Wanted: To legally buy used Precursor PDF

[paulsunday]

Believe resale is legal if you destroy your copy after selling it.

Willing to pay $100.

[Richard Kaufman]

Isn't someone selling the Precursor as a download? Why don't you just buy it from them.

[lybrary]

When Bill Miesel was still alive I had a long conversation with him regarding Precursor, because I wanted to digitize it. He said that he will never give permission to have it digitized, because he considers the copyright of each contribution belonging to each individual author. That means unless somebody has permission of each and every author who has contributed to Precursor, any digital edition is unauthorized. Of course, copyright infringer #1 - Bill Kalush of CARC - offers Precursor digitally. A blatant disrespect to Bill Miesel and all the authors who contributed to his magazine.

[Bill Mullins]

Chris -- just curious.

Do you have agreements with all of the authors of articles in the magazines which you sell digital copies of?

[Richard Kaufman]

No, and he doesn't need them. Miesel's position was a misguided moral one.

[Syd]

Hey Bill,

Chris doesn't necessarily have to. And FYI - my limited experience with Chris is that he goes out of his way to do both the legal AND ethical thing with regard to all of his publications. It depends on who owns the Copyright. For example, Chris sells the digital version of Genii. Assuming Richard (and I believe he does) owns the Copyright - he has the legal right to permit Chris to sell digital copies. It wouldn't legally or ethically or practically make sense for Chris to seek permission from each author. Why? Because those authors presumably have signed over their copy-rights to Richard.

Just my two cents.

Syd

[Syd]

Richard,

I don't necessarily agree with you. You could choose to let authors for Genii retain all or some of their copyrights. If you did - then permission might be necessary.

Syd

[lybrary]

Chris -- just curious.
Do you have agreements with all of the authors of articles in the magazines which you sell digital copies of?

I do have all necessary agreements, licenses and rights that allow me to digitized the magazines I offer. Exactly what these are depends on jurisdiction and particulars of how the magazine was published.

Just as an example, in Club71 you see a note that all contributors sign over their copyrights to the magazine. That means as long as I have permission of the publisher/copyright-owner, which I do have, I can digitize the magazine. The authors have transferred their copyrights to the magazine. In the US a magazine can be digitized as a whole without permission of each and every author as long as the publisher agrees (see Genii for example). With Precursor Miesel never gave permission, whatever his reasons were. For CARC to digitize it and sell access to it is outrageous. Your membership at CARC means you support a copyright infringer. As I pointed out they massively infringe my rights, the ones from Abbott, the ones from Davenport, and likely many others. You have to square that with your own sense of what is right and wrong.

[Richard Kaufman]

Individual copyrights are a different issue.

[Russ]

Chris,
I don't know about all the legal stuff regarding this issue but I did know Bill Miesel well. I am a friend of his from here in Erie, Pa. True, he didn't want Precusor bound, digitized, etc. He was in his ways with this stuff. Stuff, I guess, some might call 'old school '. Regardless, when he died, his sister Janet contacted me about his collection. I tried to get her the best contact people for this sale. She was in a panic and rushed everything. I could not get her thinking along the same path as mine. She called within days and said that she was just fine with everything saying that Haverstat (sp? ) would buy the books and that a Bill Kalush wanted to buy all corespondent letters that he had. I asked about Precursor. She said that was in the correspondent material. She said Ed Eckl was aware of everything. Whatever took place between Janet and Bill Kalush is known to them. I spoke to her once after this because I, too, was disapointed. But I had to sit back and realize something that I spoke openly to Bill Miesel on the phone and in person often about. That is; Bill Miesel made his mistakes about his collections and that no one is to be blamed but himself. I loved the guy. He admitted to me hundreds of times that he should have done this or that with his stuff long ago. He hated new age technologies regarding PDFs , etc. Still, he new where things were headed. He recalled his story to me often when Persi Diaconis ripped him a new one for exposing something of his. Bill said He called Persi and tried to explain that this wasn't true but that Persi never spoke with him again. This bothered Bill forever. Perhaps that gives some insight about him not wanting to upset other contributors to his magazine. At any rate, his sister Janet did the deal and said Eckl was okay with everything. So, I can't say anything further. I do know though that my friend would have liked you defending him. Still , he knew he was in control Chris and let that slip by. Before he died, he gave me a box. In it are tons of letters between Marlo, Lin Searles and Elias. Also , stuff from Harbin and Neil Elias' notebooks. He said, ' I want you to have this stuff because you will enjoy it and use it. ' He went on to say; ' I know you wouldn't sell it or anything like that.' Now, that's pressure! I believe in sharing secrets for this art and its history. I may indeed share it someday but not for now. So, a piece of advice. Make your wishes known now regarding your secrets and material . Thinking of you My friend. Miss you big guy.

