download The Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes!!!

Discuss general aspects of Genii.

Postby Guest » 06/11/04 01:46 PM

For all Flourishmen!!! Super News!!!
Go to the **ADDRESS DELETED** and download free " bible of Flourisman - The Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes".
Guest
 

Postby Chris Gillett » 06/11/04 03:43 PM

Is this Jerry Cestkowski's "The Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes"? If so, who are you and why are you selling electronic copies of it (the post says free but the page it links to mentions purchasing the thing)?
Chris Gillett
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: USA

Postby Richard Hatch » 06/11/04 04:33 PM

The fact that the download is apparently from a Russian site makes me a bit suspicious. I've notified Jerry, who recently reprinted his 545 page book at great expense, which seems like something one might not do if an authorized digital version was being made available... We should know soon whether this is legit... Jerry's site can be accessed at http://www.flourishman.com
User avatar
Richard Hatch
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Logan, Utah

Postby Chris Gillett » 06/11/04 04:40 PM

Ok, I asked Jerry about this, and he responded in part as follows:

"I am aware of the thieves... I have retained an attorney, and we are laying the ground work for a copyright infringement suit. I can't post on Genii since I'm not a menmber (sic), but if you like you may post that the download is illegal and that a lawsuit is in the process of being filed. Not only that, but this russian pirate has the gall to list a bunch of other works he intends to pirate! I wonder what all those publishers think? I think some of Kaufman's stuff is even on the list!"

I have omitted the section where he tells me what a stud I am and how much he admires my flourishing.


Al, you are a jerk. Enjoy Russia.
Chris Gillett
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: USA

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/11/04 06:29 PM

I've deleted the e-mail address for the site selling the bootlegs: why should I help that sack of [censored] advertise his illegal reproductions?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20930
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 06/11/04 09:19 PM

Richard Kaufman:
Thank you for telling it like it is.
Sheer poetry.
With great respect and admiration.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 06/12/04 04:10 AM

Way to go Richard! Keep on fighting the good fight.

Now if we can just do something about Magic Makers and their knock-offs. Piracy is so much worse when it's got corporate muscle behind it.

Paul
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 06/12/04 10:26 AM

Although Paul somewhat beat me to it. Richard, I'm wondering, if you don't want to advertise "illegal reproductions" then why run ads for Magic Makers and Penguin Magic? I guess the question is, where's the line between "illegal reproduction" and blatant knockoff? Is there one?
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/12/04 11:29 AM

Magic Makers and Penguin are not reproducing copyrighted material and breaking the law. Books and videotapes are copyrighted, and therefore protected, when they are produced.

To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no similar protection for magical props.

It is up to the individual or company who feels that that they have been legally wronged to take action against those who they feel are infringing on their rights.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20930
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 06/12/04 12:21 PM

Perhaps we might have a section for reports of this kind of thing happening on the genii board.

This could alert the community to acts of copying and save us all much fuss after the fact.

Given the choice I would prefer to purchase magic from the inventor and not a copyist.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6759
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Guest » 06/12/04 02:29 PM

Jon,

Just buy from Denny & Lee. Denny won't carry ANY Magic Makers items (even original ones...if there are any) because Rob Stiff and Magic Makers engage in such unethical behavior.

Plus you'll be supporting one of the best (and sadly one of the last, thanks to the Penguin Magics of the world) brick and mortar shops in the country.

Paul
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/12/04 06:15 PM

Mr. Sherman, the disappearance of actual magic shops is due to one thing: their customers are deserting them. Do NOT blame it on Penguin Magic or any other Internet magic dealer.

The blame must fall squarely on the shoulders of the CUSTOMERS--magicians who would rather spend a few dollars less on something bought over the Internet.

If these same customers would spend a few dollars more on each item they buy, and buy them from the local magic shop, there would be lots more magic shops. It's very simple.

It is everyone's individual choice as to where they purchase their magic. Either they haven't thought about the consequences or don't care.

