Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Copying

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/24/11 02:24 AM

You gotta love this: wholesale copying of MagicPedia by this guy onto his wiki:
http://illusionwiki.com/Main_Page
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 19988
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby BlueEyed Videot » 05/24/11 07:30 AM

And begging for donations? Isn't that fraud? And theft of copyright. Not to mention sheer wankery?

I can't fathom someone being that stupid or that dishonorable. Did they not think they were going to get caught?
User avatar
BlueEyed Videot
 
Posts: 203
Joined: 05/17/08 08:19 PM
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/24/11 08:17 AM

MagicPedia follows the Wikipedia model, to share and share alike. Anyone can copy as long as they give attribution and allow other to copy their stuff.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/25/11 01:55 PM

I had been trying via his wiki to ask what he plans to do with all the MagicPedia pages he bulk imported, but he just banned me from his site without any reason.

Oh well.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Dave Klaiber » 05/25/11 02:09 PM

Joe, I guess the result you received on your inquiry may provide us with an insight into the type of person that is running that site.
User avatar
Dave Klaiber
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 02/02/08 01:00 PM
Location: Space Coast, Florida

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/25/11 02:16 PM

Dave Klaiber wrote:Joe, I guess the result you received on your inquiry may provide us with an insight into the type of person that is running that site.


Yes, it will definitely factor into my consideration with respect to purchasing anything from his "Illusions Illuminated" store.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/25/11 02:25 PM

Just to show you the depth of his copying (these were all exported directly from MagicPedia): http://illusionwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=import&month=&year=
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/25/11 03:57 PM

Since he blocked me for "anti-collaborative behavior" and can't respond to his statements he left on his wiki. I'd like to state that I'm not against the sharing of MagicPedia content.

I was hoping to coordinate a way that we could both exist to benefit the small magic community at large, without any duplication. I even showed him an example of how we could link our two wikis together. But apparently it seems he would rather just start with a duplicate of MagicPedia and proceed from there.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Bob Farmer » 05/25/11 05:26 PM

Richard should file a takedown notice under the DMCA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Cop ... tation_Act

You file this with the ISP. It's really easy and they will shut this guy down.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 05:36 AM

Since he figured out how to use a bulk import function to continue to suck in the rest of MagicPedia articles, it preserves the username of the last person that edited the article. Thus my username is now showing that I've been banned but have contributed over 2,000 articles on HIS wiki: http://illusionwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Jpecore

And, if you click on my username, you don't go to my userpage on MagicPedia, you go to my userpage on his wiki which he added the following (my emphasis added):

"Jpecore is a major contributor to MagicPedia. The pages he worked on at MagicPedia have been copied to IllusionWiki, which is why one will see his username attributed to many of the articles listed on this site. Despite his wishes that we not reproduce the articles on IllusionWiki, we have done so anyway. We aren't sure why he doesn't want MagicPedia's articles on IllusionWiki, but hope he realizes that the intention of both MagicPedia and IllusionWiki is to freely share magic related information with fellow magicians and the interested public.-Administration "


So in summary, rather then work with someone who contributed so much to an existing magic wiki to discuss why having duplicate magic related wikis is a bad idea, he bans him for "anti-collaborative behavior" and does whatever he wishes.

I imagine he plans to add a similar message for the over 1,500 other MagicPedia registered users.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby mrgoat » 05/26/11 08:03 AM

Bob Farmer wrote:It's really easy and they will shut this guy down.


Shut him down for taking a creative commons work and doing what creative commons allows you to do?
mrgoat
 
Posts: 3886
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/26/11 10:26 AM

Damian/Goat is correct.

The Creative Commons license used by the Magicpedia explicitly allows/encourages this sort of thing. (Same license is also used by Wikipedia which has no problem with people copying/remixing or otherwise using their content)

The following licensing information is in the footer of every page of the magicpedia.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License

You are free:

to Share to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Share Alike If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.


From what I can see, this guy has followed the licensing terms as required by providing attribution and allowing his wiki to fall under the same license.

So (aside from the fact that some don't like it) I'm not sure what he's done wrong here.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 05/26/11 11:38 AM

While it's tempting to update the Edge Grip section on the magipedia with items including use of Platt's Blackout, the EG2EG switch, HPC out of and into EG it also seems like we're entering into deliberate exposure.