Russ

[Richard Kaufman]

I was under the impression that Ed Eckyl was the owner and publisher of Precursor: he would have had to make the deal with Kalush, not Bill's sister.

[Russ]

Richard,
That was kind of my point I was trying to relate to Chris. I only know this side of the story. Ed let Bill basically run with this magazine. As far as I know, Ed Eckl is still alive. Someone should contact him. I last talked to him after Bill died and expressed my concern over this rushed event. He never mentioned Precursor magazine. He just said that he trusted David Haverstat . This Kalush correspondence thing came up regarding any letters between magicians from his Sister Janet. So, you can feel my vibe I am sure that there is ' shade ' in here between some people. Again, Bill was her Brother. Bill was Ed Eckl's good friend. I know that Bill wanted the best for his sister Janet . She had no idea what his stuff was worth. So, again, without getting into waters that I cannot see, I did see then and still see murkiness in those waters. I will say with full certainty that Bill Miesel would NOT want Precusor magazine to be available as it is now. I cannot speak for Ed Eckl. For all I know, Ed may not realize what has happened. Maybe he has. It's out of my hands though but I was fortunate to spend many years with a magic historian and cherish that amazing library. I just know that I used that library next to Nick Trost with full permission.
Russ

[Bill Mullins]

Chris -- just curious.
Do you have agreements with all of the authors of articles in the magazines which you sell digital copies of?

I do have all necessary agreements, licenses and rights that allow me to digitized the magazines I offer. Exactly what these are depends on jurisdiction and particulars of how the magazine was published.

It looks like you are criticizing Kalush for doing things that you doing, is why I asked (that is, publishing digitized magazines without the permissions of the individual authors of articles included). If you don't need and have the permissions of individual authors, it is petty to criticize Kalush/CARC for the same reason.

[Joe Mckay]

I am bored of card tricks.

Is Precursor worth reading for the non-card material?

[lybrary]

Chris -- just curious.
Do you have agreements with all of the authors of articles in the magazines which you sell digital copies of?

I do have all necessary agreements, licenses and rights that allow me to digitized the magazines I offer. Exactly what these are depends on jurisdiction and particulars of how the magazine was published.

It looks like you are criticizing Kalush for doing things that you doing, is why I asked (that is, publishing digitized magazines without the permissions of the individual authors of articles included). If you don't need and have the permissions of individual authors, it is petty to criticize Kalush/CARC for the same reason.

Bill, you clearly didn't understand my argument. Perhaps this will make it clear: If you have the permission of the publisher/copyright-owner of a magazine you have generally speaking the permission to digitize the magazine. Since Bill Miesel did NOT want to have the magazine digitized, and never gave permission to have it digitized, because he considered the ownership lies with the authors themselves, then one would have to get the permission of each author to digitize the magazine. Since Kalush has not done that I consider it a copyright infringement. But I am pointing this out primarily to demonstrate the repeated and systematic infringing CARC headed by Kalush is doing. Right now CARC sells access to digital Pabular. I own the copyrights of Pabular which Martin Breese bought from Nick Bolton, the original publisher, and I bought it from Breese. All of this is backed up by contracts and written agreements. Yet CARC is offering Pabular without any permission whatsoever. Are you trying to suggest that this is ok? Same situation is with Tops, New Tops owned by Abbott which has never given permission to CARC. Same situation is with Abra owned by Davenports. Same situation is with Magic Wand and other magazines I own. It is not one lone small infringement one could perhaps overlook. It is massive infringement going on for years. Somebody like you should be outraged about this. But I guess you rather have digital access via CARC than uphold somebody else's copyrights.