Yes, you WILL have to spend more on something in order to have a magic shop within driving distance where a live person behind the counter can demonstrate new items, give good advice, and steer you in the right direction. Most magicians have simply decided that they do not wish to pay for this service.

So please don't blame it on any dealers who sell over the Internet--that makes no sense whatsoever.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20930
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 06/12/04 08:15 PM

On the one hand, you make a compelling argument. Maybe it "makes no sense whatsoever" to blame Penguin for driving magic shops out of business. After all, this is a free market; they're just out to make a buck like the rest of us. Besides, there are plenty of other things to blame them for, most notably selling Magic Makers' knock-off products and instant downloads of other people's tricks. That unethical behavior notwithstanding, what can we fault them for? They're just another business. Reasonable adults who care about this community should recognize the consequences of patronizing Penguin and other similar shops. So, for the adults who support Penguin with their dollars, shame on you, you should know better.

On the other hand, it doesn't make sense to put the blame "squarely on the shoulders of the customers." A huge chunk of Penguin's sales are to adolescents who aren't yet sophisticated enough to realize the consequences of always choosing the lowest price. Penguin, and other online stores with deep-discount prices, know this and prey on it. A good corporate citizen strives for profit, yes, but it does so responsibly so that it doesn't destroy the community it purports to serve. It makes perfect sense for us to blame a corporation that exploits the naivety of our youngest members without regard for the fact that its actions directly contribute to the destruction of magic's most cherished institution.

Is what Penguin does legal? Certainly. Does it have drastic negative consequences for the magic community? Definately, and those with the means to educate young magicians about these consequences should make it their business to do so. We need to tell these young customers that when they pay a few extra dollars for a trick at a brick and mortar store, they actually ARE getting value for that money. They're getting a "live person behind the counter [who] can demonstrate new items, give good advice, and steer [them] in the right direction." The kids who are spending their money on these sites haven't "decided that they do not wish to pay for this service." They, tragically, don't realize that this service exists.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/12/04 08:55 PM

Paul, I can assure you that it is not simply "adolescents" who don't know better who are purchasing things through Internet dealers because they are less expensive.

I can well remember the times when, standing at my booth in the dealer room at a convention, middle-aged men would come up to my table and ask the prices of my books. After my reply, they would hold up a list taken from Paul Diamond's table which advertised his discount prices. "Will you match this price?" is what I heard next. When I refused to meet those prices, they simply went over to his table and purchased the book there.

Then, they had the balls to approach me later at the convention and ask me to autograph the book!

So, while some of the audience for Internet magic dealers are young folks, plenty of them are our friends in magic who want to save a buck.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20930
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 06/12/04 09:23 PM

Richard, having had direct experience with such practices in the past, having obviously been angered by the practices, and having been willing to take a stand and not give in, in the past, why would you support these practices now, by granting such companies advertising space?
Guest
 

Postby Dustin Stinett » 06/12/04 10:59 PM

It seems to me that Richard has said in the past that he cannot refuse to advertise any business that is legitimate. These businesses are legitimate from the point of view that they are not breaking the law.

Discounters have been around as long as I can remember. It the old days they were strictly mail-order businesses. How many of you remember the magazine Magic Manuscript? It started as a newsletter for Adam Fleischers mail-order magic business, Frazees Magic (Frazee is crazy, but his prices are absolutely insane!). It seems to me that some of his customers were names who one might think would know better, but Adams prices were very low and hard to pass up. And he didnt sell crap: Volume 1 Number 1 has an extensive list of discounted Rings & Things products (his average discount was about 15%, but he also had a further 5% cut based on volume). Of course that little newsletter led to the glossy color magazine with some very big names contributing (and then there was mebut nothings perfect) and then the buyout, ironically, by Tannens.

Brick and mortar shops survived such bargain-basement discounters because they were relatively few and far between and could only reach those who subscribed to magic magazines where they ran their one-column-inch ads. These days, with the Internet, discounters dont need to advertise nearly as much and they can reach many thousandinstead of a few thousandpotential customers.