Not sure what to think of the situation,

Jon
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6530
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 11:54 AM

Chris Aguilar wrote: So (aside from the fact that some don't like it) I'm not sure what he's done wrong here.

A wiki is a website that encourages everyone to contribute and make updates.

Does the magic community really need two magic related wikis, with basically the same information?

Do we really need to drive a wedge in the small group of magicians who are trying to add useful historical information for current and future magicians, making them decide which wiki to do their work (or both)?

I guess my biggest beef is that he cut off communications by banning me from his wiki during my attempt to try and come up with a solution that would hopefully benifit the magic community at large, by working together.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 12:01 PM

Jonathan Townsend wrote:While it's tempting to update the Edge Grip section on the magipedia with items including use of Platt's Blackout, the EG2EG switch, HPC out of and into EG it also seems like we're entering into deliberate exposure.

Not sure what to think of the situation,

Jon


Now Jon has expressed a capability that MagicPedia does not have that would be a great benifit to the community.

It would be great if someome stood up a password protected magic-related wiki in which only users that have gained access could view and edit.

I'd gladly work with anyone that develops such a wiki by putting links in MagicPedia going directly to this Secret wiki, where users could then go into more depth about the actual moves without fear of public exposure.
Last edited by Joe Pecore on 12/31/69 08:00 PM, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: grammer
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/26/11 12:04 PM

Joe Pecore wrote:Does the magic community really need two magic related wikis, with basically the same information?

That's not really your call to make. Especially under the creative commons 'sharealike" license you've been using.

In the open source community, projects "fork", or split off from the main branch, all the time. They normally do that by taking the whole code base (all the data), mirroring it somewhere else and then going from there. In other words, pretty much what this guy is doing. It's not uncommon or seen as a bad thing. The license (as used on magicpedia) clearly allows for this.


Do we really need to drive a wedge in the small group of magicians who are trying to add useful historical information for current and future magicians, making them decide which wiki to do their work (or both)?
I think you're assuming a lot there.

If he (or his contributors) add unique content to his website, you could return the favor and import his articles, thus keeping that synchronization you oddly seem to feel necessary.

Having one's code/data mirrored under such an open source license also has the benefit that if one site is down or goes offline permanently, the data remains available via the mirrored sites.

I guess my biggest beef is that he cut off communications by banning me from his wiki during my attempt to try and come up with a solution that would hopefully benifit the magic community at large, by working together.

It sounds cold, but under the license you freely chose to use, your feelings don't really come into it.

Aside from attribution (which he is giving you) and keeping the same license for his site, he's under no onus to provide you with warm fuzzies or to work with you in any way.

Are we really supposed to sympathize when you give someone explicit permission to do a thing and then get angry when they go ahead and do it?
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 12:50 PM

Can't disagree with much you are saying Chris, as long as he abides by the licences. I've basically said the same thing as you in my first post to this thread.

Not asking for sympathy. Was just hoping for a little common decency and open discussion to hopefully better our little magic community.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Bob Farmer » 05/26/11 12:59 PM

If he's taken content that Richard has created or others have created, then he has stolen copyrighted material and you can take him down.
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/26/11 01:24 PM

The open source license being used by magicpedia seems really clear on this..

Even Joe P. agrees. This is how such open source "viral" licenses operate. There's no infringement when copying is explicitly allowed by license as in this case.

Wikipedia operates the same exact way, under the same exact license, even offering full downloads of their site for those who want it for whatever reason.

Here's the longer legalese of the license used by magicpedia.

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

A. to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;

B. to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked "The original work was translated from English to Spanish," or a modification could indicate "The original work has been modified.";

C. to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,

D. to Distribute and Publicly Perform Adaptations.


This is why it's not good to use open source licenses unless one is fully cognizant of their ramifications.

Joe P. can hope that someone using the license will work with him, but under the license chosen for magicpedia, he has no real expectation in that regard. In the open source world, these "forks" of information often include little or no communications/collaboration of this type. It's just not that unusual.

If the creator of magicpedia wanted/needed more control over distribution of its content, that person should certainly have chosen a less permissive license.