[Roger M.]

I find it difficult to just "accept" these statements related to copyright from Chris.

Having read Chris's posts on the Genii forum for a long while, I am aware of his predilection for posting his personal opinions as facts, when indeed they are merely his personal opinions, or his own individual interpretation of specific situations.

Kalush isn't an amateur, and CARC isn't some fly-by-night organization.

If Chris's statements were indeed based in fact, one would have to wonder why, from a legal standpoint, CARC has never been legally challenged ... by anybody, including Chris.

Amateur legal opinions presented as facts have no value to anybody.

[Syd]

Roger,

The answer to your question about challenging (or not) is likely for two reasons:

1) To legally challenge (that is have "standing") one would have to own the copyrights which have allegedly been infringed.
2) To obtain damages - the Copyright must have been registered.

Interestingly there is at least one major publisher who has virtually none of its library registered with the US Copyright Office. As such, although they could sue for infringment - they could not sue for damages on any work they have not registered their copyright.

Syd

[Richard Kaufman]

CARC would need the permission of Ed Eckyl, who owned and published Precursor. Bill Miesel really has nothing to do with this.

[Roger M.]

CARC would need the permission of Ed Eckyl, who owned and published Precursor. Bill Miesel really has nothing to do with this.

Precisely, and what arrangement Kalush might have with Eckyl (or his representatives) is entirely unknown to all the posters (to date) in this thread.

[lybrary]

If Chris's statements were indeed based in fact, one would have to wonder why, from a legal standpoint, CARC has never been legally challenged ... by anybody, including Chris.

Roger, as it pertains to Pabular and other magazines I own, I do know what I am talking about. I also do have all the contracts to back it up and CARC has no right to offer digital access to them the way they currently do.

There are several reasons why I have not already sued. One is that I hope that Kalush eventually stops his pirating and infringing and comes to his senses. I also hope that users of CARC like Bill Mullins come to their senses and stop supporting an organization that rips off other people and businesses. I would hope that in a small community like magic we can work out these things like reasonable people. But it seems with CARC and Kalush it may have to be dealt with in the court of law. I have communicated with them for years, partly via my lawyer, without success.

[Roger M.]

From a legal standpoint Chris, if you are indeed within your rights to claim the copyright, it's difficult to understand why you haven't done so?

If CARC offering digital access is truly a violation of a legally binding contract duly signed - sealed - and delivered, I can't for the life of me understand why you repeatedly make these claims against CARC (and Kalush personally) on the Genii forum, but do nothing to bring closure to the situation legally.

Thus the thought process that there may indeed be legal grey areas within some of your claims, such that in a court of law your present conclusions may not be mirrored by the presiding legal authority.

Caution might be entertained though, as defending a libel claim can often result in the defendant having to prove their statements in that court of law (it can't be libel if it's true), even if that wasn't the writers intent when initially penning the comments.

I just don't see Kalush and CARC as "bad guys" just based on your statements ... as always, there is invariably another side to the story you tell, but because Kalush doesn't seem to be interested in using the Genii Forum as a legal forum, we hear only your take on the situation.
Based on the information available, the CARC and Kalush bashing seems highly personal, and thus probably out of place here in the forum.

[lybrary]

Roger, I have given one important reason why I have not already sued. But please, if you somehow don't believe me, pick up the phone and call Greg Bordner at Abbott and ask him if he gave CARC permission to digitize Tops and New Tops and make it available to his subscribers. Or call up Davenports and ask them if they have given CARC permission to digitize Abra. I have done all of that and found to my surprise that I am not the only victim of CARC's piracy.

