'Re-Pop' - Resealing Pop Can. Best of all, it's free...

Discuss general aspects of Genii.

Postby Tom Dobrowolski » 05/28/02 10:06 AM

Saw this today.

Recreate the same trick you saw on David Blaine's Vertigo TV special with Steve Fearson's 'Re-Pop' - Resealing Pop Can. Best of all, it's free with any paid download from his site.
Tom Dobrowolski
 
Posts: 580
Joined: 03/13/08 09:20 AM
Location: Palatine, Illinois

Postby Guest » 05/28/02 10:39 AM

Or if you want to learn the original version that Blaine did on his special, check out the latest issue of Channel One magazine. I do not remember the guys name but I am sure that it is in the Dutch issue of the magazine (its cover has beer cans with the Channel One logo on them). Also if you interested in a good close up magic magazine, check out there other issues. They have some great stuff in them.
Guest
 

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 05/28/02 11:14 AM

I suggest checking out the thread entitled "Electronic Airborne Coke" to get the full history of this effect, along with sources for authorized places to purchase the effect.

BTW, I believe it was the Swedish issue of Channel One, and the effect was created by Anders Moden.

I don't know the method behind Steve Fearson's take on this, so I don't know if he has a different method or what...but it sounds fishy to me. Has anyone gotten this?

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby TheDean. » 05/28/02 03:03 PM

My Brother Jimbo,

As Paul Harvey says... "and now the REST of The Story!"

Actually, Steve did-not come-up with this version (very different) of what "appears to be" the trick David Blaine did on his last TV Special.

Steve (legally) retained the rights to offer this exclusive trick which dates back [of my own personal knowledge] to the late 70's early 80's. I've even performed with a version of this very idea myself (again, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT METHOD) in the 70's with great response.

Just like the "self folding bill" thread, a silly name calling with-out all the relevant facts!

I have PERSONAL experience that pre-dates the originators claim on BOTH effects. That is not to say that the person that claims to be the originator is or isn't (or should be) the accredited creator... that is not the point.

Unfortunately, the "originality" of magic is really about "marketing"! (Jim, you know I KNOW what I'm talking about here.)

It's often NOT the "originator" that gets credit for the creation of the effect, more often than NOT, it's the guy who "is best known" for creating (or performing) the effect that wins the credit for the effects... see what I mean?

Don't take my word for it just look at The Body Twister, Thin Sawing in Half, The Self-Folding Bill and this Re-Pop thread is but an excruciatingly minute example of the creative process gone awry.

Think about it... We ALL have had the experience of "inventing" the same trick as someone else with no prior knowledge of the "other" inventor of the same trick...

I certainly know I have, and so have the very best creative minds in magic today and yesterday have all experience the same kinds of frustrations! It's just part of magic and the allied arts! It just seams that these witch-hunts are a little mis guided by some who feel like they truly have some moral high-horse to ride-in on and "save the day", when nothing could be further from the truth... that's all!

We are a fraternity of like-minded brothers and sisters with a common goal of making the world a more magical place... metaphorically speaking, but it seams that there are some who only wish to ad strife to our art... I wish it were not so.

YES, there is some REAL challenges that, as artists, we all have to face in our careers. (The Masked YaHoo and so on...) With that in mind, I think it is "more" our obligation to believe and support our brothers and sisters in the arts unless there is clear and present (and irrefutable) evidence that the offender is of malicious intent, which is CLEARLY NOT the case in these few examples.

We don't need the additional angst of pitting brother against brother... and it aint health for any one of us!

Just my .02 worth

I am at your service,
TheDean - Deano
TheDean.
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04/19/08 01:19 AM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/28/02 03:44 PM

The idea of a re-sealing can is not new. What Anders Moden brought to the trick was a complete package of idea combined with the most important and brilliant part: the crumpled and ostensibly empty can visually expands. Its return to "fullness" is visual, not just known by pointing to the fact that the hole in the top is resealed.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20007
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby TheDean. » 05/28/02 04:11 PM

Hi Richard...

In my own version, (again NOT the same "method")which too is NOT he one that Steve is offering, the can was animated and also appeared to re-fill with this distinction... YOU COULD ACTUALLY DRINK THE CONTENTS OF THE CAN (for REAL... no cut-always, "LIVE", not TV magic...) and it is really soda (as in my case) or beer. Also, the spectator could then KEEP and use, examine and enjoy the soda and the can with no tall-tell signs, such is NOT the case with Anders' version.

Just another case of great minds thinking alike way back in the 70's. I never even thought of "marketing" my version of the trick as it had an intensive preparation, though it WAS worth the effort.

Again, I'm NOT trying to steal anybody's thunder... I just know (as do most of us) that the "creative arts" has, at it's core CREATIVITY, and it's not just for one or two of us so questions of "crediting" the original originator is all but impossible, UNLESS we avail ourselves of the resources that are available to the whole world to 'protect' our intellectual property right, and THEN... ONLY if the "original originator" is the ONE filing for the "legal rights".

It's one of those considerations that will be forever ongoing...

Thanks Richard for you effort and contributions magic which are MANY! I will be forever in your debt!

I am at your service,
TheDean - Deano
TheDean.
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04/19/08 01:19 AM

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 05/28/02 04:56 PM

Hey Dean-o!

