Debate

Discuss general aspects of Genii.

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 01:43 PM

There are a few things that pop into my head with this topic. If somebody comes to you and shows you a trick(which they claim is original with them) and you go home and try to re-create the method/effect, you are stealing period. Think of what the person is thinking after showing the effect. They definitly aren't wanting you to go home and re-create the effect. If they wanted you to know the workings of the effect they would show it to you. If they dont divulge the secret, then you take it upon yourself to ask how it is done. If the magician still insists on not showing you the method, that is where you back off and research for other possible methods, but not re-create the method just shown to you. Thats BS!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 01:56 PM

Originally posted by UGL:
If somebody comes to you and shows you a trick(which they claim is original with them) and you go home and try to re-create the method/effect, you are stealing period.
I disagree strongly with this. Simply trying to come up with a methodology for something does not make you a thief.

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Pete Biro » 05/30/02 02:06 PM

I had a concept I never followed up with... and that was to do an "Impression" of a magician... the one I wanted to do was Roy Benson... his look, voice, a few of the signature tricks.

Would, as an "IMPRESSION" be immoral?

Look what Danny Gans does... and I understand Darren Romeo is an impressionist as well... My guess is he does voices but not other people's tricks...

Off to Portland, will see those of you that are there... Ali Bongo, et al, George Olsen, Stan "the man" Kramien... stay tooned...

Hope George will post rave reviews -- ehheheheh :D
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Mike Powers » 05/30/02 04:33 PM

Marketing is not the issue.
If someone does a trick you want to do, ask where the trick is from. Very likely it's in a book or on a video you can buy. You'll be doing the trick - no problem.

However, if the trick is a creation of the person you've seen do it, or possibly of someone who showed it to him/her, then you've got to ask permission before performing it. Here's why:

Suppose I show you one of my creations assuming that you won't be figuring it out and using it. However you do figure it out and use it in the restaurant in which you work.

What happens when people who saw you do it see me do it? They may say, "Oh that's the one so and so does at Fridays..." OUCH! You shouldn't be doing it at Fridays. It's mine unless I give you permission to use it.

The principle is simple. You've got to get permission from the creator unless it's already "out there" i.e. in print etc. It's not the responsibility of the creator to tell you not to take it.

Since the view that it's yours unless the creator asks you not to take it may be prevalent, it's common for a creator to take the initiative and request that someone not use a particular idea. This shouldn't be necessary but it probably is.

Just a thought.

Mike
Mike Powers
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Indiana

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 04:50 PM

Good call Mike. I totally agree with you on this one. By the way, I really enjoy your date book trick that I got from the Miller's a few years back. It was a hit at Tony's lecture in Vegas. Keep up the good work.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 05:11 PM

Mike, I think you're completely right. Just trying to apply your ethic to my situation. Would you say that since I figured out a trick that any magician could incorporate into his/her act, since it's in a book, I shouldn't worry about buying the book or obtaining permission before using the trick in performance?

(Heaven knows, I don't want to go to magic jail, since with my luck, I'll wind up cellmates with Steve Fearson.)
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Steven Youell:
Originally posted by UGL:
[b]If somebody comes to you and shows you a trick(which they claim is original with them) and you go home and try to re-create the method/effect, you are stealing period.
I disagree strongly with this. Simply trying to come up with a methodology for something does not make you a thief.

Steven Youell[/b]
Yes Steven, you are very right. Coming up with a method for an effect you think of isnt stealing. But coming up with a method for an effect just shown to you by the creator is. Especially if the creator makes no attempt in revealing anything to you the spectator and you back engineer the exact method just shown. That was the term in the original post, "back engineering" which to me means, recreation of what was shown.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 06:21 PM

I think that magicians give their LAY audiences WAY TO MUCH CREDIT! If magi A does a trick, and then a week or two later magi B does the same trick for the same group, no one in that group will remember seeing it somewhere else. As long as they are entertained, lay people DO NOT CARE whose trick is whose! When you do card to wallet or ambitious card, how many people ask, "whose method is that?" NEVER has that happened to me. When I do Grey Elephants In Denmark (which is a GREAT trick, and one that I have done for over 15 years) I have never been told, "Oh, we saw Max Maven do that on World's Greatest Magic." (don't you dare tell me that I copied Max, because it is not his trick) I think that our concern should be more focused on entertaining our audiences rather than who is performing what. After all, for us working guys, who pays our bills? Our audiences, or other magicians? I am not excusing out right theft. We should strive to produce our own work. I have been ripped off many times, but it has not effected my income, or my act.

