Ghost Kings?

[Guest]

I also am sorry, for re-hashing old wounds, it just seems to be a good example, of the sort of problems we face .

Because Kip, from your attitude, I'm sure it is somewhat unknowingly, but thanking Chris Kenner for what he did with Visual Coins Across is like thanking Magic Makers for ripping off Lee Asher's stuff.

I can see why someone would want to thank a creator for publishing a brilliant trick of his own design.

It is IMPERATIVE, however that we do not thank, or condone, theives who publish other's creations without permission, which in this case, is what Chris Kenner did.

I again apologize for saying that Mr. Asher did not credit Townsend.

But again Kip, you are either confused or mistaken. Jonathan's original work is NOT published, that is correct. His work was STOLEN and published without his consent. Most of the variations do not have the originator's permission to be published, and thus, their crediting of Mr. Townsend is the only thing saving them a little intergrity in the matter. Lee was not "very polite" in crediting, it was his bare minimal scholarly duty, and as I mention above, much more was lacking.

Note that when I say originator, or anyone for that matter says originator of Visual Coins Across, or indeed "3fly" (though not the name itself), there is no "which originator do you mean". It is only Jonathan Townsend. In my above posts I used the word "originator" instead of "Mr. Townsend" because we were discussing broader issues, not the specifics. Also, I admittedly sound like a broken record sometimes, and have been called some rather unpleasant things, in connection to Mr. Townsend. So I was keeping it general. But there can be no mistaking originators.

Now, I agree that large companies that sell to broad numbers of people are definately things we need to go after here, however , I do not think we will succesfully be able to do so, unless we start by straitening out what you call the "smaller" issues, and indeed the ethics within what we might call the upper echelons of our little community.

I speak and read to my peers, a group, whom for better are worse are the future of this oldest of Arts. Unfortunately, there is everything from disdain, to confusion about ethics...mostly disdain. This bleeds over and affects Artistic principles, and we have a generation that knows little of history, orginality, or in many cases entertaining an audience, let alone thought provoking, meaningful, powerful entertainment that some of us here aspire too.

And while I do not agree with people who excuse the folly of children simply because they are young, I do beleive that in this case, a great deal of the blame lies in the teachers, publishers, mentors, elders, and DVD's that my peers ultimately learn from. It is too easy to go down the wrong road, too easy to find some big name to justify one's actions because, "it's okay if he does it...".

Mike Gallo accuses me of taking all this too seriously. I believe that is another problem. We get fed up with the huge tangle of slime that pervades our simple ethical processes, that sometimes we say, "[censored] it is just my hobby," or "it is just magic", whatever. That's fine. Pretty much anything in life can be let go, or taken less seriously if it gets too stressful. And I respect that. However, I believe magic is one of the oldest, and most powerful Arts, and it has all the more potential because of the images which people have rooted in their minds, the low expectations of magicians which become practically cliche.

I have begun to use magic in combination yes, with an ecclectic education, communication skills, and other qualities, as a medium for self-expression, certainly, but also as a tool to reach various social and economic goals. What I'm driving at here, is magic may be easy to trivialize, but it needn't be such. And I think it is when we learn to use our tools in extraordinary ways, that we begin to truly value them, a lesson well shown by Whit Haydn, or Paul Chosse, in my opinion.

They are amongst a group whom I beleive understands the value of our tools. It's hard to put a dollar price sometimes, but I know this, the most basic magic material is far too valuable to justify its theft with a supposed triviality.

[Guest]

I think it's time for me to defer to others, if they want to further discuss Three Fly origins or not. I really shouldn't be the one to defend Chris Kenner, since I met him for the first time, four days ago.

FYI -- In my humble opinion, these guys have done more than enough crediting J.T. -- Look how much further everyone has taken the routine.


I think that it's great that they acknowledge that J.T. brought his hands up for one of the moves. Very kind. You don't actually think he would expect renumeration -- since everything else about the routines seems very different.

But as I said, this one is not my fight.

My concern is Magic Makers and Penguin. Someone needs to give them a much-needed lesson in ethics. If you punish someone severely enough, they won't repeat the crime. The key is, it has to be "severely enough."

I would love to be kept informed of efforts to right wrongs done.
(And no, I am not referring to J.T.)

I will continue my off-line offorts to ... play the part of "Superman." Fighting for truth, justice, and eliminating slimy practices in magic.