As far as effect goes, I realize that it's not entirely original. I'm talking more in terms of method. From what I can tell, Anders created an entirely new method for this type of effect, which was then expanded by Tim Ellis. Like I said, I don't know what it is exactly that Steve is offering...I'm just commenting that I find it a little suspicious. I am certainly open to hear all sides of the story -- if, in fact, Steve does have an entirely different method for this effect, more power to him.

Originally posted by TheDean - Dean Hankey:
In my own version, (again NOT the same "method")which too is NOT he one that Steve is offering, the can was animated and also appeared to re-fill with this distinction... YOU COULD ACTUALLY DRINK THE CONTENTS OF THE CAN (for REAL... no cut-always, "LIVE", not TV magic...) and it is really soda (as in my case) or beer. Also, the spectator could then KEEP and use, examine and enjoy the soda and the can with no tall-tell signs, such is NOT the case with Anders' version.
Just want to point out that you are mistaken here. In the Moden/Ellis versions, some soda is poured for the spectator to drink, and he's given the can to keep! They can do everything that you said -- drink the contents, keep, use, examine, and enjoy the soda and can. Yes, there is a very tiny modification to the can, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that a spectator will notice (providing you do it right), and even if they do, there's very little chance of them backtracking to the method.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Tom Stone » 05/28/02 07:26 PM

Originally posted by TheDean - Dean Hankey:
Steve (legally) retained the rights to offer this exclusive trick which dates back [of my own personal knowledge] to the late 70's early 80's.
If it isn't the same, who is the inventor of this version, that Fearson has bought the rights from?
The only previous effect of this kind that I'm aware of is an effect by David Harkey, which involves a gaffed can and a sleight-of-hand switch.
User avatar
Tom Stone
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Steve Bryant » 05/28/02 07:28 PM

The effect as performed by Tim Ellis is a truly extraordinary piece of magic. 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. Steve has created some cool things in magic, and I hate to see him resorting to tacky sales ploys to have to move them.
User avatar
Steve Bryant
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Bloomington IN

Postby Guest » 05/28/02 08:12 PM

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.

Steve Pellegrino
steve@stlouismagic.com
Guest
 

Postby Tom Stone » 05/28/02 08:40 PM

Originally posted by StevePellegrino:
the "Self-Folding Bill", which is an old effect and believe it or not was not originated by Stephan Schutzer?
Then who originated it? Please tell us.
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.
On eBay you claim to sell the effect that Blaine performed.
If that is what Blaine performed, then it is a rip-off.
If it isn't what Blaine performed, then you are not telling the truth in your ad.
In either case you are doing something wrong.
User avatar
Tom Stone
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/28/02 08:48 PM

Well, I think Steve has lots of interesting things to say in his reponse. And, he is right when states that "unethical" and "illegal" are two entirely different issues in our field.
While Steve, in defending his position to us, goes to great lengths to explain that his method is not the Anders Moden method which David Blaine used on TV, in his eBay auctions he claims (and he will feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that if you buy his trick you are buying the trick David Blaine did on TV. Well, of course that's not true, and so his descriptive copy on eBay is quite simply false.
He also states that "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."
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but talking about magic doesn't in the least strike me as talking about politics or religion. And there certainly IS "right" and "wrong" in magic. And it can be demonstrably proven that there is right and wrong in magic.
If Steve has his own method for this trick he certainly has the right to sell it to whomever he chooses. It's unfortunate, but it's true. He probably does NOT have the right to claim that it's the trick David Blaine did on TV. That's false advertising--it's wrong.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20007
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby TheDean. » 05/28/02 09:36 PM

Brother Jim Maloney Wrote:
Just want to point out that you are mistaken here. In the Moden/Ellis versions, some soda is poured for the spectator to drink, and he's given the can to keep! They can do everything that you said -- drink the contents, keep, use, examine, and enjoy the soda and can. Yes, there is a very tiny modification to the can, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that a spectator will notice (providing you do it right), and even if they do, there's very little chance of them backtracking to the method.

Dean:
COOL...

Though I DO understand the precise differences. I knew/know there is a "chance" to get busted in Andes version. In the both of the other ones, there is NO-WAY to get "busted", no matter how it's performed... good-bad or indifferent.... again, it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TRICK.

You all understand my point in all of this don't you?

It's not so much "my dad can beat up your dad" kinda' thing regarding the tricks, methods and ideology of each particular example, It's the myopic (and usually UN-founded) and often criminal bashing and name calling that seams to creep it's way into (and onto) the magic community that I have concerns with...

Much like the "Self Folding Bill" thread where one individual made a concerted personal and maybe well intentioned to protect his friend whom he thought was the ONLY inventor to the self folding dollar bill, but still was a bit mean-spirited (and incredibly mis-informed! Again, I have personal experience dating back to 1976 with that very SAME trick! Method and everything...) attempt to defame another one of the brothers in our family doesn't support our art, it only sends it backwards in time... sad really.

Keep in mind, I don't know Steve Fearson from Adam... at least any more than what I see on the net and so-on, just like the rest of us, so this is not a personal crusade to vindicate Steve in any way...

I would do the same for any of you here! (You KNOW that's true Jim!)

