need to buy the original at all.

Euan

[Guest]

You do not still have to pay for the original. Maybe one guy purchased Bauer's booklet out of curiosity and then decided for whatever reason not to buy the trick from Kane - there's one lost sale.

Maybe another guy doesn`t want to use the cards provided so has his own made with regular cards - another lost sale.

My real gripe is with the double standards issue, not with Bauer - but it is incorrect to say that Bauers booklet does not have any effect on the sales of the original, it clearly does.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Euan, JN, whoever else...

I prefer to argue for an ethical position and a standard as opposed to against specific instances, for a preferable course of action as opposed to against historical incidents.

So far, you've stated your position as an AGAINST proposition, sort of "thou shalt not include the works of another in your offerings", if I read you correctly.

How about some suggestions for what to do and how to approach situations?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Euan:

Originally posted by pchosse:
...(A load of Falicious Ad Hominem attacks)...
The bottom line is that selling other peoples material for profit is unethical.

FINALLY you get it! That IS the bottom line. So why are you arguing (by throwing falicious insults around) against it?

Euan

Yes, Euan, I DO get it, but not FINALLY. The first time I read your rantings I got it. I recognized them as self-serving attempts to cause dissension and distrust. I could see that you are a person who degrades others in hopes of making yourself seem important by comparison. "Euan, fighter for fairness and defender of the dominated." The real BOTTOM LINE is that if you valued such things, you'd apply them to your own behavior.

First you carp about "some people" being immune to criticism while others are not, then you claim you condemn anyone who tries to profit from the fruits of those creative geniuses. Frankly, Euan, these characteristics describe YOU. Anyone can see this by looking at your "work."

As far as my resorting to what you described as "falacious insults", (invest in a dictionary), Euan, I used YOUR WORDS.

Best, PSC

[Temperance]

Originally posted by pchosse:
Yes, Euan, I DO get it, but not FINALLY. The first time I read your rantings I got it. I recognized them as self-serving attempts to cause dissension and distrust. I could see that you are a person who degrades others in hopes of making yourself seem important by comparison.

That is a totally moronic line of reasoning. If I wanted to make myself seem important, I'd hardly go about calling people thieves as it would set me up for attack, not praise.

"Euan, fighter for fairness and defender of the dominated." The real BOTTOM LINE is that if you valued such things, you'd apply them to your own behavior.

Which I do.

First you carp about "some people" being immune to criticism while others are not, then you claim you condemn anyone who tries to profit from the fruits of those creative geniuses. Frankly, Euan, these characteristics describe YOU. Anyone can see this by looking at your "work."

This is simply false. If you think I've republished anyone's work in error, omitted credits or miscredited, feel free to forward the sources and I will fix and apologise for any error or oversight, as I have done on a number of occasions.

As far as my resorting to what you described as "falacious insults", (invest in a dictionary), Euan, I used YOUR WORDS.

It was 'falicious' (invest in some glasses). However, it should have been fallacious, my mistake. However, you did not use my words, you twisted my words to suit your own agenda in order to discredit my opinion; not by forming a valid argument, but by name calling, false assumptions and outright lies.

Euan

[Temperance]

'do you think there is significant change to the handling and effect to require the issuing of credit? If so, what is it?'

If not, then why has it's publication been allowed in this case, when it would not be if published by an 'unknown'.

As the saying goes, 'it's a poor rule that doesn't work both ways.'

Euan

[Steve Bryant]

Euan writes:

If not, then why has it's publication been allowed in this case,

MANY on this forum should invest in a dictionary. The correct spelling of the possessive pronoun "its" is simply "its"; there is no apostrophe in it. Similarly, while I'm on a spelling tangent, the plural of most words in English is formed by adding an "s," not an apostrophe-s.

Now, back to the credit wars ...

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Steve Bryant:
Similarly, while I'm on a spelling tangent, the plural of most words in English is formed by adding an "s," not an apostrophe-s.

That bothers you too, eh? My cat has learned to stay out of here when I'm reading anything on the Internet any more. Apparently the shouts bother her.

And while we're on the subject, on page 55 of the December issue of that other magic magazine is an ad (one "d") suggesting you "View the Demo's..."

Why are we in this handbasket, and where are we going?

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/

[Richard Kaufman]

We are going nowhere.
Topic closed.