I am more than happy to document my copyright ownership in the court of law. But with regards to Pabular you can also ask Richard Kaufman or Stan Allan, because Breese sent copies of his purchase contract of Pabular to them to stop another pirate - Sam Gingras - advertising his unauthorized reprint of it. Why was there outrage back than about Gingras but not about Kalush?

As long as CARC is ripping off my copyrights I will write about it. It is my good right to do so if you like it or not. I will also point out that there is no excuse to use the services of a pirate unless you endorse piracy.

[Roger M.]

I am a satisfied member of CARC, and will remain one for many years to come.
I also don't support piracy.

But most importantly, I don't subscribe to your claims that CARC and Kalush are pirates only for the effort of you repeatedly typing it here in the Genii forum.

One person making claims on the internet, claims that they are unwilling to back up in a court of law - doesn't influence me in any way.

[lybrary]

Sure it is easy to close your eyes. If you are not even willing to call or email Abbott to verify what I have said then that speaks volumes. You are no better than people who knowingly buy loot. But if I were you I would not be so cocky, because it may have consequences for users, too, now that you know CARC is pirating my and other publishers copyrights.

[Gordon Meyer]

There's another very interesting question that's getting lost. Is it legal/ethical to resell a PDF that you have purchased? In the digital world outside of magic there is usually an agreement that would answer that question with a big fat "no" because you're technically not buying anything, you're licensing it, and your license is not transferable.

[Roger M.]

If you are not even willing to call or email Abbott to verify what I have said then that speaks volumes.

No, it speaks to nothing other than I (unlike you) don't pretend that the final answers to serious legal questions can be determined on the telephone, or by whining on the internet ... that's what the courts are for.

You are no better than people who knowingly buy loot.

There you go with the unrelated personal comments again Chris, you really have to learn to exchange ideas without resorting to personal insults when people actually call you out on some of the ridiculous things you tend to post.

But if I were you I would not be so cocky

There's only one cocky guy in this exchange Chris, he's looking back at you in the mirror.

[Syd]

Hey Gordon,

You raise a challenging question. You are right - if you purchase a license - generally you do not have the right to transfer it. If you purchase ownership rights - the answer to your question becomes quite complex. Given that this thread is already way off topic I won't go into it. I feel sorry for the OP who was just trying to buy something!

Syd

[Ian Kendall]

Not wanting to muddy the waters much more, but something seems to be clear; Chris owns the copyright to Pabular, having bought Breese's business. Anyone else selling the contents of Pabular, either digital or hardcopy, will not have the copyright.

Not sure how that's in dispute.

[Roger M.]

Not wanting to muddy the waters much more, but something seems to be clear; Chris owns the copyright to Pabular, having bought Breese's business. Anyone else selling the contents of Pabular, either digital or hardcopy, will not have the copyright.

Not sure how that's in dispute.

If it's that cut and dried Ian, then Chris has a sure win in court.

Of course purchasing a business doesn't automatically include the rights to everything and anything associated with that business ... that kind of thing is all determined by the contract of sale.
Contracts that specify such things often have to be resolved in a court of law, if only because assumptions may be made by one or both parties, or the seller has either inadvertently or intentionally implied the sale of something that isn't his to offer for sale.

I shall await the judges decision and act accordingly at that time, until then it's all just whining and associated internet chatter.

[Ian Kendall]

Not really. Chris has a contract with Martin Breese to buy all his rights, which included Pabular. I have no reason to disbelieve him, since I was on Martin's mailing list, and he mentioned the sale several times before he died.

Chris has already mentioned why he doesn't want to go to court (legal costs and hassle notwithstanding).

I honestly cannot see why this is in dispute. It seems very cut and dried to me (unless there's something in US copyright law that allows a party to sell IP owned by another party with impunity).

