Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Discuss your favorite platform magic and illusions.
User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 4:40 pm

David Alexander wrote:
To say the law is irrelevant and your opinion is what counts is silly.
Then I am silly.
Because if the law really says "You must go out and take other peoples works against their will" - then I deem that specific law to be destructive, irrelevant and should be ignored. At least when it comes to my own actions. Then you can call me silly and criminal as much you want - I will still not steal material!
If your logic requires you to ask permission of a creator to perform a routine they've published, you are cutting yourself off from an awful lot of material.
Yes. You are misquoting me, but still, I'm cutting myself off from a lot of material. However, I'm creating an awful lot of material to compensate. Most of it is unfortunately crap - but I'm slowly improving :)

Not much of a problem really. During the last 5-6 years there has only been two unpublished routines I covet - Harbin's routine and a piece by Max Maven. But I will survive without them.

I don't have a Chop Cup. I had one, but I got rid of it when I heard that Wheatley got ripped off. Although, I consider the cup's function to be more of a general tool than an artwork - so if I had created a handling that was a huge improvement to the standard handling, I would probably have kept it. But since I had not improved on it, I got rid of it.

My friend Tommy Wonder died last year. I deeply admired his act. But I wouldn't dream of taking his material just because he is dead - perhaps he gave it to one of his other friends? I can not just assume that it is up for grabs without doing thourogh research. I'd have to talk with his brother, with Veronica Ross, Dick Koornwinder and others before being able to do any conclusions.

what you fail to understand is that you may not even be asking the right person if you see something published and want to perform it.
Well - if it is published, I take it for granted that I can perform it if I own the book or magazine. I take it for granted that the author has cleared everything. I do read reviews so if there are transgressions in books, I avoid them.
Pretty straightforward.

This is different though - this is an unpublished piece. And it is so brilliant that I can't improve on it (that would be one way otherwise - take the clip as inspiration and make something new out of it). Not only that - after seeing Harbin's performance, I've stopped to do the simple tear I used to do, because it was crap in comparison.
The point being, because they did nothing to protect their property, it is possible to argue that the Harbin book is in the public domain
Hmm.. had I not been this naive, I think I could read in quite a lot here. Like.. perhaps you still want to produce that oversized trade paper back of the Harbin book? The more people takes from Harbin without permission, the easier it will be to argue that the book is in public domain. Even as such, a reprint would give a hefty profit... Good thing I'm too naive to think like that ;)

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 5:13 pm

Hmm.. had I not been this naive, I think I could read in quite a lot here. Like.. perhaps you still want to produce that oversized trade paper back of the Harbin book? The more people takes from Harbin without permission, the easier it will be to argue that the book is in public domain. Even as such, a reprint would give a hefty profit... Good thing I'm too naive to think like that.
________________________

Don't try to be cute, Tom. You don't pull it off very well. I came to this conclusion many years ago. If I had wanted to publish a knock off of the Harbin book, I would have done it a long time ago. Don't read into my posts that which is not there. You're already laboring under enough fantasy.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 5:38 pm

Bob Coyne:
According to your logic, using or teaching the laws of physics would be "stealing".
Newton didn't create gravity. Just found a way to describe it. But even with my logic, it wouldn't take many seconds of research to find out that Newton wanted his descriptions to be known all over the world.

David Alexander:
Don't try to be cute, Tom. You don't pull it off very well.
To tell you the truth, I'm not doing that well with "handsome" either. :) What I was aiming for, however, was "nasty".. but if you interpreted it as an attempt to be cute, then I have to realize that I'm god-awful at this and give up.

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 5:41 pm

I wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To say the law is irrelevant and your opinion is what counts is silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then Tom wrote:

Then I am silly.
Because if the law really says "You must go out and take other peoples works against their will" - then I deem that specific law to be destructive, irrelevant and should be ignored. At least when it comes to my own actions. Then you can call me silly and criminal as much you want - I will still not steal material!
__________________________________________

Again, more silliness. The law does not say "You must go out and take other people's works against their will." It says nothing of the sort. Please find and quote that law to me.

I'm called you silly (and you agreed) but not criminal because you haven't stolen anything. No one has accused you of stealing material. Jeez, Tom. Lighten up. This is beginning to sound like the Richard Nixon Playbook with you accusing me of things I didn't say to or about you.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 6:05 pm

David Alexander:
with you accusing me of things I didn't say to or about you.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "you"-plural, not "you"-singuar.