My aim is merely to STAND-UP for magic, the arts, the creative process and what's RIGHT for all of us, that's all.

Is that so bad?

Have an awesome day my friends!

I am at your service,
Deano

UPDATE:
Oh, hi... This was written earlier with an intention to post before the last 6 or 7 posts... it may seem a bit "out of context", so please accept it for the heart-felt offering for what it's worth.

I have only known Steve Pelligrino for a few months now, so there is no-way his re-pop and my old soda gag are from the same creative well, unless you consider the infinite source of all knowledge as I do, then all of this is no real surprise.

ALSO: Tom, you asked; "Then who originated it?"

Here's what I can personally tell you based on my own experience dating back to the mid 1970's where I was at an IBM Ring Auction in San Jose, California and purchased (don't know who "originated" or manufactured the trick way back then...) a "Self Folding Bill" from Arnold Furst. In attendance were greats like Ormond McGill, Mario Palhina, Howard Westgate, and a whole slew of others who all knew about this 'old folding bill trick.

The point of this "creativity" and "originality" question is that good people will have some ideas that are either "The Same" or at least "Similar"... that's just LIFE... it happens!

Why does someone have to be "wrong"... creativity is a GIFT and that can NEVER be WRONG! As I said before, we've ALL experienced this very same phenomenon, so why are we bent on crucifying our brothers for being gifted with creativity?

Just because Blaine did it on National television does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that the creative process STOPS... or at least let's hope not! Right?

All the creative work that has been cultivated all over the world before this one presentation of this can trick does-not negate the effort that was put into place 20, 30, 40 years previous, does it?

Just a thought...

Once again, I am at your service & in His service,
TheDean - Deano
TheDean.
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04/19/08 01:19 AM

Postby Tom Stone » 05/28/02 10:03 PM

Originally posted by TheDean - Dean Hankey:
ALSO: Tom, you asked; "Then who originated it?"
Here's what I can personally tell you based on my own experience dating back to the mid 1970's where I was at an IBM Ring Auction in San Jose, California and purchased (don't know who "originated" or manufactured the trick way back then...) a "Self Folding Bill" from Arnold Furst. In attendance were greats like Ormond McGill, Mario Palhina, Howard Westgate, and a whole slew of others who all knew about this 'old folding bill trick.
Thank you, Dean. Finally a real thread to follow. Palhina and Westgate are unknown names to me, but I recognize Furst and McGill's names.
Do any of those four have emails?

If this information is correct, the effect must have been popular in California, if is was "old" in the mid-seventies. Can anyone else here confirm this?
User avatar
Tom Stone
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Guest » 05/28/02 10:08 PM

Richard wrote: "Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but talking about magic doesn't in the least strike me as talking about politics or religion. And there certainly IS "right" and "wrong" in magic. And it can be demonstrably proven that there is right and wrong in magic."

The way you describe my statement you make it seem like I am talking about magic in general. I wasn't. I was specifically talking about ethics. Just as in religion or politics, ethics (especially in magic) is a matter of opinon and belief. My point has just been proven with the discussion we are having right now - this can go on and on for weeks - I said this, you said that - and it goes nowhere.

Richard wrote: "If Steve has his own method for this trick he certainly has the right to sell it to whomever he chooses. It's unfortunate, but it's true. He probably does NOT have the right to claim that it's the trick David Blaine did on TV. That's false advertising--it's wrong. "

It is the same effect. It's a resealed can. The method is different and nowhere do I claim to be selling the same method. It's a technicality, yes.. but magic advertising is always using technicalities to our best advantage.

Here is a secret - The Don Wayne Dancing Hanky that everyone bought 20 years ago was not the same gimmick that Copperfield used. Yet it was advertised as the same thing. The effect was the same, the gimmick was not even similar.

Why is it unfortunate that I am selling my manuscript? It's my manuscript. You don't know if it's good, bad, right or wrong. I have the right to sell mine as does Tim Ellis or Anders Moden to sell their versions.

I've known about this effect and the principle for my version for 25 years. I chose to market this the day after the special because Blaine is popular. It's business. Tim and Anders could have been there that night with theirs.

Ebay has a wonderful system. If the people that buy my product do not like it, they are free to post a complaint. If ebay feels this product violates a copyright, they can shut the auction down.

I didn't respond to any of this to start an argument or an on going debate. I found it interesting how several people jumped to conclusions about Steve Fearson and this effect. Steve doesn't need me to defend him, but I certainly wasn't going to stand-by and watch him get beat-up over my product.

So it's been determined that the only thing Anders and Tim have brought to this effect is the expanding of the can and that resealing the can is an old trick. I am selling a resealing effect. It's my manuscript based on old principles. I gave credit where credit is due in the manuscript. Steve Fearson has my "permission" to do whatever he wants to with it - sell it, change it, give it away, call it his own. So - where's the problem?
Guest
 

Postby TheDean. » 05/28/02 10:41 PM

My brother Tom...

Hehehe... I doubt that they have e-mail. I could be wrong. but as far as e-mail addresses, those guys were old back then if they are alive today, they most likely don't have e-mail.

- I know that Arnold passed... Rest in Peace!
- Ormond is still very much alive an kicking... an some don't think that Hypnosis works... HA! God bless my Hypnosis mentor... He's the BEST! Gotta' Love him!
- Howard Westgate... inventor of the Wesgate Bowl production
- Mario Palhina... wrote many reknowned text on magic and the arts as well as creted many classic effect for us in magic!