Remember to keep things in perspective. These are MAGIC TRICKS, and not national security secrets. Think about it. Pakistan and India are on the verge of nuclear war, and we are worried about who is performing what trick, or who originated what move! If you do not want other magicians performing your stuff, then don't show it to them. If they see it because the come to your show, or see you on TV and copy it, then they are a thief. If you show it directly to them, then that is the risk that you take. OK, end of rant. :)
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 06:54 PM

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
After all, for us working guys, who pays our bills? Our audiences, or other magicians? I am not excusing out right theft. We should strive to produce our own work. I have been ripped off many times, but it has not effected my income, or my act.
Thats great! Nice one David! I recently saw your Gambling routine and boy are you a hypocrite.I am not trying to be mean or anything but you had absolutely nothing original on that tape. So in this case, other magicians ARE helping "pay your bills" because if it wasnt for THEIR material you wouldn't have a tape. Oh I also liked the fact of not crediting them either. Nice touch!

Oh yeah, what exactly of yours has been ripped off? Kinda curious.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 07:32 PM

Watch the tape again. Do I claim originality. No. Most everything in that routine is uncredible, because it has been around for so long. The opening effect alone is in three books (that I know of) and is not credited in any of them. Who should be credited for the 2nd deal, or the Faro Shuffle? I have heard the Ten Card Poker Deal credited to many different people. When I teach a trick I will credit it if I know who to credit. Do I try to find out who came up with what? Yes. Do I break my back to find a tricks complete pedigree chart? No.

One example of where I have been ripped off is with my effect "David's ESP Trick". It is VERY easy to make, and is not hard for a magician to figure out. I have shown that trick in the shop as a demo to many magicians. Many of them have just made it themselves, instead of buying it from me. Does this bother me? Yes, but do I cry and lose sleep over it? No.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 08:00 PM

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
Watch the tape again.
No thanks.

Do I claim originality. No.
Thank God

Most everything in that routine is uncredible, because it has been around for so long.
AKA- "I am just too lazy to do research."

The opening effect alone is in three books (that I know of) and is not credited in any of them.
List them in the credits!

Who should be credited for the 2nd deal, or the Faro Shuffle?
I dont know, where did you learn them from? Or did you come up with those moves too? Hey I've got an idea. Plug your bosses video tapes on the Faro and Gambling Sleights. There are some credits!

I have heard the Ten Card Poker Deal credited to many different people.
Then put their names in the tape!

When I teach a trick I will credit it if I know who to credit. Do I try to find out who came up with what? Yes. Do I break my back to find a tricks complete pedigree chart? No.
I am not asking for you to "break your back". I am asking for some effort. Something is better than nothing.

Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 08:26 PM

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
I have heard the Ten Card Poker Deal credited to many different people. When I teach a trick I will credit it if I know who to credit. Do I try to find out who came up with what? Yes. Do I break my back to find a tricks complete pedigree chart? No.
David it took me all but 5 minutes to look up Darwin Ortiz's Mexican Poker (his version of the ten card deal). In it he credits many including Harry Lorayne and Buckley. I beleive it was originally in "Card Control" and later expaned upon in Phoenix issues 168 and 170.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 09:30 PM

Ok, let's see... The first effect is found in The Complete Illustrated Book of Card Magic, The Encyclopedia of Card Tricks, and I believe it is also in Scarne on Cards. The trick is uncredited in all three books. The Ace cutting is Marlo's and has seen print and video many times. The Ten Card Poker Deal has been credited to Lorayne, Trost, and many others (as you pointed out). The Second Deal's originator is unknown, however I learned it from Brad Burt and Martin Nash. The same goes for the Faro Shuffle, although I have read Marlo's work on the subject as well. The Zarrow Shuffle is the invention of Herb Zarrow, and is very well known. Brad Burt has a good tape on it. Martin Nash has taught it as well. There is also a good description of it in Card College. The final effect is an effect that was heavily inspired by an effect from Martin Nash. The Spectator Cuts the Aces effect in the appendix is credited to Frank Garcia, but is believed to be the invention of someone else who is unknown.

