Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Copying

[JTreter]

Im sorry Richard that youre unable to discuss the situation and have to resort to name calling. Have you ever read your own license? Why did you create a wiki in the first place? How have I hurt you or Magicpedia? Lastly how in the world did I violate the digital copyrights act? You should read the copyright notice on your site sometime. Do you feel bad for using free software (Mediawiki), or copying articles from Wikipedia? You shouldnt because thats why they are there. Magicpedia even has its own import and export functions for anyone to use. Thats not a mistake, its there for a reason, to help facilitate the coping of many articles. Well if you have the character to actually have a discussion, I would like to know how I have hurt you or anyone for that manner? I really want to know. Thanks.

[Richard Kaufman]

Jtreter, we engage in an exchange with Wikipedia with full credit to them and links back to the original. DO YOU DO THAT? No. So you are in violation of the act and I'll shortly be filing a takedown notice with you and your server.

You're just a miscreant who takes the work of others in its entirety and passes it off as your own. You're the lowest kind of scum.

I've been contributing to the knowledge of the magic world for only 30 years through my own work. You've just been copying the work of others for a few months, so you can kiss my ass.

[JTreter]

Im really surprised by your inability to have a discussion or even make an argument for that manner. Ive never taken credit for work that wasnt my own. There are two ways one can credit the source from a wiki; one way is to provide a link to the source, the other is to provide credit to the creator of the work. The import function automatically copies the creator for an article to comply with that requirement. Thats why Jpecore is the largest contributor on my site. Cant you see that youre being a hypocrite by saying that you can copy from Wikipedia by I cant copy from Magicpedia? By the way, the DMCA prevents the copying of copyrighted works, particularly to those who circumvent protection measures. Your content has a share-alike license, I have credited the creators, and you are actually required to allow others to copy the articles that you took from other wikis (hence share-alike). You never did answer me. Why did you create a wiki? My guess is that it was to support your magazine and thats why you feel threatened. Only a personal agenda would cause this kind of reaction. If you had the same goals as the Mediawiki foundation, you would be happy that information is freely being disseminated.

[John Signa]

Mr. Goat suggested several times that a solution might be to leave the Creative Commons license, and just have a usual copyright notice.

Is there any reason why this can not be done?

Reuse of content from Wikipedia requires that the content be shared under a license similar to that of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia content would need to be removed before any other license could be implemented.

[Roger M.]

I wonder about this statement from your "donation" page:

Since we aren't registered as a non-profit yet, checks will need to be made out to:
Illusions Illuminated or to Joseph Treter. Write "Donation" on the memo line and your money will go to the right place and help keep the site up.

This doesn't appear to support the "non-commercial" aspect of the Creative Commons license.
It appears that the checks go right into your bank account with no accountability other than your "good word".

Also, the Google ads generate revenue. Creative Commons appears to allow for a sponsor, but not a revenue generating source like Google Ads. That revenue once again appears to make the site a commercial source of funds for the owner (you), and not a true not-for-profit Creative Commons site at all.

As well, I support Richard 100% in the thinking that, regardless of how this all plays out legally, you're a straight up censored for taking this material pal mal as you did.
I see a fundamental difference between Creative Commons use of select information, and stealing an entire Wiki Site and re-branding it as your own.

[JTreter]

Thank you Roger M for explaining yourself and for your opinion. Wikimedia allows for owners to collect money, whether it be for profit or not. I dont have a large magazine and thousands of subscribers to help offset the cost of web hosting and maintaining the site. This is coming out of my own pocket and doesnt benefit me at all. I can see if I was getting more money than what it costs to run the site that it would rub someone the wrong way. Im very upfront and honest about not being a non-profit yet and explain exactly where the money will go. People can choose if they trust me or not, but the site will remain free for anyone to use. If removing ads or the donation link would make people feel better, I would do it. I would rather pay for the site 100% than to have people feel cheated. The truth is, no matter what I do, the majority of you will still feel the same way.

Lastly, both www.illusionwiki.com and www.secrets.illusionwiki.com were created (and branded) before I even knew Magicpedia existed. I can see that if you thought I saw Magicpedia, copied the entire site, and then just changed the branded images to call it my own and make a quick buck, that would be a censored thing to do. Well aside from not copying articles, let me know if there is anything I can do to help you guys not feel so cheated. I really do care. The authors are credited on the articles, I have links pointing to Magicpedia on some pages. Im totally open to ideas and your opinions. Thank you for bringing this aspect to light though. Despite your hate for me, I still care about what you think and appreciate a supported argument.