The opinion I argued against was: If it is not expressly forbidden in law, then it is allowed, approved and encouraged by law.

If it is correct that the law says so - then I consider that law to be irrelevant, and will not let myself be encouraged to steal no matter how much the law approves of it.
Then I was told that people who think those kinds of laws are irrelevant are called criminals. I will not steal material, therefore, I'm obviously both silly and criminal.

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 6:30 pm

Tom Stone:
Newton didn't create gravity. Just found a way to describe it. But even with my logic, it wouldn't take many seconds of research to find out that Newton wanted his descriptions to be known all over the world.
The point is that society decides that there are different constraints on different types of knowledge and how it may be used. It's irrelevant whether Newton wanted his equations known or not. Once they're published, it's to the benefit of mankind that anyone can use and teach them. There's no protection for ideas of that sort, nor should there be. Other things (written expression, etc) can and should be protected within certain limits. These are all judgements that society makes, both legally and through more informal mechanisms (peer pressure, etc.).

You may have a different view of what should be protected or not, but your criteria of "Did I create this?" is way too simplistic. You have to look at a whole host of factors like what sort of thing it is, when it was created, by whom, and then what sort of constraints are placed on how that sort of thing can be used. As David Alexander has pointed out, the case of Harbin's newspaper routine is different than some contemporary act being stolen. And that's different still from scientific or mathematical ideas or creations. And those are different than patented inventions. These finer grained distinctions need to be made in order to decide what's right and/or legal.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 6:58 pm

Bob Coyne:
There's no protection for ideas of that sort, nor should there be.
No - but this isn't about ideas, an not about knowledge about the world we all live in. This is about a realised expression of artistic vision. Something internal and personal reaching out.
And pantomine, just like litterature, is covered by copyright.
As David Alexander has pointed out, the case of Harbin's newspaper routine is different than some contemporary act being stolen.
Harbin died in 1978, and that is pretty contemporary. Without doing any research, I can not know if he, before his death, gave the performance rights to a friend who still has it in active repertoire.
According to Jim Riser's posting - the mime presentation is not a part of the book. Why? Was it an oversight? Or did he have a reason?

It is likely that several of Harbin's friends are alive. Information goes fast over the internet. Research is not impossible.

I've got ideas on how to stage it, ideas on sound etc. But I would prefer it if the friends of Harbin would say "Robert Harbin would have liked what you've done with it", and not "There's the bastard who desecrated the memory of our friend". If I can choose - and I can - I prefer the former.

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 7:21 pm

Tom Stone:
And pantomine, just like litterature, is covered by copyright.
That may be, but only supports my objection to your "Did I create it?" criteria as being way too broad. You have to look at the type of thing created, when, by whom, etc. I don't know enough about the specifics to have an opinion on the Harbin case. I'm only pointing out that the specifics have to be considered in order to make a determination. A simple formula like "Did I create it?" doesn't help with that.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 7:42 pm

No, of course not. The only answer to that question is Yes or No. If no, it isn't mine - and research have to be done to find out whether I can perform it anyway.
Sometimes, all it takes is to get a used lecture notes from H&R magic books. Sometimes, I get permission just because I asked. Sometimes, I find out that it is in public domain. Sometimes, I get the answer "No" - but that's very seldom.

User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7124
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Hollyweird
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Pete Biro » March 16th, 2007, 7:47 pm

So you take my IDEA and you have permission to use it... You enter an elevator and at each floor one more person gets on... then when you get off at your floor your restore the paper.

NOW, IF I DON'T MIND SAYING MYSELF... THIS IS BRILLIANT. :D
Stay tooned.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Brad Henderson » March 16th, 2007, 7:48 pm

I tend to agree with Tom. Legality aside, artistically I think the question, "Did I create it?" is a good litmus test. But I also see value in discovery. A musicians chosen reperatoire (independant of composition) is artistically revealing and contributes to the larger vision of the performance concert as a whole.

But things do get dodgey once death comes into play. Would it be wrong to do a Kaps routine? A Kaps routine verbatim (so to speak)? What if the routine were not published?

What if that routine were a homage, a stated tribute to Kaps?