So, as Richard said, the responsibility lies squarely on our (the consumers) shoulders as to how we distribute our magic buck.

Dustin
User avatar
Dustin Stinett
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: 07/22/01 12:00 PM
Location: Southern California

Postby Guest » 06/12/04 11:56 PM

The truth is that we know who the rip-off's are.

Boycott the rip-offs because they're jerks (thanks, Chris!)while the jerks continue to spend money advertising. Who wins? Do the math. Survival by natural selection can be swift and violent in a capitalist economy.

Meanwhile, RK probably knows the laws regarding magic propriety better than anyone in the country. He can't allow illegal or unscrupulous operators anywhere near him. In fact, I shudder to think of the woes that could befall those that try (as already evidenced.)

A reiteration; it is our responsibility to "naturally select" those dealers with whom we do business by hitting them where it will hurt or help them the most; their wallet.

Chris Gillett, you too are a poet. I'm sorry I didn't say that earlier.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/13/04 09:45 AM

I am not supporting a business by giving it advertising space. Advertising space in Genii is open to all legitimate businesses, as is advertising space in ALL magazines.

Magazines do not police their advertisers: they have neither the time nor legal authority to do so. It is up to the customers to decide whether they are going to buy something or not.

Do you honestly think that Newsweek, Time, Vanity Fair, Premiere, and the 5,000 other magazines I could name research every item which advertisers sell in their pages? No--of course not. And I have neither the time nor authority to investigate every item advertised in the 45 pages of advertising which appear in Genii each month.

The same policy must be applied to ALL advertisers. Unless someone comes to me with a legal judgement or a legal notice of copyright infringement against an item being sold in Genii, I cannot tell anyone what they cannot advertise.

I do not make the law. The law is decided by the government, not by the editors of micro-niche market magazines that sell less than 10,000 copies.

If someone is doing something that YOU consider to be ethically wrong, then just don't buy their products--that is your choice as a consumer. "Voting with your wallet" is the most concrete way to make a point. However, many magicians just want to buy the least expensive version of a prop, and that's how copies of products survive in the marketplace.

This phenomenon is neither new, nor unique to magic. It happens ALL the time with all kinds of merchandise in all fields, including clothing, toys, electronic devices, books--you name it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20930
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Bill Palmer » 06/13/04 12:16 PM

Let me add something to this, if I might.

Last year, at the Order of Merlin breakfast at the IBM convention in Kansas City, various IBM officials announced that real headway had been made in the battle against the knockoff merchants. There is one major advertiser in the Linking Ring who advertises a huge amount of knocked-off illusions on his web site. One, in particular, is an illusion that was patented by Harold Voit in the early 1990's. So the Linking Ring was going to accept no more advertising from this particular advertiser until they cleaned up their web site. The audience applauded gleefully. Now the IBM was taking some very decisive action.

It didn't work out. The company in question threatened suit against the Linking Ring if they did not accept any of their ads. There was simply no way to fight it.

A magic magazine is fully within its rights to refuse advertising for items that do not fit into its program -- cigarettes, automobiles, liquor, political parties, etc. But to refuse advertising from any magic company would be a very difficult thing to defend legally, particularly in light of the fact that nobody had successfully prosecuted a case against either of the companes in question.

Until that happens, Richard is obligated to accept ads from the one company and the Linking Ring is obligated to accept ads from the other.

Voting with your wallet is probably the best answer.
Bill Palmer, MIMC
Bill Palmer
 
Posts: 719
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston TX

Postby Richard Hatch » 06/13/04 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Bill Palmer:
It didn't work out. The company in question threatened suit against the Linking Ring if they did not accept any of their ads. There was simply no way to fight it.
I believe this is incorrect. If one checks current and recent issues of LINKING RING, Douglas Tilford's advertisements are "conspicuous by their absence." I don't believe this is at his request, though I could be wrong.