[lybrary]

Anybody who does not believe I bought Martin Breese's business is free to request Martin's last will from the probate. It is a fairly simply, cheap and quick process. My purchase and ownership is entered in his last will. This means my purchase of the Breese magic business is on public record.

Of course, anybody who has received Martin's or my newsletters will know of this transaction for many years. Another quick and easy way to make a common sense check is to go to martinbreese.com and check the contact us page.

[Roger M.]

I eagerly await the presiding Judges final and binding decision, and will make any adjustments to my subscriptions and patronage of magic businesses and organizations at that time.

Being a long time customer, and purchaser of many of your products at Lybrary.com, that also includes you Chris.

[Roger M.]

Contact information on a web site ultimately means nothing more than what a webmaster decided to put in that spot on the web page.

BUT, one has to wonder if, in reality, this has more to do with libraries than it does copyright holders?

Ask Alexander is a privately funded library, its funds supplied by CARC, with CARC generating its operating capital (and thus their ability to donate funds to Ask Alexander) by selling memberships to CARC.
There are no "memberships" sold to Ask Alexander, only to CARC.

Of course across the nation, and in most countries around the world, no library, public or private is required to receive the permission of the copyright holder in order to place their book on their library shelf, indeed libraries need not consult with either the author, copyright holder or book publisher in order to place any book on said libraries shelves.

Perhaps this is a dispute about virtual library shelves as opposed to wood and steel library shelves?

Of course, in this scenario, neither CARC, Ask Alexander, or Bill Kalush would be disputing that Chris is the copyright holder of Pabular, but rather this would be an entirely different dispute - with Chris presumably arguing that Ask Alexander can't put books he holds copyright to on their digital library shelves?

Regardless, it would seem that CARC, Kalush, and Ask Alexander also have a story to tell, and until we hear that story (in court) it's really all just mindless internet chatter that shouldn't affect anybodies decision to support either Lybrary or CARC.

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, of course this is the case: as long as the printed item has been purchased by an institution, it can be scanned and then put on a computer which resides in that institution.

This is a case about charging people who are not physically in the library to allow them to remotely access copyrighted material.

[Roger M.]

Ahhh, but the American courts haven't yet rendered any final decisions on the assorted legalities of Digital Libraries and their remote lending practices.

My local library makes digital works available remotely, but they effectively only have a single copy of the digital work on their shelves by allowing their software to serve only one single copy of a publication at any given point in time.
There are many legal opinions out there that consider the above method of remote access completely legal within all current laws pertaining to the topic of remote lending.

There are some too that don't accept that this is representative of a "single digital copy" of a publication.

Opinions rendered outside of a courtroom in this type of circumstance are nothing more than personal, worth absolutely nothing beyond knowing what any given individual thinks about the matter.

[Syd]

Of course across the nation, and in most countries around the world, no library, public or private is required to receive the permission of the copyright holder in order to place their book on their library shelf, indeed libraries need not consult with either the author, copyright holder or book publisher in order to place any book on said libraries shelves.

Although I know very little about other countries - there IS a difference in the US as to whether a library is open to the public or not (not a public/private ownership distinction) and how that impacts exceptions under the Copyright Act.

[Leo Garet]

Here's a couple of spanners to scatter in the works.

I have never signed away any of my personal copyrights. Therefore, I retain all copyright to all the material I have ever contributed to books magazines, whatever, and that includes Pabular and Club 71/The Magician.

I do not, of course, have any claim on the magazines. How could I? And I have never had any objection to “bound” editions of any of the publications being issued by those who hold the copyright to said material. From the many magicians I have spoken to over the weeks I’ve been immersed in Magic, most are of the same general feeling and opinion. It’s nice to have the material circulated to new enthusiasts.

I am aware of only one person who seriously objects to this procedure; he protested to such a degree that his material was eventually excised from the appropriate publications. No clues as to who it might be.

