"Ultimate Backflip"

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Charlie Chang » 08/12/03 03:07 PM

I just read a description of this trick in the current L&L Catalogue. It describes EXACTLY the same sequence of events as Roy Walton's "Cascade".

If anyone has seen this and is also familiar with the Walton routine - I'd love to hear about it.

Paul.
Charlie Chang
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Guest » 08/12/03 04:00 PM

This page has a video demo of the routine:

http://www.magicproshop.com/videodemos.php

and yes, it's (virtually) identical to Cascade.

harumph :confused:
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/12/03 10:16 PM

Paul.
You are both right it is Cascade, the identical
routine. Coincidently I was just practicing Cascade while watching t.v , but cannot see any advantage to buying Ultimate Backflip. I have a packet trick somwhere that is called ultimate backflips and I believe the routine is as follows, 4 cards turn facedown one at a time and when finished the backs are displayed and seen to be all different than the ones seen when they were turned over individually.
Rennie
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/12/03 11:14 PM

I'm not in the magic business but over the years I've seen this over and over again, a 'new trick' actually being a reproduction of anothers routine or effect. Why is something like this actually making it to the magic market place? I can see that perhaps someone may think they created a piece of magic but before it goes into production and into the distribution system you would think someone would say "been done before" and at least make sure permission was received from the originator before release. Is the business side of magic just full of back stabbers and cheats (not refering to misguided 'creators') or it is just that some don't care?
Steve V
Guest
 

Postby Ricky Difeo » 08/13/03 05:00 AM

[Roy Walton's "Cascade".

If anyone has seen this and is also familiar with the Walton routine - I'd love to hear about it.

Paul. [/QB][/QUOTE]

:D
Ricky Difeo
 
Posts: 166
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: La Plata - Buenos Aires - Argentina

Postby Ricky Difeo » 08/13/03 05:02 AM

Hello Paul!

To my I like the magic of Roy Walton, and I have The Complete Walton 1 & 2, and Times Five 5 x5 Scotland, but in none of those books is the effect Cascade. In that book there is also very good your games.

If you can inform me in that I liberate of Walton or yours can find it.

Thank you. Pardon for my english.-
Ricardo Difeo - Buenos Aires - Argentina
Ricky Difeo
 
Posts: 166
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: La Plata - Buenos Aires - Argentina

Postby Guest » 08/13/03 06:25 AM

Ricardo,
I do not believe Cascade is in print anywhere, it is a packet trick that came out a few years back by Roy Walton.The effect is the same as Ultimate Backflip as stated.Have to agree with Steve V. about copying someone else.
Rennie
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/13/03 08:32 AM

Ok, who exactly has the responsibility to make sure they're not marketing a routine belonging to another?

Do we put the onus purely on the creator or do we assign any kind of reponsibility to the publisher?

I believe the creator should do his/her homework and research before submitting a potentially infringing routine, but I'm not sure if the publisher should be expected to do "background checks" on all material submitted to them. Perhaps we should have a standard list of very knowledgable folks willing to volunteer their expertise in these matters that creators/publishers could consult.

I know some folks already kindly volunteer their expertise in these matters, but the lack of a formalized way of checking seems to be a hindrance in some instances.

________________________________________________________
www.conjurenation.com - 'Cards Only' Forums
Guest
 

Postby Jeff Eline » 08/13/03 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Chris Aguilar:

I believe the creator should do his/her homework and research before submitting a potentially infringing routine, but I'm not sure if the publisher should be expected to do "background checks" on all material submitted to them.
I disagree. If the publisher is putting his (or her) name on the product and making money on it, then its their responsibility too.

In other areas, this applies. If a newspaper ran a fabricated news story - the reporter and the paper take the blame!

Just my thoughts,
Jason Blair
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby Guest » 08/13/03 12:06 PM

Ah Jason, Note I said "I'm not sure". My statement was thrown out there to gauge what level of responsibility a publishing house should have compared to the author. Should they be the ones primarily responsible for checking on these things or should they be a final "safety net" for authors not performing due diligence when researching the pedigree of their material?