[Joe Pecore]

I really do care. The authors are credited on the articles, I have links pointing to Magicpedia on some pages.

I must disagree. Preserving a MagicPedia "username" of the last person that edited an article (in the "history" section) is not proper attribution.

[Richard Kaufman]

Dude, you're a peckerwit. We all think you're scum. Your arguments are those of an irresponsible child who arrogantly things he has every angle covered.

[JTreter]

Sorry you disagree, but that's how Mediawiki and Wikipedia works. It's built into the upload function and stated on Wikipedia. If crediting the author of a work isn't enough attribution, than what is? Also the articles are free to be edited, so you can add sources or references as you see fit. Rather than focusing on the past, if you don't like something, suggest a fix or action to correct what you don't like.

[Joe Pecore]

If crediting the author of a work isn't enough attribution, than what is?

You are not crediting the author or providing any attribution on the original page (and it's not anyone else's job to do so).

[Ian Kendall]

This is an age old discussion, updated for the modern era.

It's perfectly legal for me to enter a crowded lift and fart until the air goes green. Doesn't mean I should, though.

If you _really_ cannot see why people have issues with your site (and are not just being obtuse) then there is little hope. Missing out all the legalities, perhaps we should examine the strangely stilted words of Dr Ian Glen from Jurassic Park:

"You spent so long figuring out that you could, you forgot to think about whether you _should_".

As for a fix: rewrite all your articles so that you've not copied the text. If you still cannot see the point of this, I refer you back to Dr Glen.

Take care, Ian

[JTreter]

Thank you Ian. It won't happen overnight but I (and my other members) will rewrite all of the articles. That way the information is still available to the world and those on here will have no reason to feel violated.

[Bob Farmer]

I wonder if his illusions are as "original" as his wiki entries.

[Joe Pecore]

Thank you Ian. It won't happen overnight but I (and my other members) will rewrite all of the articles. That way the information is still available to the world and those on here will have no reason to feel violated.

Until you and your members do (http://illusionwiki.com/Special:ListUsers), I still content you are in copyright violation.

[Bob Farmer]

We all know who the key people in illusion design and knowledge are and I'm sure none of them will be contributing to Treter's ripoff. To borrow a phrase some Bob Sheets, some people need to be cut from the herd--Treter is one of them. He just doesn't get it and the magic world doesn't need him because he isn't contributing anything or creating anything--if he was, he'd understand the sensitivities and rights of those who do.

[Tom Stone]

Thank you Ian. It won't happen overnight but I (and my other members) will rewrite all of the articles. That way the information is still available to the world and those on here will have no reason to feel violated.

I've found a lot of my writing on your site, with no attribution to me. Some of it is my own original research, which makes it even more annoying that you've removed my name from my work.

To save you and "your members" some work, I can sign up and remove my work from your site myself.

Tom Stone

[Bob Farmer]

Treter

= Takes Research Excludes Thanks Engenders Resentment

= Tactless Rip-offs Exemplifying Talentless Egocentric Reputation

[Roger M.]

Mr. Treter, you're well on your way to joining Rob Stiff at MagicMakers as the most hated man in magic.

The magic "scene" is an incredibly tiny one, and considering a sizable portion of that scene will (or already do) know of your exploits, you may, in fact, be too late already.

You need to seriously re-examine your motivation in continueing to defend your theft, and decide quickly if it's all worth it.
Just to be clear, this "attention" won't stop, and it won't be long before all who might care will know you're nothing more than a thief.

[magicam]

Chris Aguilar wrote: Joe, I'm still unsure as to why you feel that fellow has some special ethical obligation beyond what the license requires to work with you.

Chris, if you remain unclear on why Joe feels the way he does, then you simply have a different sense of ethics, that's all. For you, is anything legal perforce ethical? If you lived in a state where adultery wasn't a crime and your best friend slept with your wife, would you happily accept his argument that he did nothing illegal and thus nothing wrong?

To J. Treter: You want a civil dialog? Fair enough. Can you please answer the following questions:

1. Your website states that Joe Pecore's account was disabled due to intimidating behaviour/harassment. What did he say which constituted intimidation and harassment? Please be specific.