What about recreating Cardini's act? Would there be value (artistically or otherwise) in that? Would it be 'ethicially' ok?

And I hate to broach this magician, but what about Del Rey? Del gave me permission to perform a variation of a trick of his. But I know others. I have thought about doing them. Heck, I'll admit it...I HAVE done them. But I felt...well, dirty.

But he's not around. No heirs. Would it be wrong to perform one of Del's routines?

What about using his lines? Or adopting his mannerisms? I have seen very succesful magicians do both.

Where is the line and how does the death of the creator affect things?

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 7:49 pm

Tom stone wrote:
According to Jim Riser's posting - the mime presentation is not a part of the book. Why? Was it an oversight? Or did he have a reason?

Tom;
Please do not drag me into this discussion by extrapolating from what I have posted. I merely related some partial facts regarding the routine/effect as described in the book. More details ... In the book Harbin briefly describes his (as you term it "mime" routine) and comments that the effect is well received if done silently. Since Harbin verbally introduced and set up his presentation then made the comment about a silent performance, he apparently did not consider his presentation as being silent ("mime"). It was not. In the beginning of the book he warns the reader to make/do everything as described to avoid disaster. If in his explanation he gives no patter, then can we not assume that he was conveying to the purchasers of the book that no patter was required? This he even stated in the description, as well as, the fact that he performed it seated.

When I ordered the book from Harbin, I was serving in the US Army. The most I was ever paid for this service to my country was $168 per month. Read that amount again. The book cost $70. I worked in the evenings to scrape together the money to order the book. I bought it with the understanding that I could freely perform anything and everything in the book with no performance restrictions. I can assure you that if I chose to perform the newspaper effect in the same manner in which Harbin did it, I would do so with no guilt feelings. I paid for that privilege dearly at the time.

Since you are not one of the original purchasers of the book, you may feel differently. That is your right. Follow your own beliefs; but please do not try to project them on to others.

You do not own a copy of the book nor the original signed agreement - so any comments that you are making are really only guess work on your part. I even have the cancelled check that I paid with. I saved all info related to the book in the original mailer from the UK. Nowhere does it forbid the purchaser from performing the routine as Harbin did it. He does, in fact, warn against making any changes.

I feel that I may ethically and legally perform this as Harbin did, if I chose to do so.

No coveting here in Tucson...
Jim

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 8:23 pm

Sorry Jim, what I meant was that my whole knowledge about what was included in Harbin's description came from your posting - without attributing you with any opinions.
As I understood your words, it seemed like the tear was described without the presentation shown in the video clip (and I asked twice).
Meaning, if you had done it according to the description, without having seen the clip, it would have become something else than in the clip - that is how I interpreted it. Sorry that I misunderstood you.

I did not mean that you, as an owner of the book, would be restricted in any way. Neither do I comment on your ethics. I mean that I, who does not own the book, are restricted.
I could change it to the Gene Anderson tear, instead of Harbin's - but I don't consider that to be significant change to allow me to use the presentation in the clip.
And since I misunderstood you - and thought that the train set-up and pantomime wasn't in the book - getting the book wouldn't help either.

@ Pete Biro:
Yeah - and I do it with a blue backed deck ;)

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 8:31 pm

Tom, I am pretty sure that Alan Shaxon was the heir to the performance rights for Harbin's magic, basically his designated successor. Why not check with him? My guess is that he'd be happy to hear from you and would give you an informed opinion.

Legalities aside, I am personally pleased to know that some performers, such as Tom, do not simply assume performing rights until proven otherwise. This properly places the burden of securing such rights on the performer who wishes to perform these pieces, not on the original creator, who may or may not be in a position to protect them.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 9:08 pm

Thanks Richard! I will check with Alan Shaxon. :-)

@Brad Henderson:
I recognize the thoughts :-)
Did you know Del Rey well? What would he have said?
Or.. let's say you saw someone else do his material at a convention - how would you react?

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 9:16 pm

In the tradition of the craft, when a professional performer wrote a book, as Robert Harbin and Tommy Wonder and a number of others have, they did not write the books detailing their methods and presentations merely to memorialize their creativity and create monuments to themselves. They wrote the books so their creativity would live on, to share it with the other members of the craft, to have their creations outlive themselves and contribute to the literature of our odd little business.