Thank you ALL my brothers who paved the way for all of us to travel!

Besides Tom, the point of the posting was that for-a-fact more than one guy will come up with the same idea with no concurrent influence... it's part of LIFE! That is why we have a legal structure to "protect" those who have the presence of mind to avail themselves of those resources. For some reason... we don't. Don't know why...

It makes my heart saddened to see that in the arts that I love so dearly and that has provided so grandly that we are reduced to silly name-calling and mud slinging... very disheartening.

"Wishing Away the Facts" will not make it so my friend... the facts are the facts whether there is some kind-of self appointed grand inquisitor, or not... if that is your legacy my brother, you are welcome to it.

I don't know about you, but I make my living at the good graces of the great minds that have gone before us... Thurston, Himber, Marlo, Steinmyre, Fearson, Kaufman, James, Houdini... and so on. If every last bit of our shows are totally original in premise, concept, ideals, ideas and implementation I guess we are ALL guilty as charged. Yes, I do a double lift too... You certainly don't see me throwing stones, since we ALL live in glass houses.

We are ALL blessed!

I hope all is well on your corner of the net... smile... life goes on. I've always wanted to visit your beautiful country.

I am at your service and in His service,
Rev Dean Hankey - Deano
TheDean.
 
Posts: 58
Joined: 04/19/08 01:19 AM

Postby Mike Powers » 05/29/02 11:38 AM

The original Anders Moden effect was published in the Electronic Grymoire (EG) a couple of years ago. It was called "Recycled Soda." Anders published it on a "shareware" basis. If you use it, please send $5. He never received any money.

It's now in print in Channel One magazine under the name "Healed and Sealed." Anders says that he got an email from Tim Ellis who had seen the effect in EG. Tim agreed to let Anders publish his routine in Channel One before he (Tim) published it in his lecture notes.

I'm not sure what's different about Tim's routine. I've seen it performed three or four times and it seems virtually the same as Anders Moden's original. Can someone enlighten me on the differences?

Mike Powers
Mike Powers
 
Posts: 172
Joined: 01/24/08 01:00 PM
Location: Northern Indiana

Postby Guest » 05/29/02 05:26 PM

If you start with the EG version of "Recycled Soda" it was the basic framework of the Moden method. Tim Ellis (I believe him) paid Anders for the routine per the shareware request. I did as well, when a resurgence in the routine swept through the EG due to Tim's use of it. That is when I found out about it.

I understand that Tim and I are the only two to uphold the shareware offer. Shameful, but then perhaps we were the only believers at the time who actualled used it.

Tim added some finesse which you can find in Tim's notes and Anders's pdf, which he is selling. Tim also built up a routine around this effect and that is only in Tim's notes.

I gave my own finesse to Anders to include in his pdf. As it stands now there is a lot of "work and finesse" in the pdf that Anders is selling. I'm sure the routine will evolve more from there...at least I hope so.

If you want the method Blaine used on TV, Tim kills with around the world, and with which I twist people's concepts of what a magician can really do, I suggest you look up Anders and get the pdf, or get Tim's notes. Heck, do both if you are really going to use this.

As to methods for (very) similar effects that predate, I am no authority. Likewise, I'm not surprised.

It seems to me unfortunate that none of this came out as Tim was wowing the world in his lectures, but if Blaine puts it on TV, well, now it is something.

Tom Cutts
AM/PM
Guest
 

Postby Oliver Corpuz » 05/29/02 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Mike Powers:
I'm not sure what's different about Tim's routine. I've seen it performed three or four times and it seems virtually the same as Anders Moden's original. Can someone enlighten me on the differences?

Mike Powers
After reviewing the Channel One version and Tim Ellis', I believe Tim added two significant things to the routine and its marketing. First, aside from a few finesses to condition the audience that the can is empty, Tim came up with an easier and very clever way of making the top of the can appear to be opened before you restore it. I really like Tim's improvement for that part of the illusion. Second, at his lectures, he has his beautiful partner, Sue-Anne, personally teach you how to properly perform the trick after you buy the notes. Now that's marketing! Shareware, while a great way to ensure your creation will be distributed widely, is not the best way to make any money. Just not enough ethical people to make the shareware concept work.

Tom Cutts: where can I purchase Ander's .pdf? This effect is very powerful, if done right. I've had some amazing reactions from people that I've done it on. I'd like to learn what other finesses/improvements are out there to make the illusion even stronger.
Oliver Corpuz
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 05/09/09 08:33 AM

Postby Dave Shepherd » 05/29/02 08:12 PM

I, like Tom Cutts, also searched for the original "Recycled Soda" on the EG, but I never did anything with it other than reading it. I resolved to send Anders the shareware fee when I actually worked with the routine (actually I intended to send him double what he was asking), but I must sheepishly admit I didn't actually go and buy me some cheapo practice seltzer cans until last week.

I got Tim Ellis's notes in the mail today, after having received Anders's pdf file yesterday. Anders has added a number of touches, and the photos in his pdf version made some things much clearer to me than the EG version did.