Kip

P.S. To those who craved the topic of stinging the evil rip-off artists, I apologize that the thread strayed. And I am also sorry if Lee Asher and/or Chris Kenner read any posts that imply that they are anything less than 100% creative, (and they are pretty darn honorable, to boot).

They are both geniuses and deserve to be treated in kind.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Kip:
I think it's time for me to defer to others, if they want to further discuss Three Fly origins or not. I really shouldn't be the one to defend Chris Kenner, since I met him for the first time, four days ago.

FYI -- In my humble opinion, these guys have done more than enough crediting J.T. -- Look how much further everyone has taken the routine.


I think that it's great that they acknowledge that J.T. brought his hands up for one of the moves. Very kind. You don't actually think he would expect renumeration -- since everything else about the routines seems very different.

But as I said, this one is not my fight.

My concern is Magic Makers and Penguin. Someone needs to give them a much-needed lesson in ethics. If you punish someone severely enough, they won't repeat the crime. The key is, it has to be "severely enough."

I would love to be kept informed of efforts to right wrongs done.
(And no, I am not referring to J.T.)

I will continue my off-line offorts to ... play the part of "Superman." Fighting for truth, justice, and eliminating slimy practices in magic.

Kip

P.S. To those who craved the topic of stinging the evil rip-off artists, I apologize that the thread strayed. And I am also sorry if Lee Asher and/or Chris Kenner read any posts that imply that they are anything less than 100% creative, (and they are pretty darn honorable, to boot).

They are both geniuses and deserve to be treated in kind.

Unfortunately, you preface a statement saying you wish to drop the "3fly issue" with an argument which I feel must be countered.

You're really out of your league, and bordering on insulting in your arguments. Jonathan Townsend's orignal work encompasses the close-up waist level work, chest level work, ungaffed work, gaffed work, using Steve Dusheck's shell, and a variety of other things, and a great deal more. Having some access to the original material, I have performed the thing on stage, intimately, with big coins, small coins, poker chips, and done it in a variety of positions and styles and not once departed from ground already covered by Mr. Townsend. This is not to say that there is not room for variation on the theme, Mr. Townsend would be much quicker to point out directions to go than I would. What "seems different" to you, and what others would expect are subjects I suggest you leave alone.

I too believe in harsh treatment of thieves. And as for the "genius of Mr. Kenner", well, I don't know, but certainly the man was intelligent enough to recognize the brilliance in a concept, poorly reconstruct the demo of that concept which he viewed, cleverly title it, and sell it to the world, AND somehow convince that world that he deserves the majority, indeed, any credit at all for it. An idiot would have difficulties with such, agreed.

I will stay off that subject, if you will, from now on. I do not see much difference between that example and any we face here, however.

And I applaud your efforts at fighting crime, though, I urge you to do some more research, and not base opinions on popular opinion, or "the way things seem", as you land pretty far from the mark.

After all, Superman is little of little use to the community if he is a henchman of Lex Luther. Even as a fan of the criminal, he would do great harm.

[Guest]

Fortunately, this ol' whipper snapper has to go to bed.

Before I sign off, allow me to relate a little bit from my own genre -- martial arts.

I find my self 'discussing' Bruce Lee philosophy with subscribers to my newsletter, all of the time (Martial Arts Mastery).

Sometimes, I find out that I am arguing with a 15 yr. old, or someone who has no practical experience in the arts.

This gets old. Why?

Because I have been in the martial arts as long as I have been in magic. I started magic in 1967 and martial arts in 1966.

Re: Bruce Lee I started studying with one of the original Bruce Lee students in 1980. And I am still with him. I have also had many a lesson from Bruce Lee's other students.

And some young, inexperienced beginner is telling me what's what, regarding JKD, Bruce Lee's style -- what I am certified to teach....

At some point, you have to wonder about this Internet "leveling the playing field," so everyone appears equal.

Stuart, if you are serious about your art, I have a big suggestion -- learn some respect!

I don't know you, so maybe you have published as much creatively innovative material as Lee Asher, won all of his awards, and lectured to over 400 magic groups.

Maybe you have.

And maybe you have served as executive producer (Chris Kenner) to arguably the most famous magician of our time (David Copperfield). And maybe you have invented as much innovative material as Chris Kenner has.

Just maybe.

If so, I apologize for affecting the attitude of a teacher chastising a misbehaved student.