These books were not meant to be simply read and admired as some on this thread would seem to suggest, if we are to extrapolate their theories. The routines were detailed so that they could be performed because the writers were performers and they wanted to share their art with this and future generations. The permission to perform their material is implicit in the writing and in the traditions of the craft.

Those who claim separate performance rights apart from published material I would like to see what case law or statutes you are referencing. Up to this point, the argument seems to be nothing other than it ought to be like this, as opposed to what it is. So, show me the law, if you can.

For those of you who labor under the fantasy of separate performance rights, consider this: If you are granted a right, then it is something of value. For it to be of value it must be limited or restricted in some way. For that right to have value the restriction or limitation must be, somehow, enforced. That means the person granting the right must enforce that limitation by preventing others who have not been granted that right to cease their performing. When and where re has this happened in magic in the last 25 years?

Performing rights are implied in the purchase of a DVD or book or other material, thats fully and completely settled in copyright law and 150 years of magic publishing. You dont like it? Fine, change the law, dont fantasize here about things that dont exist in reality.

But to carry this nonsensical argument a bit further, do I have the right to perform material that I find in Bruce Elliots Classic Secrets of Magic, a book found in many/most public libraries in the U.S.? I didnt buy the book; I checked it out of the library when I was a kid, read it, made notes and returned it. Ive been using some of those routines like the Benson Bowl Routine - for years. Do I have to conjure Bruces or Roy's ghost to ask permission?

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 9:21 pm

Richard Hatch wrote:
Tom, I am pretty sure that Alan Shaxon was the heir to the performance rights for Harbin's magic, basically his designated successor. Why not check with him? My guess is that he'd be happy to hear from you and would give you an informed opinion.

Legalities aside, I am personally pleased to know that some performers, such as Tom, do not simply assume performing rights until proven otherwise. This properly places the burden of securing such rights on the performer who wishes to perform these pieces, not on the original creator, who may or may not be in a position to protect them.
_______________________________________

Dick, re-read Jim Riser's post on buying the Harbin book. "Performance rights" were granted to the 500 people who bought Harbin's book. Whatever Alan Shaxon may or may not have gotten aside from being Harbin's successor, is immaterial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with this increasingly nonsensical discussion.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 16th, 2007, 10:08 pm

do I have the right to perform material that I find in Bruce Elliots Classic Secrets of Magic, a book found in many/most public libraries in the U.S.? I didnt buy the book;
No, I don't think so. You should get the book, if the material is in your repertoire. It is a rather good book, so it would not make your library any harm. And a used copy can probably be found at H&R for a very reasonable price.
Isn't it worth a few bucks to ensure that no swedish nutcase can annoy you about it - and get a richer library at the same time. ;)

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 11:07 pm

David;
I've got at least 3 copies of Classic Secrets of Magic in my library. I'll send you a paper back copy (the red one) if you are having trouble sleeping at night.

But then Bruce Elliot may not have "owned" the performance or publishing rights to Benson material either. Where is the written contract between Benson and Elliot? No book for you, David.

Perhaps you are covered by Roy Benson by Starlight. Wait, Benson did not write all of that text either. Levent was given much of the material; but was it really someone else's to give away? Who gave it to the giver?

Maybe it is best if you just drop the bowl routine from your act.

This kind of thinking gets ridiculous. As a performer, you do your best to avoid stealing; but no matter what, there will always be some question as to ownership of the material - especially published material.

Wait, maybe that is why there is a tradition of freely using published items. Traditions and systems evolve for a purpose. That purpose usually has something to do with keeping the wheels of society turning smoothly.

Back to newspaper tears ... the version done by Paul Potassy is an excellent presentation of the effect. He explains it clearly in his text and DVD. Oops (fly in the ointment), even Paul Potassy indicates the handling was given to him. Oh oh, now we have an excellent, experience pro publishing material that he did not originate. And who gave it to Horster? Where will it all end?

Who has the time to fret over all of this fuzzy subject matter? You do the best you can with the material selected and worked up for an act. That's really all one can do - especially with limited libraries and DVD collections. To be a successful magician does NOT require all original material. Successful people in any business build upon the work of those who went before them. If the early pioneers published their material, it was to keep it alive - not to hide it.

David, put the bowl back into your act.
Jim

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 11:16 pm

I think this obsession with ownership and intellectual property is getting out of hand. A reasonable balance has already been struck between granting special rights to creators (via copyright and patents) versus the benefit to society as a whole in having free commerce of ideas.