Tim offers a couple routine possibilities. One of them relies on an onstage assistant, but he also mentions some good finesses for a solo worker.

Oliver, to get Anders's pdf version, send him a mail at moden@telia.com. (Tom Stone posted this address in another thread.)

It's a great piece of work.
Dave Shepherd
 
Posts: 423
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: 15 miles w. of Washington, DC

Postby Tim Ellis » 05/29/02 10:35 PM

Hi guys, two corrections if I may:

1 - I actually paid Anders for the rights to put my version of his trick in my lecture notes.
2 - Steve Fearson, on his site TVS GRREATEST MAGIC SECRETS EXPOSED has people agree to THE MAGICIANS CODE before he'll tell them how Blaine, Copperfield etc do their tricks (what right he has to do this is unclear). But some of the points Fearson insists you agree on are:

POINT 5) I agree that the originator or inventor of a trick should be credited when possible. If there is a performer who has become associated with the effect through outstanding performances, they may be credited as well. This should be done out of respect but also to encourage future inventors by letting them know that we respect their work and the community will not forget their contributions.

POINT 6) I will discourage false or misleading statements in the advertising of magic effects and websites and improper credits given to performers.

POINT 7) I will discourage advertisements for "knock-offs", effects or illusions for which the seller does not have the right to publish legally. I also refuse to patronize such sellers."

Personally, I used to have a lot of respect for Fearson. It's sad to see what was a creative mind go to waste simply for the sake of exploiting a few bucks from the gullible public.

As for Pellegrino's can method (and does anyone else think Pellegrino is a MASK for Fearson? I hope I'm wrong) I really hope his resealing method is different to mine, seeing he (in an email to me) explained he'd "come up with it that morning" based on an old principle. If you applied the same "old principle" I did, then you're selling my trick.

TIM ELLIS
www.AustralianMagician.com
www.TimEllisMagic.com
www.MagicUnlimited.com

User avatar
Tim Ellis
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 07/11/08 04:08 PM
Location: Victoria

Postby Fearson » 05/30/02 10:51 AM

That's right, Steve Fearson actually makes people agree to the Magician's Code before learning magic secrets. And I make them pay. How shocking.

And guess where I got that "Magician's Code"?

I had to write it myself because it doesn't exist anywhere on the net except as referring to "Breaking the Magician's Code", or the masked magician specials.

How many hours have any of you put into developing a magician's code for the net?

Where is the magician's code that laypeople agree to before logging on to this free board where, "all will be revealed to you"? (that's a quote from the homepage). And where anything can be copied and pasted from anyone's site with no regard to copyrights?

For the record..

1) My self folding bill manuscript is one of dozens on the market and I credit the person who I feel is the most likely inventor, after doing months of research. After all your slams, I am going to end up being the one who was right.. and I'm sure there will be no apologies. How much research have any of you actually done concerning the origin of this effect?

2) I am well within my rights to sell the St Louis Magic manuscript, RePop. And nowhere on my site do I claim that it was the same method used by David Blaine. The effect though, is the same. It's a resealed can. And that effect does not belong to Tim Ellis or Anders.

3) TV's greatest magic secrets revealed is NOT my site. The webmaster is a member of the Magic Secrets Network, which I own and I have a redirect link to that site. Sorry if that confuses you. The system exists to enable magic webmasters to protect their secrets with a gateway page and make some money doing so. Learn more about how the system works here: http://magicheck.com

I have better things to do than educate everyone on the workings of the internet and other things you've never seen before, like the magician's code.

If you can't keep up, it's not my fault. But I really do suggest you know what you are talking about before publishing statements about me and my business that are purely libelous.

I have collected all the posts from this board which contain my name, along with individual responses to the attacks from other boards around the globe and will be linking to all of them here: http://magicsucks.com

The entire collection, along with Richard's selective editing shows a disturbing and deliberate attempt to damage my business and reputation.

I hope all of you will think twice before posting any more half baked attacks towards me.

Steve Fearson

PS.. I'm not Steve Pellegrino. You're making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!! Is this a joke?
Fearson
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 03/29/09 11:19 AM

Postby Tim Ellis » 05/30/02 04:13 PM

Steve Fearson says: "2) I am well within my rights to sell the St Louis Magic manuscript, RePop. And nowhere on my site do I claim that it was the same method used by David Blaine. The effect though, is the same. It's a resealed can. And that effect does not belong to Tim Ellis or Anders."

I see, you are 100% right. Nowhere do you claim it's the same method used by David Blaine (though Pellegrino does on his ebay site:

"David Blaine - "Resealed" Beer Can Effect From "Vertigo" Yes! As seen on TV this week."

whereas you, Steve Fearson say:

"The Resealing Can Trick, recreate the magic you saw on TV"

obviously, this is not an example of you breaking rule 6 of your MAGICIAN'S CODE:

"6) I will discourage false or misleading statements in the advertising of magic effects and websites and improper credits given to performers."

Yet the MAGICIAN'S CODE you wrote also states:

"5) I agree that the originator or inventor of a trick should be credited when possible. If there is a performer who has become associated with the effect through outstanding performances, they may be credited as well. This should be done out of respect but also to encourage future inventors by letting them know that we respect their work and the community will not forget their contributions."