I believe a publisher can refuse an advertisement on any grounds not deemed to be discriminatory on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. While Richard is right in protesting that publishers cannot be expected to police all their advertising, it would seem that when "repeat offenders" are called to their attention, they could take a stand against unethical behavior by turning down advertising from such individuals.

I don't believe I am alone in lamenting the absence of Denny & Lee's advertising on the back cover of GENII, particularly in light of the advertiser who has displaced him...
User avatar
Richard Hatch
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Logan, Utah

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/13/04 04:59 PM

This post has been edited as part of an agreement between myself and Dennis Haney.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20930
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Bill Palmer » 06/13/04 08:41 PM

Richard Hatch is correct about "the dealer in question." I was looking at older copies of the Linking Ring. I think the basis of the proposed suit was over the fact that the IBM had allowed him to advertise for such a long period of time and then had decided to drop his ads.

He is probably also correct about the right of a publisher to refuse advertising from anyone, as long as the basis is not race, religion, gender or something of that ilk. Proving this basis can be a problem, though.
Bill Palmer, MIMC
Bill Palmer
 
Posts: 719
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston TX

Postby Guest » 06/13/04 10:57 PM

I am not a lawyer, nor am I a publisher. However, I do know how to do legal research and it appears that Mr. Hatch is correct in his suspicion that the law as it applies to advertisements has been misstated on this thread.

Heres a brief excerpt from 18 A.L.R.3d 1286, entitled RIGHT OF PUBLISHER OF NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE, IN ABSENCE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, TO REFUSE PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT:

With the exception of one case, it has universally been held that in the absence of circumstances amounting to an illegal monopoly or conspiracy, the publisher of a newspaper or magazine is not required by law to accept and publish an advertisement, even where the advertisement is a proper one, and the regular fee for publication has been paid or tendered. The rule is not affected by the fact that the publisher enjoys a "virtual monopoly" because he operates the only newspaper or newspapers in the area. AND IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER HIS REFUSAL IS BASED UPON REASON, OR IS THE RESULT OF MERE CAPRICE, PREJUDICE, OR MALICE. (emphasis added)
The one case cited in the above paragraph was Uhlman v. Sherman (apparently one of my relatives got in some legal trouble in Ohio, circa 1919). However, other courts within the same Ohio district have subsequently failed to follow that decision, so it is unlikely that it is good law. Regardless, the vast majority of American case-law would provide unwavering support for the right of refusal.

The only major limitation on the right to refuse advertising that crops up from time to time is the Sherman Antitrust Act (another coincidence?). Here, however, that law is inapplicable. It would only be called into play if someone said, for example, We will only run your ad if you agree not to run ads in our competitors magazine. That situation tends to encourage the formation of monopolies, but would not apply to a refusal in this case, if for no other reason than that (as I understand it) MUM, Linking Ring, and MAGIC also refuse to advertise for Magic Makers.

In sum, unless my reading of the law is completely inaccurate (which it could be, but I dont believe it is), refusal to carry Magic Makers (or any other unethical companies) advertisements would have no legal consequences.

Paul
Guest
 

Postby Bill Mullins » 06/13/04 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Bill Palmer:
One, in particular, is an illusion that was patented by Harold Voit in the early 1990's.
Do you have any more specifics? I couldn't find "Harold Voit" in the USPTO database, and searching for "Voit" wasn't very fruitful either.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby David Nethery » 06/14/04 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
Originally posted by Bill Palmer:
[b]One, in particular, is an illusion that was patented by Harold Voit in the early 1990's.
Do you have any more specifics? I couldn't find "Harold Voit" in the USPTO database, and searching for "Voit" wasn't very fruitful either. [/b]
Harold Voit owns a magic shop in Germany .
His web site is :

http://www.zauberzentrale.de/

I think the Voit illusion that Bill Palmer refers to is The Rings (Reifenkfigillusion) .
User avatar
David Nethery
 
Posts: 187
Joined: 05/13/08 06:39 PM


Return to General