Furthermore (as has been said here already), the expectation is that when something is published in a book that people can use the information in that book however they want. That can't be changed retroactively!

Similarly, there's no requirement to buy a book to use the information in a book. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to making ideas themselves into something that can be owned. Such a system would be unworkable, stifling, and extremely counterproductive.

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 11:23 pm

In finishing up a large article for Genii on Frakson I decided to include an unpublished card effect of his that he taught me. It is quite good and somewhat out of the ordinary. He fooled a number of magicians with it back in the 20s and 30s.

I think I'll specifically grant performance rights to everyone except Tom Stone. I will expect all my Swedish friends to keep a sharp eye on Tommy, just in case he slips.

I may have to fly over and enlist one of his sisters to watch him. ;)

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 16th, 2007, 11:46 pm

Tom, I just checked my copy of the Harbin book and he describes the train presentation shown in the video clip quite clearly, though succinctly (3 sentences). He then notes that it is just as effective when performed silently with musical accompaniment (earlier in the description he mentions that he performs the effect while seated, making one of the necessary actions natural). He then states "It is up to you to use this little gem to the best advantage." So I think there can be little doubt that he would have no problems with the original owners of the book using his presentation. The purchase agreement potential purchasers had to sign and return to him is rather explicit on several points: that the purchaser not reveal any of its secrets, that for two years after its purchase it could not be lent, resold to a third party, etc. without Harbin's permission, that all manufacturing rights were reserved (I believe only John Gaughan was subsequently authorized by Harbin to build his ZigZag illusion for resale), and that the purchaser would not "at any lecture, demonstration or talk make use of any of the material in this book." As worded, I find the last restriction quite ambiguous, since many performances could be so classified. My best guess is that he meant lectures for other magicians at which the secrets would be revealed, but that is just my guess. The two year restriction on resale seems to imply it could be resold without restriction after that period. Whether such sale would confer (in Harbin's opinion) performing rights to the third party, who had not signed his purchase agreement, is less clear to me. It is also my understanding that Harbin had the original publishing plates destroyed after the 500 copies were printed and that the reason the Magic Circle has not reprinted the book is that living members who knew Harbin well do not believe his wishes or interests would be served by doing so.

User avatar
Pete Biro
Posts: 7124
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Hollyweird
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Pete Biro » March 17th, 2007, 12:09 am

The Museum of Magic in Marshall Michigan has all the original layouts, manuscripts, pictures, etc. of the Harbin book in their archives.

Tom: work out your own 'ARRANGEMENT' of the trick and get on with it.
Stay tooned.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 17th, 2007, 6:16 am

Bob Coyne:
To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to making ideas themselves into something that can be owned. Such a system would be unworkable, stifling, and extremely counterproductive.
I hope it is clear that there is a difference between an idea, and a fully developed handling. And that there is a difference between study and putting a piece to work in one's own repertorire.
While researching the Traveller's plot, I looked into all versions I could find, browsed the bookshelfs at friends and at the magic club, and made notes. Tried and practiced different handlings and ideas at home.
Had I decided to use one of those handlings in my repertoire, I would have made sure to obtain the corresponding book - not only out of respect, but because I personally would gain from having easy access to the full description.
Instead, my research produced a new handling, better suited for my performances.
I didn't find that process to be unworkable, stifling, or extremely counterproductive.

But that's my take on the topic, what I use as a guide in my own work. Other people have other views that work well for them. The value here is not the views that have been put forth, rather, it is having the discussion at all that is valuable.

@ David Alexander:
Heh.. sure, my friends can make sure that I don't slip. Meanwhile, I can make sure that my sisters don't slip ;)

@ Richard Hatch:
Thanks for the clarification. The whole matter is quite simple then - I should get the book before putting it into my repertoire.

@ Pete Biro:
I would work out my own 'ARRANGEMENT' of it, if I had been able to improve on it. But I can't think of anything that would improve it enought to be considered a whole new piece. And devising a different routine for the sole purpose of being different.. I would not feel good in presenting something that I myself 'know' isn't as good as it could be.

@ Jim Riser
I know I'm a bit dogmatic here, and that it in many cases are tricky. But in many other cases, it's very simple. I think it is better to make a sincere effort, at least, than to do no effort at all - often, all it takes is a simple email to find out.