So maybe you need to credit 'David Blaine' as "A performer who has become associated with the effect through outstanding performances". Or maybe me, or Anders, as (seeing you claim you are being bashed on so many bulletin boards) a lot of the magic community associate the effect with US! Steve, do you even know how the resealing of the can works in my method? It's quite different to Anders. I wonder if the apologies will begin from your end if Mr Pellegrino's method happens to be the same as Anders or mine?

I'll certainly apologise if he's come up with a different method.

But what I find MOST irritating, is the stealing of the EFFECT. As Mr Pellegrino stated in an email to me, he came up with the method (using an "old" principle) the morning after the Blaine special.

Should I have advertised my version of Copperfield's 'Laser Cutting' for sale all over the net the day after the TV special went to air? Oh, entirely different method of course, and it's based on a really old principle... it's only good business.

TIM ELLIS

(Oh, by the way, I'm sure you two Steve's have probably "have better things to do then sit by my computer and debate the origins of an old $8.00 trick." [Quoting Steve Pellegrino] But we all appreciate your input here because, it is, important to get the true story)
www.AustralianMagician.com
www.TimEllisMagic.com
www.MagicUnlimited.com

User avatar
Tim Ellis
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 07/11/08 04:08 PM
Location: Victoria

Postby Tim Ellis » 05/30/02 04:29 PM

Steve,

I know this is getting off topic.. well, not really... but you explained that

"TV's greatest magic secrets revealed is NOT my site. The webmaster is a member of the Magic Secrets Network, which I own and I have a redirect link to that site."

So this guy offers to tell people how Copperfield's, Blaine's, etc tricks are done. You send people to his site, well, it says on your site:

"If you just came here to find out how David Blaine levitated off the sidewalk . .
Or how Copperfield vanished the Statue of Liberty . . CLICK HERE!"

So again I ask, what right do you (and your mate) have to expose other people's secrets for money?

TIM ELLIS
www.AustralianMagician.com
www.TimEllisMagic.com
www.MagicUnlimited.com

User avatar
Tim Ellis
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 07/11/08 04:08 PM
Location: Victoria

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 05/30/02 05:12 PM

Against my better judgement, I just shelled out the $7.95 to purchase Re-Pop from Steve Pellegrino -- mainly to settle my own curiosity on thi debate. And the judgement is: the method for resealing the can is exactly the same as Anders Moden's. I have it written up in Tim Ellis's lecture notes, Tim mentioned it in the lecture, and I just confirmed it again with Tim.

Another interesting quote from the manuscript: "'David Blaine borrowed a can and did the trick -- I thought this was that trick?' It is the same trick. On TV anything appear to be possible and setting up people and props is a common practice. He is just using that medium to his best advantage."

Well, that's a fairly blatent lie. The effect/trick/whatever you want to call it is that of a can expanding and THEN resealing. This is not the same trick -- it's part of the trick, but not the whole trick.

The people credited in the manuscript are:
Richard Stevenson, for an effect in a set of lecture notes from 1974, where a pull tab on a soda can is restored onto the can.
David Harkey, for an effect where he appears to be eating from a can, but is later shown to be sealed & full (the Re-Pop manuscript describes how to make it appear as if you are drinking out of a straw from the can).
Also mentioned for having versions of this effect are: John Kennedy, Paul Harris, and Bill Herz.

Nowhere are Tim or Anders mentioned.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Fearson » 05/30/02 05:25 PM

Tim,

You are obviously cutting and pasting text from my website to this website.

I believe that is illegal. Everything on the net is copyrighted whether it states it or not. Please stop doing that. If you want people to see what is on my website, link to it.

Why should I even consider the opinion of someone who blatantly breaks the law in a public forum? You accuse me of breaking rules I wrote for my own website regarding magic secrets, while you break real laws with reckless abandon.

And why didn't you include the warning from Magicheck that I issue to the merely curious? Here is a link to that: http://www.magicheck.com/order.htm

That would have given people a better idea of what I'm trying to do. I think you don't include it because you still want to make me look like some kind of bad guy, even though you must have realized by now that I'm not selling your trick.

Just curious.. What exactly makes you think Blaine used your method anyway? He paid Anders for his method. Not you for yours.

I do know your method. Someone told me the details today. The methods are not the same. As a matter of fact, the RePop method is far superior in my opinion.. you can even pour out the last few drops of soda before the sealing. You can also do it with an unprepared can, the setup is instant.

Do you know how David Copperfield vanished the statue of liberty? If so, did you obtain that information in an ethical manner? Did you agree to a magician's code before it was revealed to you? I'd like to know the details of that transaction.

That is a serious question. So was my question about the magician's code. Where is the code on your website? Since you have none, why do you care so much about enforcing mine? I think the hypocrite here is you, not me.

Now you seem to be accusing me of false advertising or.. something. I'm not really sure what.

If I am guilty of false advertising, that is for my customers to decide. And if it is true, I expect to be issuing a LOT of refunds. So don't you worry about it.

And as far as Copperfield or Blaine's effects.. Don't you think they can take care of themselves? What does this have to do with your can of soda Tim?

If I have encroached on YOUR rights somehow, please have an attorney contact me. I don't think you are capable of handling this yourself.

Steve Fearson
Fearson
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 03/29/09 11:19 AM

Postby Fearson » 05/30/02 05:35 PM

Wow Jim!