Are you truly a younger magician who needs to learn a little respect, or are you some bitter old f*rt in disguise?

Let's assume you are the former. In which case, figure out your apology to those more creative than you ...

BTW -- It says you are from down South. Entonces...

Ellos no te han dicho que puedas tratar de tu' (tutear) con los dos. Muestra alguna dignidad. Debes pedir disculpas.

Good night all.

Lesson in respect over.

Kip

PS Don'tcha' just get the feelin' Stuart came into this thread with a hidden agenda? Now, can we get back to topic, please?

I expect to read some rousing posts about Magic makers and Penguin when I wake up in the morning.

-=-=-=-=-=-
Keith (Kip) Pascal is the author of the critically acclaimed book
"Wrist Locks: From Protecting Yourself to Becoming an Expert."

Read more about this book and Pascal's other martial arts
books at many martial arts sites on the Internet, including:

http://www.KerwinBenson.com

http://www.AdvantageMartialArts.com

http://www.PunchHarder.com

http://www.KnfeFightingBooks.com

You can also find his hardback at Amazon.com

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Kip:
No offense intended to Townsend. It's just that I see a lot more credit needing to head to people like Chris Kenner (humble opinion only after comparing what I know about both routines). ...
I am an author by trade. For me, "published" work for crediting is of paramount importance. I apologize ahead of time if you have published your work, and I missed it. But if your work is not yet published, then it is "very polite" of Lee to credit you, wouldn't you agree?

As Richard Kaufman has mentioned, "three fly" exists in the awareness of the community, and its premise has been adopted as a sort of public knowledge. This is water under the bridge. I have moved on. The bridge however is not doing so well, and it is falling into disrepair. The water now flowing through the mill is getting brackish and showing lots of kelp and red algae.

I am not pleased to see the value in Lee's routine diluted by the market practice of offering minor variations at wholesale costs.

About my ideas and work...sorry Keith., you are a bit off the mark on this one. First, unless some folks have broken their word to me again, you are unlikely to have any knowledge of my routine(s) or ideas as regards that coin trick.

That routine and its premise were published and protected as of 1987, and NOT FOR GOSSIP OR ANY FORM OF OPEN COMMERCE OR DISCUSSION, as are most of my works. At that time I was even sending things out printed on red paper to make photocopying more difficult.

I am happy that Chris likes to perform the trick for lay audiences. This is why I sent him a write up of it. And, regardless of how it happened, of course I am pleased that folks find that format for a coins across of interest.

I did not give Kenner permission to show magicians, nor to publish. Some people went totally out of control and started a problem. Some found themselves compelled to perform unexplainable acts... and I hope they are feeling more themselves these days. :) I have reports he is an affable performer and probably a good guy for the most part. As regards my coins across, Chris does have something impressive to publish, his last coin vanish. He and Bob Kohler discussed it that day after I showed them a version of the trick that just uses sleight of hand. Perhaps he can work something out with James Riser for making the thing available. Either way, that's up to him if he wants to offer it.

Keith, as a writer you also know what it to create something. Let's say you create a story premise, and a way of telling a story that has not been tried before. What then, if some you have discussed the ideas and some examples with, were publishing material using those ideas? Is there a term for this in your field? How do writers deal with this?

As James Riser mentioned, those who make things are less inclined to make larger offerings these days. There seems to be a split between the interests of the community and the interests of the art. I like the idea of magic being both precious and special.

When I write it's to suggest how we can do better, and at worst to discuss where we are so we can address what things we might want to change. I spend time on the magic cafe directed at this purpose as well. 'They' will do the best they can, and it's up to us to show them by example if we would like them to do better.

As Jon R puts it... onward! Toward better works and better times.

[Guest]

I am not fifteen years old, and I have managed to pick up some "practical experience" in the Arts.

My level of respect for my elders has to do with their level of respect for Ethical and Artistic principles.

I have no respect for thieves. Luckily, it does not bother me if they are "famous", or not. In fact, I believe "names" should be held more accountable.

I am not attacking Lee Asher here, I apologized for my mistake there. Chris Kenner is a thief, and as such it is difficult for me to show much respect for him.

I apologize for affecting the attitude of a student chastising misbehaving teachers. It is ugly, arrogant, and doesn't make me many friends. However if the teachers of my Art will not hold themselves accountable, and their peers sort of brush off, or ignore their misdeeds, then to whom shall they be accountable, if not to the younger generation, to whom all this history and material will eventually be left?