A lot of the tradition has been shaped for and by amateur magicians who do not create themselves - whose needs and requirements are quite different from creators, artists and professionals.

Earlier, it was possible to share one's work with a small book. My work here in Stockholm would not be affected if someone in Gothenburg, New York and Lisbon also performed my material, as well as in a bunch of magic clubs. Now, things are different - I could share a new item on monday, and risk that a spectator on friday says; "Ah - that's a good one! I learnt that one yesterday, through Gonzo666's tutorial on YouTube."
Of course - the easiest solution is to never share with anyone and never let other magicians see anything at all. Is that the *best* solution as well?

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 17th, 2007, 8:23 am

Thanks, DA, for the info about the video, which I see was posted a couple of days ago.

I should clarify that I thought the vid looked very interesting and I'd like to see the rest of it. My interest was not in terms of copping the routine.

Leonard Hevia
Posts: 1951
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dai Vernon, Frank Garcia, Slydini, Houdini,
Location: Gaithersburg, Md.

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Leonard Hevia » March 17th, 2007, 5:41 pm

This post went beyond what I had expected. Is the Shaxon Tear actually Harbin's?

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 17th, 2007, 5:46 pm

Bob Coyne wrote:
think this obsession with ownership and intellectual property is getting out of hand. A reasonable balance has already been struck between granting special rights to creators (via copyright and patents) versus the benefit to society as a whole in having free commerce of ideas.

Furthermore (as has been said here already), the expectation is that when something is published in a book that people can use the information in that book however they want. That can't be changed retroactively!

Similarly, there's no requirement to buy a book to use the information in a book. To suggest otherwise would be tantamount to making ideas themselves into something that can be owned. Such a system would be unworkable, stifling, and extremely counterproductive.
___________________________________________

I'm sorry Bob, but those are my arguments and you didn't ask permission to use them. Please apply for permission to my email and include a credit card number. ;)

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 17th, 2007, 8:12 pm

I'm sorry Bob, but those are my arguments and you didn't ask permission to use them.
I'm sorry David, but your arguments do not reach the Threshold of originality , as they are derivative and just a simple inversion of my original arguments. Therefore, David, the rights to "your" arguments belong to me as well. So I reclaim the performance rights to them, and give them as a gift to Bob instead :whack:

@ Leonard Hevia :
I think Bo Jonsson's information is correct. I'll try to see if I can get more info on it.

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 17th, 2007, 9:17 pm

I'm sorry David, but your arguments do not reach the Threshold of originality, as they are derivative and just a simple inversion of my original arguments. Therefore, David, the rights to "your" arguments belong to me as well. So I reclaim the performance rights to them, and give them as a gift to Bob instead
I'm sorry Tom, but rights are not transferable in this manner. David's derivative work imposes restrictions retroactively on any and all variations (either implied or explicit) traceable to his statements in this forum and others. I'll forward you the payment options he sent me. I believe he accepts paypal. :D

Later...And I just realized that your turning David's original phrasing of "I'm sorry <magician's name> but..." into a running gag might require his permission too. And my continuing the running gag would require getting performance rights from both of you! On the other hand, since this is Richard's forum, he might own everything said here. ;)

Guest

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Guest » March 17th, 2007, 11:20 pm

Good point, Bob. To clarify the ambigious situation I hereby grant Tom Stone the right to use the phrase "I'm sorry (insert magician's name here)" in the expectation that he will be using it soon and often.

I also license and grant his use of the phrases, "I was wrong," "You were right," and "I need more aquavit to keep posting on the Forum" to be used together or separately, without any expectation that he will be using them any time soon, or ever. Well, maybe the third one. ;)

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Shaxon's Newspaper Tear

Postby Tom Stone » March 18th, 2007, 5:02 am

I hereby grant Tom Stone the right to use the phrase "I'm sorry (insert magician's name here)" in the expectation that he will be using it soon and often.
David, you write well - I laughed out loud. :)
But now, since we are clowning around instead of doing actual sparring, perhaps it's time to rest a little. I'm trying to find out a few things through emails, and perhaps some interesting facts will turn up here shortly.
@ Bob Coyne: Good link!

Edit: Alan Shaxon has just provided more info in another thread: Here


Return to “Platform & Stage Magic”