Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Copying

[Joe Pecore]

Not me. I'm banned from his sites :(

[Jonathan Townsend]

Is linking to YouTube videos of performance the next step?

[Joe Pecore]

Next step in what?

You can already link to YouTube video performances.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Figured after describing an item- next would the be the show - and then .... the tell.

[Joe Pecore]

I do value others opinions of MagicPedia.

Are you implying that it is revealing too much already?

[Richard Kaufman]

I like that idea! If the bozo does create any original content, or put any PD information on his wiki that we don't have, then let's please get it onto MagicPedia ASAPedia! :)

[Joe Pecore]

I like that idea! If the bozo does create any original content, or put any PD information on his wiki that we don't have, then let's please get it onto MagicPedia ASAPedia! :)

I looked and the few things I saw created were Product Advertising with a link to where he is selling it on his website like http://illusionwiki.com/Titan%27s_finger

[Jonathan Townsend]

Richard, it't the performance videos by YouTubers that got me a little concerned - and then we get to tutorials - anyone can teach anything without restriction (perhaps not the "lease" stuff) and so the slide goes.

Joe, it's not for me to decide what's too much - and not sure what the rules are that would permit redaction at your place or his.

[SquareCircle]

Sell the guy a Genii banner ad and move on. ;)

[mrgoat]

Richard, it't the performance videos by YouTubers that got me a little concerned - and then we get to tutorials - anyone can teach anything without restriction (perhaps not the "lease" stuff) and so the slide goes.

Joe, it's not for me to decide what's too much - and not sure what the rules are that would permit redaction at your place or his.

But Mr T, people can and do already do that. Is it harming magic having a 14 year old snot nosed kid badly teach a double lift? I don't think so at all. In fact, he might awaken interest in people wanting to learn. Which is A Good Thing unarguably.

The internet has changed forever the way people share information. This should be embraced, not shackled.

Someone who is scouring a wiki site to learn about tricks could/should be able to find a link to a video, and a link to where he can buy the book with the effect in. Or the shop who sells the prop.

This is all good.

If you think a huge percentage of laypeople are going to be bothered to scour a wiki to find information and thus trigger The Rapture and all magi suddenly can get no work, I feel you are wrong.

[Joe Pecore]

On MagicPedia, anyone can make any change, but it's typically polite to enter a reason in the box when you hit "submit".

There is also a "Discussion" section that corresponds with every page if you feel like commenting on something first, in order to come to a consensus with other contributors before making changes to an article.

See:
http://geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/MagicPedia:FAQ

http://geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Help:Editing_pages#Discussion

[mrgoat]

Not me. I'm banned from his sites :(

www.hidemyass.com

jus' sayin'

[Jonathan Townsend]

So what do you do when a currently marketed item/trick is explained and taught - and maybe even miscredited too on the Wiki?

[mrgoat]

So what do you do when a currently marketed item/trick is explained and taught - and maybe even miscredited too on the Wiki?

Not worry about it.

I think if something is [censored] and exposed and no one buys it that is good.

If something is good and the method is good, people will buy it. And that it good.

I think guarding crap secrets to sell crap products is crap.

As a community we've been sold crap by snake oil salesman who lie and mislead in the marketing copy. No one else would stand for that.

(And as regards the miscrediting, magicians are so anal about that, that is the site had enough traffic, it would be fixed by a magic nerd in moments - Such is the joy of hive knowledge)

[Joe Pecore]

So what do you do when a currently marketed item/trick is explained and taught - and maybe even miscredited too on the Wiki?

Not sure what you can do about the rest of the internet, but on MagicPedia you login, go to the page you want to change( or create it if not there), click edit, type in the correct credit, hit submit.

Need me to help get a "Three Fly" page on MagicPedia started?

[Joe Pecore]

(And as regards the miscrediting, magicians are so anal about that, that is the site had enough traffic, it would be fixed by a magic nerd in moments - Such is the joy of hive knowledge)

Where do all the magic nerds hang out if not on Genii Forum?

[Richard Kaufman]

I like "hive knowledge"!