Now, let's please get back to the REAL subject of this thread which, by the way, was only interupted because I let everyone know who I am.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 12:54 AM

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
Most everything in that routine is uncredible, because it has been around for so long.
Way to contradict yourself, but thank you for giving some credit where it was do.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 01:30 AM

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
If they see it because the come to your show, or see you on TV and copy it, then they are a thief. If you show it directly to them, then that is the risk that you take.
You later wrote

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
One example of where I have been ripped off is with my effect "David's ESP Trick". It is VERY easy to make, and is not hard for a magician to figure out. I have shown that trick in the shop as a demo to many magicians. Many of them have just made it themselves, instead of buying it from me. Does this bother me? Yes
This shouldnt bother you, because "that is the risk you take".

The End
Guest
 

Postby Terry » 05/31/02 05:45 AM

Here is a great example. When I was on the committee producing the IBM Conventions (10+ years) Jim Stienmeyer called on us about a dealer selling a rip-off of his fantastic Origami Box illusion.
That was the Salt Lake IBM in 1996. I remember as I was working the Daytona Magic booth with Harry Allen. Jonathon Pendragon was livid with the guy.
Terry
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Kentucky

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 07:34 AM

UGL:

I want to make sure I understand you:

A magician shows me an effect without tipping the method. I go home and develop a methodology to do the effect. I never share this information and I never perform the effect. Are you saying that would make me a thief?

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 08:35 AM

To Pete Biro,
I have a question about the incident with the Origami Box at the Salt Lake City Convention.
I do not condone Jeff Davis for building Origami Boxes, but did you walk around the dealer's room and look over the merchandise of other dealers, and "pressure" them to remove from their inventory any item which they may have helped themselves too?
If you didn't, you were unfairly picking on just one dealer. If you did, I suspect you would be opening a very large can of worms. For example, how did Lubor Fiedler's effect where the coin penetrates a sheet of latex rubber get into the public domain? Many magic dealers "manufacturE" it by going to a dental supply house and buying large latex sheets and cutting them up into 4" squares. With a simple one page set of instructions, they sell Lubor's creation for $3 to $10 bucks and their cost is pennies.
Any of the dealers who carry the line of "Royal" magic tricks may have had a version of Abbott's "Squash" on their table.
Possibly one of the dealers had a Zig Zag in their display. (Abbott's and Owens now have them sitting in their showrooms.) This trick was the brain child of the late Robert Harbin. When he published The Robert Harbin Book of Magic, he tried very hard to limit the rights to build and perform the Zig Zag to purchasers of his book. (I was one, and perhaps you were too.) But my question is exactly how did this effect end up in the public domain? And why has the Origami box remained the property of Jim Steinmeyer? Jeff Davis is certainly not the only dealer who has built Origami Boxes.
Another example. Remember when Ralph MacAbee introduced the MacAbee Rings to the magic world? And how Bob Little began selling his version? He just went out and found bracelets that would work, gaffed one of them, and even Xeroxed Ralph's original instructions. Many thought they were buying an original set of Ralph's rings. As far as I know, Bob Little is still allowed to bring his booth to any convention he wants to.
How about Professor's Nightmare? Hen Fetsch created this in the late 50's, I believe, and sold the manufacturing rights to Gene Gordon. Gene Gordon sold them at his shop, at conventions, and through the mail. Today, many dealers manufacture the thing by just cutting up a few cents worth of rope and sticking it in an envelope along with a one page instruction sheet. I know that Hen and Gene are long gone, but exactly how and when did the trick pass into the magic world's public domain? I fear that if one dealer rips something off, they're a thief, but if many dealers do, then they're not because the item is now Public Domain. Doesn't seem right, does it?
I have set up a little booth at a couple of conventions myself, and traveled with Hank Morehouse and helped him run a booth a many magic conventions. I never saw the convention committee go through the dealer's room and look over anyone's merchandise for possible rip-offs. If they did, I know they could find many, many questionable items.
Again, Pete, I want to clarify that I am only asking questions. I am certainly not taking a stand on the side of Jeff Davis, but I have had the opportunity to hear his side of the story. It was no accident that he brought an Origami Box to that convention. He was actively seeking a confrontation in the hopes that it would lead to an open forum where the issues of proprietary rights could be discussed. He makes another point as well. And I'm NOT endorsing his position, just reporting his argument. When you "pressured" him to remove the Origami from his booth, if he was not in violation of any law, you might have been. There are fair trade laws which prohibit restraint of trade in situations where a business person is selling an item which is not legally protected. He considered a law suit over that issue, and went as far as consulting an attorney. I don't know why he didn't pursue it further.
Pete, I do believe that we all should act ethically. But, exactly what can or should the magic world at large do to enforce these ethics? These rip offs have been going on for hundreds of years. Discussions like this one have been going on as far back as I can remember. Is there anything we can do other than just talk? My fear is that there probably is not.
Wish I could be up in Portland with you, George, and Uncle Stanley.
"THE DOGS BARK, BUT THE CARAVAN MOVES ON."
(QUOTED FROM STAN KRAMIEN)
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Steven Youell:
UGL:

I want to make sure I understand you:

A magician shows me an effect without tipping the method. I go home and develop a methodology to do the effect. I never share this information and I never perform the effect. Are you saying that would make me a thief?

Steven Youell
You obviously do not understand this thread. This thread is asking if it is ok to back engineer an original effect (after seeing it from the creator) and then use it in your performances.

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
If you see a performer do an ORIGINAL trick, and you go home and back engineer it on your own, do you have the right to perform it?
I am saying that is wrong without permission. You are saying that you will come up with a method but never share it or perform it! What is the point then if you come up with a method and never use it?!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 12:31 PM

UGL (IF that is your REAL name):

I understood the thread. My question was not about
the original post, it was about something you wrote:

"If somebody comes to you and shows you a trick(which they claim is original with them) and you go home and try to re-create the method/effect, you are stealing period."

This quote says nothing about performing it. It specifically says that the simple act of re-creating the effect or method makes you a thief.

I take offense at the way you address people here. I believe that others have as well. It's disrespectful, condescending and in general, very immature. Therefore I choose to leave the converstation. I will not respond to any further posts from you until you learn some manners.

Steven Youell
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 12:37 PM

To UGL,
Many threads take new directions as the conversation develops. Just as in face to face conversation. New thoughts are often quite interesting, even if they are not exactly about the original post.

So, I wouldn't criticise David Eldridge so harshly for not sticking with the original topic.

Secondly, I will defend your right to use any handle or pseydonym you like on line, but understand that many of us will listen much more attentively to posts that come from people who stand up and identify themselves. When I read a post from Richard Kaufman, Max Maven, George Olson, Stan Kramien, David Eldridge, I know these guys personally or by reputation.

UGL is a totally unknown commodity to me.

Dennis Loomis
www.mindspring.com/~deloomis
925-586-4447
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 01:00 PM

Steven, I see where you are coming from. My first reply was an answer to the original post by David Eldridge. I answered HIS question if it was ok to PERFORM somebody elses creation just because you back engineered it. I didnt think many magicians came up with methods/effects for the mirror only. But I was proven wrong by you. I am sorry that I didnt put the word "perform" in my original post. I thought it would have been self explanatory. As for being rude and condescending, I feel that i wasnt. Yes at some points it seemed like that, and i apologize, but for the most I was simply stating facts. If you want to see some real rude behaivor, check out the other thread "Re Seal or Re Pop". They bring up wives and lawyers!

As for Dennis, yes i do have the right to pick a psedonym or abbrieviation. I could also put a name there which really isnt my name at all. Facts are facts and opinions are opinions.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/31/02 01:35 PM

To UGL,

Fine, you are within your rights. Just remember that most reasonable people (in my opinion) will give far more credence to opinions which come from someone who is willing to stand up and identify themself.