If RK got this site taken down, all he would have to do is file a DMCA counter-claim and the material would go right back up.

With the licensing being so clear, it seems to me that such counter claim would probably be honored.

If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 04:01 PM

From my understanding, attribution should be clearly labeled on each article/page that is copied (not just in some general comment on some user's page). So it might be debatable if it is in compliance at the moment.


I have to confess though, not being a lawyer, I don't quite understand the counter claim argument.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/26/11 04:22 PM

Joe,

Short version is this:

File a DMCA take down note, and he can easily file a counter note forcing you (within 10-14 days) to either take formal legal action or allow the content to be re-posted.

Due to the very permissive and clear nature of the open source "sharealike" license you're using on Magicpedia, it's a good bet that any counter DMCA note by him would be taken seriously.

If it gets that far (his counter note potentially forcing legal action) and the original DMCA filer (you or RK) doesn't prevail, that person can be held liable for legal damages to the owner of the site that got taken down.

I guess it's a question as to whether or not it's worth going to court over what clearly seems to be valid licensed use of said material.


I'm surprised that it seems that this possibility / eventuality of others using the material as per the license was not addressed prior to creation of the the magicpedia.

I'm pretty sure the standard of attribution you posit could be easily fulfilled by him (he could simply link to your name for the footer which shown on every page/article). I'm also pretty certain that he could make a case that he's already given you attribution (the page linked to your name, your name linked to the relevant articles)

I'm not a lawyer either, but the information is all there (in a reasonably clear manner) in both the DMCA and the Creative Commons license.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 05:38 PM

I wish him well.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/26/11 06:06 PM

Joe,

One thing you might want to look into is that is sure looks like you've got magicpedia covered under two very similar (but not the same) licenses.
This one.

and this other one.

Might be a good idea to go with one license only to deflect confusion.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 07:09 PM

Thanks. Never noticed that before.

Just to be clear, its not my MagicPedia. I'm just a frequent contributor (that helps WebMaster Brad out with Administration duties from time to time) that enjoys sharing the knowledge and history of magic.

Whatever the policy or legality, it still seems to me that copying someones entire wiki, without once coordinating or discussing with the contributors, is an unethical thing to do. Especially if you are going to allow editing which will fork off a version of the text.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/26/11 08:05 PM

Joe,

I'm still unsure as to why you feel that fellow has some special ethical obligation beyond what the license requires to work with you.

How can it be a matter of ethics on his part when the license used on magicpedia was designed for exactly that kind of sharing. Mirroring/forking/using data licensed that way is de rigueur with open source projects.

People use information copied directly off wikipedia to build derivative wikis or websites all the time and the wikipedia guys are fine with that. I think magicpedia would have gotten off to a lot better start if whoever set it up had mirrored the magic material from the wikipedia and then built off of that. Such use is not only legal, it's par for the course.

I'm not sure why contributors to magicpedia (using the same license) would expect any special treatment in that regard.

I really respect all the work you've put in to magicpedia, but if you need/want more control of your work, or if it upsets you that people don't take special considerations for you, I'd strongly suggest not contributing to open source licensed projects.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 09:01 PM

I don't know. I guess that's why they call it ethics. It just feels like the right thing to do to me.

I'm fully aware of the double edge sword that comes with open source projects and will continue to support them, even though I may not always be happy with how they all turn out. I've not seen a better alternative.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Seuss » 05/26/11 09:52 PM

Seems like he already set up the secrets wiki some suggested.

http://secrets.illusionwiki.com
Genii Lifetime Subscriber
Co-host Magic On the Side
User avatar
Seuss
 
Posts: 431
Joined: 07/15/09 01:04 AM
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/26/11 10:13 PM

I'm sure I'm not allowed on there either.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/27/11 12:19 AM

It's not "infringement" because it's open source, but it pisses me off that I spend the money to set something up and maintain it, and my friends spend a lot of time filling it with material, and some dumb-ass turkey just swipes all of it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 19988
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/27/11 01:52 AM

I agree. Starting up a wiki page on a specific topic and upon discovering another one already exists, decide to copy over all their pages (in the name of sharing) just does not seem to have any redeeming qualities.