In an ideal situation, the publisher wouldn't have to research every effect that comes their way. The author would have already done their homework and would not even submit it unless it passed muster.

I know if I were a publisher, I wouldn't take any material without knowing its provenance. If a publisher does take and sell material without making any effort to validate its pedigree than you are correct in that they should share some degree of responsibility. So I guess we more or less in agreement. :)

_______________________________________________________
www.conjurenation.com - 'Cards Only' Forums'
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/13/03 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Eline:


Just my thoughts,
Jason Blair
Ha! Glad I caught that...

CW
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/13/03 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Eline:
I disagree. If the publisher is putting his (or her) name on the product and making money on it, then its their responsibility too.
How does the publisher fulfill this responsibility? In the subject case, the infringed trick was a marketed packet trick. The only way that "Mr. L&L" (or whoever) could know would be if he owned the trick (since we're not supposed to pass on secrets/methods to those who haven't paid for them). Is a magic publisher obligated to own everything that has been released to date, so he can know if new products step on the toes of previous inventors?



In other areas, this applies. If a newspaper ran a fabricated news story - the reporter and the paper take the blame!
Different situation -- a fabrication is a concious act of commission, while independent invention of a magic trick is an act of ignorance or omission.
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/13/03 05:08 PM

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.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Jeff Eline » 08/13/03 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
How does the publisher fulfill this responsibility?
The individuals involved with these companies have many resources at their disposal to do a little research to check the originality of an effect. Vast libraries and a large rolodex would solve most of these problems. Hey, a quick call or email to Paul Wilson would have stopped this trick being marketed.

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
Different situation -- a fabrication is a concious act of commission, while independent invention of a magic trick is an act of ignorance or omission.
Yes and no. I agree that there may be no intent to steal from Mr. Walton. However, that doesn't relieve the parties of the responsibility of checking before you spend the time, money and effort to market a trick.

The real test comes now that this has been brought to light. Does it stop?
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby Guest » 08/13/03 09:56 PM

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.
Guest
 

Postby Jeff Eline » 08/14/03 07:36 AM

I have agreed with Richard in regards to his obligation to check every piece of advertising for theft. It's just not feasible.

Going back to the NY Times analogy, it's unreasonable to expect any newspaper to check every single product in every little ad for honesty, error or ommisions.

However, in this example, I'm interested to see how this will play out. It seems obvious that this is a rip-off (intentional or not). Will Murphy continue to sell it? Would Genii (or any publication) continue to carry ads for it?
Jeff Eline
 
Posts: 647
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby Guest » 08/14/03 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Eline:
The individuals involved with these companies have many resources at their disposal to do a little research to check the originality of an effect. Vast libraries and a large rolodex would solve most of these problems.
Vast libraries? Where? Suppose I invent a trick -- I can check my smallish (couple hundred volumes) library. Where do I go to check the rest of the literature? Where do I go to check the instructions of all the tricks that have been marketed?

You say "a little research". How do you know Murphy's didn't do a little research? In this case, maybe a lot of research is required.


Hey, a quick call or email to Paul Wilson would have stopped this trick being marketed.
Sure it would have. But the key would have been knowing to call Paul, instead of [insert any of hundreds of other names here]. If you call ten knowledgeable magicians, and none of them know a precedent, is that enough? Particularly if the 11th name would have known?

My point is that the body of magical literature is secretive. And doing research in any efficient manner depends on openness. I can go to the technical library at the army base I work at and look something up because information has been widely disseminated and cross-indexed. But there are no central repositories of magic information, and there are no open ways to search. There are a number of well-read magicians out there who could help, but they didn't get to be so knowledgeable by answering every damfool question from someone who thinks he has got a new sandwich trick. Personally, I'd rather Max Maven spent his time on more creative pursuits than consulting with Murphy's on the pedigree of packet tricks (although if the good Mr. Maven wants to do so, let him have at it -- he has been helpful to me in the past).
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/14/03 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Eline:
It seems obvious that this is a rip-off (intentional or not).
"Rip-off" is kind of a pejorative term, carrying a little connotation of intent to steal. If it was in fact unintentional, I don't think it is fair to call it a rip-off.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/14/03 06:18 PM

The well-read gang seem to be available, respectful of other's secrets, and many of them are online.