And, if I may, just a word of advice about what you post on the Forum. More light and less heat will be appreciated by all.
Guest
 

Postby Ruben Padilla » 05/31/02 10:42 PM

I think UGL doesn't want to give out his real name because somebody might steal it.

If I may, allow me to state once and for all, to all those who read this post, now and forever, please do not steal any magic (effect or method)that I perform for you or in your presence without my explicit verbal or written permission.

There. That'll solve the problem, right?
Visit www.MagiciansOnly.com for exclusive book, trick, DVD, & convention reviews!
User avatar
Ruben Padilla
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 01/20/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby TheDean. » 06/01/02 01:23 PM

Dennis, my brother!

The voice of intelligent reason... gotta' love it!

Thanks my friend for bringing "what's RIGHT" to light!

I am, as always, at your service,
TheDean - Rev Deano

Edited to take my name OFF the mailing list...
TheDean.
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04/19/08 01:19 AM

Postby Pete Biro » 06/03/02 10:11 PM

Just back from Kramien's in Portland area and had a ball... great place, great audiences, ambience, and fun fun fun...

Anyway, Dennis Loomis... the reason the Origami box guy (I forget his name) was "called" was because Steinmeyer ASKED someone to call the dealer on it.

I agree about the ripoff guys getting away with it, that's whay I don't buy from Bob Little, Tannen, etc...

Matter of fact, we threw Little out of Terry Seabrooke's lecture because he had ripped off Ken Brook's material.

Sadly, it is such small potatoes (the amount of money many tricks command) that it is not worth the cost of real litigation.

I had always hoped the MDA would have policed things.

Look at the millions of tricks sold that were ripped... Brain Wave Decks, Rope routines, you name it.

Anyway, am tired, flights were nice but after any convention, little sleep, etc. it takes a few days to get back into the swing...

Hope all is good with you.
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Guest » 06/03/02 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
I had always hoped the MDA would have policed things.
You mean when they're not busy with the Jerry Lewis Telethon?
Guest
 

Postby TheDean. » 06/04/02 01:32 PM

HA! HeHeHehe!

Gotta' love that humor thing!
TheDean.
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04/19/08 01:19 AM

Postby Guest » 06/04/02 01:58 PM

"Anyway, Dennis Loomis... the reason the Origami box guy (I forget his name) was "called" was because Steinmeyer ASKED someone to call the dealer on it." Pete Biro

I understand, Pete. And you also had Jonathon Pendragon wanting something to be done.

However, my point still stands unaddressed. You "pressured" (your own word) Jeff Davis to remove the Origami box from his display. He says that he was told that if he wouldn't remove it the convention "honcho's" said he would have to take down his entire display.

While I agree that what Jeff was doing was almost certainly unethical, there are serious LEGAL issues here. He maintains, and I can at least see his point, that what was done constituted unfair trade practice and was in violation of Restraint of Trade regulations. The concept is quite simple: In our open market economy, if someone is selling something which is not legally protected, another individual or corporation may not intefer with the unfettered practice of commerce. If they do, a law suit can be brought and damages awarded if the suit prevails.

What I had hoped to hear you say, was that there was something in the contracts that dealers signed at that convention that gave the convention organizers the right to restrict or ban sales of any merchandise which is considered to be the property of the creator in the opinion of the officers of the I.B.M.

Pete, we are in agreement that the rip offs are not right. But I truly wish that you guys had made a pass around the dealers room and taken a look at other merchandise which might have violated proprietary rights. If would have been fair, of course, and would have helped in court if Jeff had filed that suit.

This is all "history" of course. But the problems remain. I bring it up in the hopes that convention planners and producers will think a bit about whether or not they want to try to back up proprietary rights claims. The Origami Box is kind of a no-brainer. We all know the Jim S. created it. But there are far murkier waters out there.