Come up with something original.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/27/11 01:57 AM

Seuss wrote:Seems like he already set up the secrets wiki some suggested. http://secrets.illusionwiki.com


Hmmm, where have I've seen that logo on that website before. Especially the little red one with the "S" in the middle..... oh yeah: http://thesecret.tv/

Not very original there either.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby the Larry » 05/27/11 05:33 AM

Come on guys, it's not like MagicPedia is this unique resource where all that unique contents has been created. Most of what I see there is copied from other places (books, websites) and my guess would be that permission has not been sought for every piece used.
the Larry
 
Posts: 200
Joined: 12/28/08 08:43 AM

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/27/11 06:13 AM

the Larry wrote:...it's not like MagicPedia is this unique resource where all that unique contents has been created...


True. It's an encyclopedia, trying to capture all aspects of the particular topic Magic.
Last edited by Joe Pecore on 12/31/69 08:00 PM, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: grammer
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby mrgoat » 05/27/11 09:27 AM

Joe Pecore wrote:Whatever the policy or legality, it still seems to me that copying someones entire wiki, without once coordinating or discussing with the contributors, is an unethical thing to do. Especially if you are going to allow editing which will fork off a version of the text.



No, it is not in the LEAST unethical. The work is published under Creative Commons. It is INTENDED to be used by other people.

Otherwise, stop it being Creative Commons and sue people that steal it.

VERY VERY simple and clear.
mrgoat
 
Posts: 3886
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby mrgoat » 05/27/11 09:28 AM

Richard Kaufman wrote:It's not "infringement" because it's open source, but it pisses me off that I spend the money to set something up and maintain it, and my friends spend a lot of time filling it with material, and some dumb-ass turkey just swipes all of it.


Stop it being Creative Commons then.

This really is astoundingly simple.

It's like having a sign on some oranges at the end of your garden saying PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TAKE THESE ORANGES and then moaning when someone takes one.
mrgoat
 
Posts: 3886
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Joe Pecore » 05/27/11 10:18 AM

Yes, that is the double edge sword of open source. You hope every will use it for the common good.

I know as a contributor that I'm guaranteed by the license that if there ever was a dispute with the other collaborators on the direction of MagicPedia, I could fork off a version. But I personally wouldn't do that until I discussed it with them to see what the best arrangement could be. Or if wanted to make a mirror of it over in AskAlexander where users could feel free to discuss more of the secrets.

I still don't see the value to the magic community in having two similar uncoordinated magic related wikis.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.
User avatar
Joe Pecore
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby mrgoat » 05/27/11 10:32 AM

Joe Pecore wrote:I still don't see the value to the magic community in having two similar uncoordinated magic related wikis.


It doesn't really matter whether of not you can see the point. The original is Creative Commons.

If you want to stop people copying it, change it to c. 2011 WHOEVER. Job done. End of problem.

Unless I'm missing something?
mrgoat
 
Posts: 3886
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Brighton, UK

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 05/27/11 10:32 AM

It reads as if we're back to the old "What is the good" question.

What's good for the rabbit might not be good for the stew or Stew.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6530
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/27/11 11:15 AM

Joe (or any contributor though there doesn't seem to be many others) gave up the right to have his feelings considered the moment he contributed under what is clearly entitled the "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)" or the current "GNU Free Documentation License".

I notice that the creative commons licensing text has been removed from magicpedia. However, GNU Free Documentation License page still exists on magicpedia which is every bit (and perhaps even more) permissive than the creative commons license.

It's like having a sign on some oranges at the end of your garden saying PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TAKE THESE ORANGES and then moaning when someone takes one.

Spot on.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Postby Chris Aguilar » 05/27/11 11:24 AM

And some potential upside here.

If that fellow creates any unique content (secretpedia), Joe or any other Magicpedia contributor is free (thanks to the license)to return the favor and import his articles into magicpedia.

Contrary to what I noted earlier, having both the the creative commons and the gnu license available (dual licensing) is generally a good way to go. (it's what wikipedia does. Removing one or both can severely limit what can be imported into one's wiki from other sources.
Chris Aguilar
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Sacramento

Next

Return to Buzz