Because it’s a murky(ish) area, even for the “experts,” and is regularly discussed and disputed as a matter of course, I can’t be bothered (and have no desire) to make a fuss about it beyond stating what I said at the top of this ramble. As I say, overall I don’t mind. I’d guess a shilling that most, if not all, of Bill Miesels’s contributors feel much the same way.

What I am not very keen on, is individual items being extracted, published and sold in different formats such as the following. It’s the latest that I’m aware of.

Repro Magic Resurrected!
http://www.magicweek.co.uk/
Which contains a link to Doctor Jonathan Royle’s website.
http://www.mentalismsecrets.co.uk/

[Bill Mullins]

I'll probably regret continuing to participate in this thread, but . . .

Bill, you clearly didn't understand my argument. Perhaps this will make it clear: If you have the permission of the publisher/copyright-owner of a magazine you have generally speaking the permission to digitize the magazine. Since Bill Miesel did NOT want to have the magazine digitized, and never gave permission to have it digitized, because he considered the ownership lies with the authors themselves, then one would have to get the permission of each author to digitize the magazine. Since Kalush has not done that I consider it a copyright infringement.

Geeze, Chris, patronize much?

Whatever Miesel "considered" doesn't trump how copyright works. If he had explicit written agreements with the authors that said "The rights you are transferring to me that allow me to publish your writing in Precursor do not extend so far as allowing me to reprint or allow to be reprinted whole standalone issues of the magazine," then this facet of your argument might hold water. But without such an agreement, Miesel (or Eckl, or both) owned the copyright to the magazines, and their respective heirs (as may be the case) inherited that copyright and are free to do as they wish with it. Once Miesel died, his idiosyncratic wishes don't apply any longer. Copyright has a huge body of law behind it, and people like Miesel can't simply make it up on the fly.

I also hope that users of CARC like Bill Mullins come to their senses and stop supporting an organization that rips off other people and businesses.

My decisions on whom I do business with are guided by a much more reliable compass than the internet rants of someone like yourself. My dealings with Bill Kalush and CARC have been, without exception, straightforward and ethical. They provide a good product at a price that I find reasonable. And importantly, they don't accuse patrons of competitors of being thieves.

I have communicated with them for years, partly via my lawyer, without success.

Which makes it sound as if your case isn't nearly as cut and dried as you keep asserting.

if I were you I would not be so cocky, because it may have consequences for users.

Is this a threat? If so, nut up and make it explicit. Or not. At this point, who cares? We know from your past actions that all you will do is talk.

Chris owns the copyright to Pabular, having bought Breese's business. Anyone else selling the contents of Pabular, either digital or hardcopy, will not have the copyright.

CARC has addressed this, and the rest of Chris's claims as well (from the Copyright Policy linked on CARC/AskAlexander):

There have been some unsubstantiated rumors posted online claiming that Conjuring Arts infringes on copyrights. We assure the users of Ask Alexander that we do NOT knowingly ever infringe on copyrights. Specifically it's been claimed that we are allowing access to Abra, Tops, New Tops and various Martin Breese properties without permission. In fact we have been given permission to include Abra by Fergus Roy of Davenports who we believe in good faith to own these rights. Further, Tops and New Tops magazines are owned by Abbott's Magic of Colon Michigan and we have arranged permanent access through Greg Bordner who is Abbott's owner. Additionally we have been given permanent irrevocable permission to allow access to many magazines and publications owned by Martin Breese. We have included access to these publications at various levels of Ask Alexander.

Elsewhere on the Genii Forum, Chris disputes this. In fact, many elsewheres. Ad naseum. Like a broken record.

the American courts haven't yet rendered any final decisions on the assorted legalities of Digital Libraries and their remote lending practices.

The Copyright Office has put Top Men on it. Top Men.

[Roger M.]

The take-away from all of this is that Chris, as usual ... is full of hot air.

[lybrary]

Additionally we have been given permanent irrevocable permission to allow access to many magazines and publications owned by Martin Breese. We have included access to these publications at various levels of Ask Alexander.

A blatant lie.