I'm still concerned about how the world of magic in general decides what is and what is not in the public domain.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 06/04/02 05:16 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that if a person can walk into Barnes & Noble or Borders, and buy a book on magic, the tricks in that book are public domain. After all the public does have access to those tricks. This does not include books bought in a MAGIC SHOP, however. I am refering only to books that can be found in main stream book stores. The difference is that the books in main stream book stores are , and have been around for many years. The books in a magic shop are usually the work of individuals. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and I don't want to hear any nit-picking. This is a GENERAL rule.
Guest
 

Postby John LeBlanc » 06/04/02 05:33 PM

Originally posted by David Eldridge:
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that if a person can walk into Barnes & Noble or Borders, and buy a book on magic, the tricks in that book are public domain. After all the public does have access to those tricks. This does not include books bought in a MAGIC SHOP, however. I am refering only to books that can be found in main stream book stores. The difference is that the books in main stream book stores are , and have been around for many years. The books in a magic shop are usually the work of individuals. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and I don't want to hear any nit-picking. This is a GENERAL rule.
I'm glad you appended that "general rule" clause on there, but it still doesn't wash for me.

That a book on magic may be purchased in B&N does not necessarily mean the tricks inside are public domain. It means they are publicly available, but that's quite different from "public domain".

I really hate when "legal" and "ethical" are found in the same paragraph when dealing with magic. If ethics were considered half as much as the legal aspect of all of this were, no one would ever need to discuss legalities to begin with.

John LeBlanc
Houston, TX
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Richard Kaufman » 06/04/02 05:37 PM

First, I think Dennis Loomis' post was a very good one. It is true that certain people get singled out for stealing while many others do not. Ripping off other people's effects has a been a mainstay of dealers in our happy hobby for over 100 years. Some dealers, BIG names, just stop ordering an item, photocopy the instructions, and make their own cheaper versions and sell that. It still happens all the time. That's why most people in our field think a lot of magic dealers are slime balls.
Second, I think David Eldridge has acquited himself well in this thread, however I have to disagree with the last thing he posted, where he states that any trick in a book sold in a public bookstore is now public domain. There are several different issues here, but the most obvious one is between books that are written for the public and sold to the public, and books that have been written for magicians, fallen into legal public domain, and are now being sold to the public. Do we say that all the material in books that Dover has published, such as Expert Card Technique, Bobo's Modern Coin Magic, and others are now public domain in that anyone can just take the material and do what they wish with it? I sure as hell hope not. Have some decency. Now let's take a different example: Harry Lorayne's "The Magic Book." There are items in that book which most definitely are credited to, and belong, to certain individuals. Just because the book was written for the public does not in any sense mean that these tricks are now free for the picking.
There are most definitely certain tricks and routines that are fair game to be re-taught to the public in different forms, but stuff that belongs to specific people, and material that was written for those of us in the field, are not among those items.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20658
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 06/04/02 05:53 PM

Ok, I see your points. So far, however, no one has given their opinion as to what is and what is not "public domain". It would seem to me that everyone would have a different answer for that.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 06/04/02 05:55 PM

Thanks, Richard for the kind words. I agree totally with your last comments.

I still am just itching to see we can figure out something that can be done about all of the rip-offs. Clearly we don't have much legal protection available. And, we still have no standards set up to help us decide what belongs to all of us in magic and what effects have proprietary rights.

But is there anything the I.B.M., S.A.M., the Magic Dealers Association, and the major magic magazines can do to enforce some standard of ethical behavior in our art?
Guest
 

Postby John LeBlanc » 06/04/02 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Dennis Loomis:

I still am just itching to see we can figure out something that can be done about all of the rip-offs. Clearly we don't have much legal protection available. And, we still have no standards set up to help us decide what belongs to all of us in magic and what effects have proprietary rights.

But is there anything the I.B.M., S.A.M., the Magic Dealers Association, and the major magic magazines can do to enforce some standard of ethical behavior in our art?
"Can do"? For pity's sake. This reminds me a lot of the current debate about enacting "hate crimes" legislation.

Pardon me, but if someone kicks the living crap out of me on the street, that's a hate crime, whether I am straight, gay, green, or Venusian. The problem isn't new laws and rules and such, it's finding the desire to enforce those laws that are already on the books.

I did a quick Google search of IBM, SAM and ethics. Among some of the amusing (disturbing) finds, comes this from my beloved TAOM:

The I.B.M. and S.A.M. have created a joint Code of Ethics that is good to use a guideline for dealers. It is as follows:

The members agree to the following:

1) Oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion.