Nice to see you back, Damian. And thanks again for "iGenii." :)

[Jonathan Townsend]

...Need me to help get a "Three Fly" page on MagicPedia started?

Maybe start with a Berglass Effect page with comparisons of practicality of methods for the walkaround performer vs the TV show/one shot venue. Would Saturday be okay?

Three Fly, the booklet written by (blanking on the name, sorry) that contains the Chris Kenner routine from his magazine. Folks seem to like that name. This author suggests a link to the item in "More Magic" and also to John Ramsay's Three Coins in the Hat routine as context. See, can be done without exposing or getting into issues.

[Joe Pecore]

I was being serious about the "Three Fly" page. I would think the most knowledgeable person to help make it would be the creator.

[Joe Pecore]

and by creator, I'm referring to the plot "Fingertips Coins Across", not Chris Kenner's routine of it.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Thanks Joe, I wrote an article on my work up to the time I had shown the routine I was just about to show Vernon in NYC in 1987. Folks can find that in the September 2006 issue of Genii. That's everything from the very moment the idea for trying a three coins across routine popped into my head at the lunchroom table, the version using the Roth Shuttle Pass left handed... to what I wanted to show someone to let them know that their ideas about "using your heard" had not been forgotten. There may be some more current work on the topic of coins in places they were, are, will be and were placed but then fogotten available soon.

I may give in and ask someone to make me an expanded Dusheck for my old Half Crowns.

What I'm getting at in the earlier posts is some concerns about a wiki interfering with the retail market for magic data.

[Bob Farmer]

Here is the Whois entry for the censored (but no name):

Registrant Contact:
illusionwiki.com Private Registrant illusionwiki.com@proxy.dreamhost.com
A Happy DreamHost Customer
417 Associated Rd #324
Brea, CA 92821
US
+1.2139471032

This appears to be Dreamhost.com since the addresses are the same:

PMB #257
417 Associated Rd.
Brea, CA 92821
USA
FAX: 714-671-9098 (Technical & Billing support is not available via FAX)


There has to be a difference between copying and adding bits and pieces in the usual wiki-Collective Commons sense, and copying the entire damn site.

Dreamhost has this link:

Spam / Abuse / DMCA

Abuse@dreamhost.com

[mrgoat]

Here is the Whois entry for the censored

Mr Farmer, the Creative Commons license is something that ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO SHARE THE CONTENT.

It was CREATED for people to be able to share content.

The POINT of it is so people can use any work published under that license.

If you do not want work used in that way, don't publish it under Creative Commons.

It'd be like me having pictures on flickr under creative commons (I do) and me being pissed someone has taken all my pictures I INVITED THEM TO TAKE and put them on another website.

If it troubles you this much, change the terms of the wiki. It's that simple. No need to worry about whoising his host etc. Just change it from creative commons to copyright.

Job done.

End of story.

This thread amazes me!

[Richard Kaufman]

The basic idea of the Creative Commons is hard to grasp because it's so simple yet counter-intuitive.

However, if someone duplicated Wikipedia in its entirety, would Wikipedia take no action against that person?

[Jonathan Townsend]

What distinguishes a mirror site from a distorted or agenda-serving reflection?

[Chris Aguilar]

The wikipedia license (same as used on magicpedia) does not differentiate between copying all the information or just some of it if the terms are met.

They (the wikipedians) offer all their information as one big free download and also offer (under a similar open source license) the exact same wiki software that they use (also free).

While it's perfectly possible to mirror wikipedia on your own, the massive resources needed to do so (servers and so on) makes it sort of impractical. Hence, people take and choose what they want to use.

As goat/Damian mentions (and that I'm amazed we have to repeat ad infinitum with the facts already out there) there's nothing illicit, illegal, unethical or even unusual going on here.

This is how open source works. You simply don't release material under this kind of license unless you want to give others the permission to share and use it (in whole or part). It's very clearly laid out in the license used (with proper legalese for those who need it).

[Joe Pecore]

What distinguishes a mirror site from a distorted or agenda-serving reflection?