2. After you finished importing from MagicPedia, how much had your wiki site grown? 50% 100% 200% Just looking for a rough number.

3. If your site grew appreciably from the work done at MagicPedia, would you have a problem with thanking and crediting MagicPedia on your home page?

Clay

[Chris Aguilar]

Clay,

Your ridiculous, condescending (and frankly pretty offensive) strawman argument does not in any way represent what I said or meant (i.e. Your unfounded and rather silly assumption that I somehow believe that everything legal is likewise ethical.)

For you, is anything legal perforce ethical? If you lived in a state where adultery wasn't a crime and your best friend slept with your wife, would you happily accept his argument that he did nothing illegal and thus nothing wrong?

I made it clear that I was done with this thread and had hoped people would respect that.

To put it bluntly (again) at this point I'm not interested in the ethics question at all. And I'm even less interested in your personal take on it.

If someone has any issue with me or anything I've said in this thread, I can be reached via chris@conjurenation.com

Let's see if I can leave this thread (again) without someone feeling the need to troll me back in.

[magicam]

Your ... argument does not in any way represent what I said or meant (i.e. Your unfounded and rather silly assumption that I somehow believe that everything legal is likewise ethical.)

Assumption? I asked you a simple question, which you have not answered.

No need for the high drama and obfuscation, Chris. If you don't want any public comments on your opinions, the solution is very simple: don't participate in a public forum. And if you no longer want to participate in a thread, then simply don't reply. The rapidity of your reply makes it obvious this thread isn't too repetitive / nasty for your taste after all; it's clear you're monitoring this thread very closely.

Speaking of repetitive, I see that you've posted more than a dozen times in this thread, saying mostly the same thing in each post. Speaking of nasty and condescending, some of your comments directed at Joe Pecore were definitely condescending and arguably somewhat nasty. Speaking of ridiculous, the notion that you're "done with this thread somehow magically immunizes you from continued commentary on your plethora of posts is indeed ridiculous. And if you aren't interested in my opinions on the matter, then don't read my posts.

While I agree 100% with (what I think was) your main point to Joe, i.e., tough luck, those are the rules of the wiki ballgame, I'm surprised that you can't understand his feelings on the matter, agree with them or not. And I greatly admire Joe for the courteous and gentlemanly way he dealt with you he's a better man than I am in that department. I would have told you to piss off for being, among other things, so unfeelingly dense about the matter.

And since I'm not Joe, I'll leave it at this: if you no longer want to participate in this public thread, then quit the hysterics and hyperbole and STFU. Because you see Chris, those are the rules of this ballgame.

By the way, Mr. Treter's wiki site is down at the moment (a 500 Internal Server Error)

[Chris Aguilar]

And since I'm not Joe, I'll leave it at this: if you no longer want to participate in this public thread, then quit the hysterics and hyperbole and STFU.

That's about what I'd expect from you Clay. Berate me for perceived incivility and then turn around and advise me to STFU.

If you can't see that I was commenting specifically on the case at hand (and not suggesting that everything legal is inherently ethical as you rather ignorantly/illogically infer) then I'm pretty sure there's nothing much I can say or do that would convince you otherwise. As I have no interest in you or your opinions, there's no real impetus for me to do so.

In addition to leaving this thread for good now (finally!) I'll be sure to reacquaint myself with this forum's "ignore user" feature with you in mind. It'll be much easier to stay away once I've got the forums helpfully hiding all your posts.

As you seem very much the sort of fellow who wants (needs?) to have that last word or score that internet debating point, be my guest. Bloviate away.

[magicam]

I'll oblige your expectations and (perhaps) have the last word.

You made our exchange antagonistic, not me all I did was subsequently mirror and amplify your 'tude. It's quite telling that you could really dish it out to Joe P., but seemingly can't cope and get very irritated when fed a taste of your own medicine. I believe that's called a double standard (some call it hypocrisy). Your recent posts remind me of Clint Eastwood's famous utterance: a man's got to know his limitations. When you begin to follow this precept, perhaps you'll be better off.

Happy trails to you, Chris.

P. S. Speaking of limitations, consider learning the meanings of big words like strawman and infer before using them.

[Joe Pecore]

magicam, thank you for your support and comments with MagicPedia.

But, I also thank Chris Aguilar again for his comments on this topic, which I never took personally or considered condescending.