You've taken ethics to a new height.

You've reprinted copyrighted material in a public forum to prove that someone else is unethical.

Why don't you guys move on over to the UltimateMagic forums? There's lots of other little kids trading secrets.

Describe the exact method used by Tim Ellis.

The methods are not the same.

I would reprint Tim's notes here to prove a point, but I don't think that's necessary. You've already proved who is more ethical.

Steve Fearson
Fearson
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 03/29/09 11:19 AM

Postby Ryan Matney » 05/30/02 05:37 PM

That is a serious question. So was my question about the magician's code. Where is the code on your website? Since you have none, why do you care so much about enforcing mine? I think someone who blatantly breaks the law in a public the hypocrite here is you, not me.

Why should I even consider the opinion of forum? You accuse me of breaking rules I wrote for my own website regarding magic secrets, while you break real laws with reckless abandon.
Sad.
Ryan Matney
 
Posts: 729
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hurley, Va

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 05/30/02 05:38 PM

Actually, Steve, Tim is well within US law when cutting & pasting the text of your site here. (I'm not sure about copyright laws in Australia, or even which laws would apply in this case.) It falls under the fair use guidelines in US copyright law. While the guidelines are somewhat vague, it's pretty clear that copying a small amount of text for comment or criticism, in a non profit manner is allowable. If you don't believe me, feel free to look it up.

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 05:48 PM

OK, I'll join the party again. Guys and gals, here is the law - opinions aside - here is what is legally possible according to the good ol' U.S. of A. Copyright law:

Sec. 102. - Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Translated what that means is that any tangible/physical form - book, manuscript, computer file, etc. is copyright protected.

It also says that you cannot copyright a concept - magic tricks are just that a concept. This is not to be mistaken for a Patent. John Gaughn has a Patent for "Flying" - but that is just for the apparatus for "Flying", not the concept. Anyone with a different apparatus can fly. Entertainers where flying before Copperfield and other methods are used to accomplish the same effect.

If what I am selling is the same method that Anders Moden is selling then it really is an old, old method and certainly not original to Anders Moden.

You can argue this all you want, but as Steve Fearson said, if any rights or laws have been violated - have your attorney(s) contact me as well. I have the documented proof that what I am selling is in fact old and was not in fact created by Anders Moden. It is my original words, photographs and handling.

Thanks again for your attention.

Steve Pellegrino
Guest
 

Postby Tim Ellis » 05/30/02 05:50 PM

Dear Steve,

Even though you didn't have the courtesy to answer my questions, I will answer yours:

1 - Cutting and pasting from your website. I am using less than 10% and I am quoting, not stealing. That is legal. My wife used to work in copyright.

2 - "Why should I even consider the opinion of someone who blatantly breaks the law in a public forum? You accuse me of breaking rules I wrote for my own website regarding magic secrets, while you break real laws with reckless abandon."

Well Steve, I haven't broken any laws in this matter, so please consider my opinion now.

3 - The "warning" you have on MagicCheck means nothing. It just warns people they might not really want to know the secrets which are about to be revealed to them. It makes them even more excited about sending you $29.95

4 - "Even though you must have realised by now I'm not selling your trick". I realise now you are selling Anders trick. He's a friend. It's not yours. So I'm still mad at you.

5 - "Just curious.. What exactly makes you think Blaine used your method anyway? He paid Anders for his method. Not you for yours." People who know my method, saw the show, and said it certainly looked like mine. If it was, that's a separate issue between me and him. It is being addressed.

6 - "I do know your method. Someone told me the details today. The methods are not the same. As a matter of fact, the RePop method is far superior in my opinion.. you can even pour out the last few drops of soda before the sealing. You can also do it with an unprepared can, the setup is instant." Well good on you. But it's still Anders method of resealing the can.

7 - "Do you know how David Copperfield vanished the statue of liberty? If so, did you obtain that information in an ethical manner? Did you agree to a magician's code before it was revealed to you? I'd like to know the details of that transaction." No I don't. So what?

8 - "So was my question about the magician's code. Where is the code on your website? Since you have none, why do you care so much about enforcing mine? I think the hypocrite here is you, not me." My website promotes my performance services. I don't offer to tell people how other people's tricks are done on it.

9 - "Now you seem to be accusing me of false advertising or.. something. I'm not really sure what." I'm sure your customers will make it clear to you.

10 - "And as far as Copperfield or Blaine's effects.. Don't you think they can take care of themselves? What does this have to do with your can of soda Tim?" It's part of THE MAGICIANS CODE Steve, we help protect each other's secrets.

11 - "If I have encroached on YOUR rights somehow, please have an attorney contact me. I don't think you are capable of handling this yourself." You really think it's that complex an issue we need to bring lawyers into it do you Steve? I thought we could discuss it like human beings. Was I wrong?

TIM ELLIS
www.AustralianMagician.com
www.TimEllisMagic.com
www.MagicUnlimited.com

User avatar
Tim Ellis
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 07/11/08 04:08 PM
Location: Victoria

Postby Tim Ellis » 05/30/02 05:57 PM

Steve (Pellegrino), you said: "If what I am selling is the same method that Anders Moden is selling then it really is an old, old method and certainly not original to Anders Moden."