I'm not sure what that has to do with this case. The two wikis are neither a mirror nor a reflection. One wiki has a substantial portion of another, which has now been forked off, as changes have been made since the import. And there have been no discussion on keeping them in sync.

[Chris Aguilar]

Jon,

A reflection is its own site. Questions of agenda or intent do not come into it. There is no requirement to sync or call back to the original site beyond simple attribution.

The data can be used per the license. Even the legal language of the license is very clear on this (as I've posted earlier)

For instance, it would have been perfectly fine/legal(and perhaps even a very good idea) for RK and Joe to have imported every single magic related article from the main wikipedia into magicpedia. They could still do so and it would be completely OK under the license used. The wiki guys would take no issue with it at all. They license their data that way specifically to encourage that sort of sharing.

[Chris Aguilar]

And, by the way, it's not like the guy is trying to hide his identity or anything.

Illusionwiki:About
Creation

Illusion Wiki was created by Joseph Treter, founder of www.illusionsilluminated.com, on April 18, 2011. He started the site to provide a single wiki for magicians and illusionists. This resource allows for more detailed information on each subject, fewer restrictions on writing style and references, and an easier way to find useful and free information on magic.

Illusion Wiki was made as a complementary site to www.illusionsilluminated.com, which is an all-inclusive site on illusions.

[mrgoat]

I like "hive knowledge"!

It's not mine, sadly.

Nice to see you back, Damian. And thanks again for "iGenii." :)

Thank you.

This thread made me re log in!

[Joe Pecore]

For instance, it would have been perfectly fine/legal(and perhaps even a very good idea) for RK and Joe to have imported every single magic related article from the main wikipedia into magicpedia. They could still do so and it would be completely OK under the license used. The wiki guys would take no issue with it at all. They license their data that way specifically to encourage that sort of sharing.

We have done that for many MagicPedia pages, but we correctly (I hope) attribute each page (as required by the license) with a link back to the article on WikiPedia.

We also try in most cases to just summarize any non-magic Wikipedia articles that we bring over to add magic related information to it (which when you try to do on main WikiPedia article the editors usually consider too trivial and regularly remove it.)

[Joe Pecore]

mrgoat, just wanted to say I'm glad your break from Magic Bistro has brought you back over here! :)

[mrgoat]

mrgoat, just wanted to say I'm glad your break from Magic Bistro has brought you back over here! :)

When Lewis is trolling typos, it's time to move on :)

But thank you. Had a few PMs welcoming me back. Nice to hear.

[Bob Farmer]

Joseph Treter--another name for "lazy bastard." This guy should be shunned. Whether or not he is entitled to take, is not the same as whether he should take. There are other legal ways of shutting him down that have nothing to do with copyright or the Collective Commons.

[mrgoat]

Joseph Treter--another name for "lazy bastard." This guy should be shunned. Whether or not he is entitled to take, is not the same as whether he should take. There are other legal ways of shutting him down that have nothing to do with copyright or the Collective Commons.

[Bob Farmer]

Mr. Goat:

You just made my point by stealing somebody else's gag, rather than coming up with one of your own.

[mrgoat]

Mr. Goat:

You just made my point by stealing somebody else's gag, rather than coming up with one of your own.

So your point was one shouldn't reference a Simpson's episode where a confused person that doesn't understand something shouts at a cloud?

Cool!

Happy to help.

Damian

[Bob Farmer]

Now I understand -- that's YOU shouting at the cloud.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[the Larry]

I am shocked that a lawyer like Bob Farmer doesn't understand the Creative Commons license. Brings some lawyer jokes back to mind ...

[Jonathan Townsend]

Mr. Goat:

You just made my point by stealing somebody else's gag, rather than coming up with one of your own.

Sorry Bob, I'm missing your point.
The internet creative commons ethos is to communicate using available online resources and to add to those resources to produce the optimal/effective message and resource to others.

Now if you're asking whether that image has been used under "fair use" ... we can go with that.

But how does that relate to the "use this as you see fit so long as you maintain the chain of attribution" ethos of the creative commons license granted to visitors of all such sites?

Jon