2) Display ethical behavior in the presentation of magic to the public and in our conduct as magicians, including not interfering with or jeopardizing the performance of another magician either through personal intervention or the unauthorized use of another's creation.

3) Recognize and respect for rights of the creators, inventors, authors, and owners of magic concepts, presentations, effects and literature, and their rights to have exclusive use of, or to grant permission for the use by others of such creations.

4) Discourage false or misleading statements in the advertising of effects, and literature, merchandise or actions pertaining to the magical arts.

5) Discourage advertisement in magic publications for any magical apparatus, effect, literature or other materials for which the advertiser does not have commercial rights.

6) Promote the humane treatment and care of livestock used in magical performances.
Sounds like a wonderful start, if someone would kindly apply it to this relatively tiny world of magic and magicians.

In the sewer pit that is alt.magic, I've had a tendency to come down like a load of bricks when it comes to piracy and other unethical behavior -- especially purpetrated by those who would otherwise claim to love and respect the art of magic. Talk about your cries in the wilderness.

I firmly believe it takes two things: a core group of people willing to decide to act on cases of unethical and harmful behavior, as outlined above. (That happened right here dealing with the former human being I used to know as "Steve Fearson"). And it takes a reaffirmation from I.B.M. and S.A.M. to enforce the rules.

I'm of the mind that education would go a long, long way. Maybe it's the eternal optimist in me, but I'd just prefer to think that most people are decent and act untoward because they are ignorant of what you and I largely take for granted: a relatively significant knowledge of the background of magic. I learned Card Warp from a local magician and it was a year before I learned it was a Roy Walton trick I should have bought. (I did, and I still have that manuscript.) Given the instant access to loads of magic (Jon and I have traded email over this one several times), there is a natural tendency to devalue the riches found. Education, I think, could help turn that tide.

Well, that's how I feel about it. I've been accused of living in Disneyland before. Maybe so. <g>

John LeBlanc
Houston, TX
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Pete Biro » 06/04/02 07:05 PM

Dennis... it would be great if the IBM and/or any organization putting on a convention had a dealer committee with the strength to enforce things and even better if their ethics committees A: Knew anything and B: Would do something.

Until that happens we are all screwed.
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Guest » 06/04/02 08:08 PM

Pete,

I fear you've succinctly stated the case.
Guest
 

Postby Mr. Stickley » 06/04/02 08:57 PM

Hi there.

I must say I read this thread with devious amusement. It's amazing what people shall post when it comes to their ideas of what is what. Before you weekend philosophers out there get a headache or nosebleed from thinking about this issue too much, why not educate yourself before you flap the digits. I suggest you red "Protecting your #1 Asset" by Michael A. Lechter. Here are the rules the "Real World" goes by. Maybe our community should get a clue?

Keith Stickley
Mr. Stickley
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 03/14/08 07:05 PM

Postby Carl Mercurio » 06/05/02 02:35 PM

Sorry to be joining this thread so late. Lorayne tells a story that Ed Marlo had what Lorayne calls a kind-of wierd morality. That if you showed Marlo something, but didn't tip it, and he could figure it out, Marlo had no problem using it and even publishing it and claiming credit. Any truth to this?
Carl Mercurio
 
Posts: 504
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: New York

Postby Curtis Kam » 06/05/02 04:23 PM

At the risk of taking this debate in (yet another) another direction, I am genuinely curious about this:

Does anyone recognize a diference between "reverse engineering" a magical effect (where the methodology is supposedly secret, and therefore exclusive)and applying the same technique to a Juggling move, (where, supposedly, there is no secret)

In particular, I'm thinking of the magicians who have taught themselves Michael Moshen's crystal ball manipulation sequence, and in particular the book "contact juggling" that attempts to teach the techniques without credit to Mr. Moshen.

Do jugglers have these discussions on their boards?

I have debated the matter concerning the crystal ball, and the "playing the keyboard while bounce juggling" stunt. In your opinion, can a juggler consider himself ripped off if someone else can do what he does?
Curtis Kam
 
Posts: 455
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Waikiki

Next

Return to General