Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Who's the major distributor of this item? Whoever it is, upon notification that it is Roy Walton's trick "Cascade," that distributor should stop selling it immediately. "Cascade" is a marketed item, and not published in any book.
Murphy's is the major distributor and they certainly have the resources to do a background check on the products they sell.
It's been mentioned before and is appropriate here, but companies such as Murphy's are in a rush to get the "latest and greatest" out to the market and make money that there is little to no regard for who created what.
This effect is a perfect example of not caring about who the originator is - we just want to make the $$$!
This is not a slam against Murphy's or Genii, but at what point does someone say - this is wrong, this effect belongs to "so and so" and we are not going to market it or advertise it. Mr. Kaufman has said several times on this forum it's not up to the magazines to research every advertiser and their product. OK, understandable, to a point, but if it's just left to the person marketing what they feel is an original effect to do the research, then what (aside from good ethics) is stopping anyone from marketing anything and everything that doesn't belong to me?
If this effect is indeed identical to Roy Walton's effect, would Murphy's ever say "we were mislead and are not going to distribute this effect anymore?"
If Murphy's took out a full page ad in Genii or Magic for this effect, would either publisher, knowing that this effect was taken from Walton, deny the ad from appearing?
These debates should be brought to the attention of everyone on forums such as these, but at some point, the publishers of popular literature and distributors need to be accountable - especially if they have the resources and are knowledgeable.