I don't understand why and how some works get labeled 'original' or 'ultimate'. A personal variation is not the same as a 'novel' or 'original' creation. It is very rare indeed that something becomes the 'ultimate' in anything.

It is especially awkward to read 'original' takes on routines that have been published long ago by the inventor, and which offer little percievable advantage over the original as published.

Sam Schwartz's 'Back Flip' is a good trick and probably is due for some variations. Sam is a good guy and he likes good card tricks. I saw a video of the new routine and would prefer to leave comment to Mr Schwartz. I have no interest in doing the trick.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/15/03 12:21 PM

Scott, I think you are absolutely wrong.

Many many magic books, tricks, videos, and DVDs come out daily and if the shops, distributors, etc. had to research each item we'd be out of business, magic creators would never get anything released, etc. Imagine, as an example, if every Kmart, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. had to research every item to ensure no patent violations were being infringed upon, etc. There are also many "unknowns"... questions of who's item something really is and I don't think any shop, distributor, etc. are qualified to play judge and jury. I DO think it is the responsibility of the creator to RESEARCH items to the best of his or her abilities but even then items may slip the radar of that research no matter how thorough. Magic shops, distributors, etc. buy magic on good faith "assuming" that the item is legitimate... if it is not, hopefully they will act appropriately when it is brought to their attention and verifiable proof offered.

In this case, it was brought to my attention by a reviewer who I respect greatly that this was exactly the same as Roy Walton's Cascade. We IMMEDIATELY ceased sales, contacted the creator, AND contacted Mr. Walton. The creator advised it was an independent creation but acknowledged he was not familiar with Mr. Walton's Cascade but agreed it would be best to not continue producing this item. Mr. Walton contacted me and advised "Is was very considerate to write to me on this matter, very few, if any, companies would have bothered. I saw the ad for this trick in the L.& L. flyer and it did read the same as Cascade to me. I suggest you sell your remaining stock with perhaps an addendum note inserted saying that it has been brought to your attention that there is a strong similarity between this trick and Cascade and once your supply is exhausted there will be no more available from your Company.You could say you had contacted me and I had O.K.'d this decision." These instructions by Mr. Walton were followed precisely and immediately and we will not longer be ordering this item, an insert was put in remaining units, etc.. I think it is VERY VERY unfair of you to ASSUME wrong doings, bad intentions, etc.

Tim Trono
Project Manager/Purchasing Agent
Murphy's Magic Supplies, Inc.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/15/03 01:02 PM

Good for you Tim! Mr. Walton showed he was a stand up guy also.
Steve V
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/15/03 02:14 PM

Tim,

Wow! I take back my assumptions. I was completely incorrect. Thanks for sharing the steps Murphy's took and thank you for taking them.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/15/03 03:07 PM

Thanks Scott and Steve. We certainly make our mistakes but try our best to correct them. Thanks go to Mr. Walton for his understanding.

Tim
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/16/03 02:33 AM

Well, the matter seems to have been resolved, and everybody seems to be happy.

But am I the only person here who's extremely surprised that the resemblance to Cascade wasn't noticed earlier? Cascade is a very famous effect, with a very famous inventor, and it's been around for a long time. I don't in any way mean to suggest that someone ought to have recognised it sooner - it's simply that I was genuinely surprised to read that a major magic supplier hadn't recognised "Cascade Mark II".

But perhaps I'm viewing this from a UK perspective. Roy Walton being British, perhaps Cascade is better known over here.

Dave
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/16/03 07:20 AM

"But am I the only person here who's extremely surprised that the resemblance to Cascade wasn't noticed earlier? Cascade is a very famous effect, with a very famous inventor, and it's been around for a long time."

I was not familiar with Cascade. I have heard of the effect and I certainly know who Roy Walton is but having seen the demo of "Ultimate Backflip", I was not aware that it is virtually identical to Cascade.

I am glad to see that it has been resolved in a fair manor.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/16/03 09:35 AM

I think Cascade is a cooler name for a trick than Ultimate Backflip.
Guest
 


Return to Buzz