Yet in an email to me, you said:

" My principle is based on another effect that has nothing to do with a beer or soda can, that I adapted and is over 50 years old. I literally worked this out this morning."

Most new tricks are based on old principles. If Anders applied an "old principle" to a can and got a new trick, it's a new trick he invented. If you applied the same "old principle", to a can, after seeing Blaine do it on TV, you ended up re-inventing Anders trick.

IT IS NOT YOURS.

Can it be any clearer?
www.AustralianMagician.com
www.TimEllisMagic.com
www.MagicUnlimited.com

User avatar
Tim Ellis
 
Posts: 829
Joined: 07/11/08 04:08 PM
Location: Victoria

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 06:04 PM

You Aussies are stubborn. I'm sure someone will send you Re-Pop in the next day or so and you will see that an old effect that has nothing to do with a can is indeed mentioned.

Tim, comment on the law - not your opinion, not what YOU think is right or wrong - comment on the law.

I am well within the law to sell MY MANUSCRIPT - IT IS MINE!

Woo Hoo! This is gettin' good!
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 05/30/02 06:13 PM

Well, I just went to the link Steve Fearson posted as www.magicsucks.com and was treated to a blank screen which reads, "Coming soon, the Best of Genii." Huh?
He also accused me of "creative editing" in his post. I think I have removed some foul language in another thread, but can't see that I've edited anything in THIS thread.
Guys, the world is full of opportunistic jerks who will try and make some money by piggybacking off the works of others. It has always been that way and it always will.
Does anyone have a lot of respect left for Steve Pellegrino or Steve Fearson?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20007
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Andy Hurst » 05/30/02 06:27 PM

Damn, I hate this. I actually agree with Richard Kaufman on something ;-)

I used to respect Fearson and his work, now I think he's a theiving s*****g (saved Richard an edit there).

Fearsons floating card which he boasts as 'a new method' is not his, the whole folding bill thing was ridiculous, not so long ago he was plugging an exposure site and now he's trying to cash in on a resealing can trick.

I know magic is a business to many, but it's nice that on the whole most people who profit from it actually love the art and do try to be ethical.

Less than a year ago I held Fearson in fairly high regard, now he's pretty high on my list of 'magicians I hope die soon'.

Andy
Andy Hurst
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 03/18/08 12:55 PM

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » 05/30/02 06:29 PM

You're right, the law certainly gives you the right to sell the Re-Pop manuscript.

But how about having a little RESPECT for Anders?

-Jim
Jim Maloney_dup1
 
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07/23/01 12:00 PM
Location: Northern New Jersey

Postby Fearson » 05/30/02 06:30 PM

So Tim doesn't know how David vanished the statue. I guess I can't prove you're lying, but I suspect you are to avoid answering my question, which I think was a valid one considering we are discussing ethics. If you don't know, you must be the only professional magician who doesn't.

It's wonderful that your wife used to work in copyright laws. I have been a copywriter myself for about 15 years now and am familiar with the very recently passed international laws specifically pertaining to the internet. What do you suppose they say about reprinting pieces from a website Tim? I asked you to stop and you have to. I can also ask you to remove the pieces you've used, and you would have to.

Lastly Tim, you sell tricks on your site. It's not just a performance site. That's where you've been sending everyone to buy your version of Anders trick right? You certainly aren't very forthcoming when YOUR ethics are questioned.

Jim has passed judgment. I'm sure it feels good to pass judgment but to me it matters no more than if you had passed gas. Now that judgment has been passed, what is the sentence Jim? I imagine that is handed down by Richard in the form of an insult and a closed topic? If so, close the topic and throw away the key.

It's funny how copyright laws matter when they favor you, but when Steve or myself mention copyright laws we are accused of hiding behind them.

According to the Maloney copyright laws, I am free to post the crucial portion of the Ellis and Anders manuscripts.. correct?

I think that would clear everything up. I don't think it's fair to just take Jim's word for it.

Steve Fearson
Fearson
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 03/29/09 11:19 AM

Postby Guest » 05/30/02 06:35 PM

Mr. Kaufman,

I guess being on the cover of Genii is not going to happen for me at this point?

Unless someone has sent you a "free" copy of my manuscript - how can you judge what I'm selling? Honestly - you can't. As I said in an earlier post - YOU above anyone else on this forum knows about copyright laws.

As I have written more times than I care to - I have never seen Anders version - and if Anders is the same as mine then he is certainly not the originator.

Everyone who has attacked me in the last week has insisted that I reveal my sources for this effect - Educate me - When did Anders publish his effect? When did he come up with it? Honestly, I do not know and would like to.

I anxiously await your answers!
Guest
 

Postby Andy Hurst » 05/30/02 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Well, I just went to the link Steve Fearson posted as www.magicsucks.com and was treated to a blank screen which reads, "Coming soon, the Best of Genii." Huh?
How nice of Mr Fearson to host a site dedicated to Genii. I presume he will actually be using that domain name to point to his own site in due course.
Andy Hurst
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 03/18/08 12:55 PM

Postby Scott » 05/30/02 06:42 PM

Another interesting debate on the forum. Magic is such a big happy family :D
User avatar
Scott
 
Posts: 111
Joined: 07/30/08 04:54 PM
Location: TX

Next

Return to General