So why is everyone so suspicious of Steve Fearson selling Re-Pop? Because he is selling the "Self-Folding Bill", which is an old effect and believe it or not was not originated by Stephan Schutzer?
The real truth behind Re-Pop is that the manuscript is mine. It's the same infamous "Resealed Can" that is on ebay through the May 30th. It's the same manuscript that people have accused me of stealing from a variety of sources. I sent it to Steve a couple of days ago and he asked me if he could use it on his site.
If anyone who is associated with the Anders Moden/Tim Ellis version of this effect including Anders and Tim had actually taken the time to read the description of the effect on ebay before sending me a bunch of accusing e-mails - there is no mention of the can expanding which as Mr. Kaufman describes is what they brought to an old trick.
I have been accused of being a thief, unethical and several other things I am not going to repeat here. I saw an opportunity to sell an effect on ebay that I knew was old and figured a few people had never heard of and would be interested in learning. Since Anders Moden and Tim Ellis have the actual version of what Blaine used, they should have been there before me selling the "authorized version". My version is just that - MY VERSION. It's not unauthorized, it's based on old principles and on an effect I had seen over 27 years ago.
In the last few days I have been accused of being "unethical". Let me tell you just how "ethical" I am. I spent 15 years of my life working for David Copperfield, Harry Blackstone Jr. and Kirby VanBurch along with several other lesser known illusionist. I know a few secrets that I certainly could have sold for much more money than this little ebay auction. I have never shared any of those secrets with anyone - for free or money.
When I first started my web site St. Louis Magic, I was selling an effect that involved a Cracker Jack Box that I had developed on my own over years of performing. I got a call one day from Michael Weber, who I had never met, and he asked me not to sell this Cracker Jack effect as he had developed a reputation with it early in his magic career. I had no idea he was associated with this and I took the effect down immediately.
I didn't stop the ebay auction for Anders Moden or Tim Ellis because I am not selling their effect! I must thank Tom Stone for posting the link to my auction on this forum because I have had almost 500 hits.
It's certainly been an interesting experience over the last few days to see the bitterness in magic. I have not taken anything from the above mentioned magicians and yet Richard Kaufman is telling Tim Ellis to try to shut down my auction. I could certainly understand it if I was selling photocopies of their effects. I would think that Richard Kaufman above anyone on this board would know copyright laws and before posting such a slanderous remark against me, who he doesn't know, may want to know more about the real situation.
In an e-mail to Tim Ellis I told him I wasn't going to discuss or debate this issue. The reason is, talking ethics with magicians is just a battle that cannot be won. It's like talking about politics or religion - there is no right or wrong - just your opinion. There is a major difference between "unethical" and illegal. The manuscript that is being offered on ebay and downloadmagic.com is not the Anders Moden/Tim Ellis effect. It's very different - but no one can say it's illegal. Without seeing it, everyone wants to judge this and say it's unethical and "suspicious".
Re-Pop is my manuscript. I am selling it on ebay and will continue to do so. Anders Moden and Tim Ellis, if you were smart, you would offer your version online and make it available everywhere - you should have done that 30 seconds after you saw Blaine really did use your version of this. I am not selling your version of the trick. Steve Fearson is not giving away your version of the trick. Magicians that want to know all they can about this will buy every version they can so they see all the possiblilties.
In an earlier post Steve Bryant wrote "Even if Steve has full legal and ethical rights to sell whatever version he is selling, it strikes me as a serious lack of respect for magic to give it away as a "come on" to persuade people to buy his other products."
Mr. Bryant - it's business. It's not a lack of respect. It's my manuscript which I told him he could do what he wanted with. So Steve Fearson does have full legal AND ethic rights to use this manuscript as he wants AND it's still not good enough!
I'm sure my comments if not deleted will spark more debate on this. There are better ways to handle these issues - both ethically and legally, but most feel the best solution is to continue the argument trying to get their point across as the right one.
Thanks for your attention.