Yo no les debo discuplas.

I suggest you, Mr. Kip, apologize to people more creative than yourself, also. Like the originator of the VC concept.

Once more, the only reason I got into this issue, is I beleive the "larger" issues like Magic Makers will NEVER BE RESOLVED until there is a unified standard of ethics on this side of the trenches.

EDIT: Townsend got in before me.

[Guest]

As I said, I have to defer the Three Fly complete history to others. I have even heard that there have been panel discussions on the subject in the past.

So, it's probably not going to be settled here, by me (the three-fly novice "out of my league"), Stuart (the young snot), or Townsend (the man who hasn't published "it").

But since Stuart is getting a little snooty, let's clear up a few things:

Lee's routine is clean and direct. I find fault with so many magicians who gum up the works with a lot of the unnecessary ... like " the close-up waist level work, chest level work, ungaffed work, gaffed work, using Steve Dusheck's shell, and a variety of other things." (Quoting Stuart's previous post.)

I haven't seen Townsend's routine, because, remember, it hasn't been published, which is still a big deal with me -- it's hard to credit a source, when there is no published source. (As a writer, everyone I know is going to publish their "book," as soon as it's finished. And as a magician, every magician I know is going to publish his trick, someday. Human nature says otherwise.)

According to Stuart, Mr. Townsend's routine is gaffed, ungaffed, waist level, chest level, etc. The way Stuart describes the routine makes it sound indirect and convoluted. It sounds like a messy routine.

Again, apologies to Jonathan -- I am going by Stuart's description only. It can't be as bad as he's making it sound, right?

Lee's routine is direct.

Jonathan, in a sense, has played it very smart by not publishing his work...

Right after I published my first book on 'Wrist Locks,' a man told me that he had been working on the very same book for 12 years. (I could see the jealousy in his eyes.)

I thought this very interesting, since many of the locks and sequences came straight out of my head. Others came from the many years that I have taught martial arts. And I used some locks (with credit, of course) from Kali, Escrima, Jiu Jitsu, Aikido, Chin na, and the other locking martial arts.

That this man could have taken locks from all those styles, been privy to the ones I invented, and had real JKD (Bruce Lee's style) training to make them practical is highly unlikely.

But guess what.

Since he had never pubished his "book," he could claim that it contained everything, incudng the kitchen sink ... and of course, his book contained my proprietary routines, which I had never shared with anyone. HIghly doubtful.

As I said Mr. Townsend is smart. By not publishing, he can claim that his routine is everything and that all have copied and stolen.

By Townsend's disciple's (Stuart's) own admission, Townsend's routine emcompasses all. In other words -- it's a weak routine. Try to please everyone, and you end up entertaining nobody.

Remember, the messy nature of the routine is only an educated guess. I have not seen J.T.'s coin routine.

So, historically, let's say J.T.'s is the routine that is the grand-daddy of them all. That doesn't make it any less weak, since it might contain all that Stuart claims.

Well, I have seen the Kenner routine. It doesn't have all that Stuart claims Townsend's has -- it seems Chris must have improved the routine when he cleaned it up, and eliminated some of the extraneous.

To be honest (or to continue in my original vein), I like Lee Asher's routine. There are parts of the 'original' Three Fly that bother me, personally (sorry Chris).

Lee did a great job cleaning up many of the 'perceived' problems.

If the claim is that Kenner's routine "is" similar to (or based on) Townsend's, then I am sure that the Townsend's routine is replete with the unnecessary and the suspicious "too."

We really need to thank Lee Asher for providing a clean, direct routine.

So, that is what I know and can extrapolate from the information provided.

I would love to have been able to sit down and compare Townsend's routine to Kenner's, move by move, but unfortunately Townsend never published it. And as I already mentioned some expert (not "Other Agenda Stuart") should be the one to address that issue.

Whether or not Chris stole from Townsend -- I wasn't there (nor were you). I know Lee Asher respects Chris highly, and I know how painstaking Lee is in his efforts to figure out whom to include in his credits. He is a stickler for being proper, and if someone isn't included, there is a reason.


As Stuart points out (He) and I are out of our league. So, neither of us should be makin ghtese comments.

Unfortunately, Stuart probably won't let us get back to the Magic Makers discussion. And yes, it would be funny to have Stuart liken Magic Makers to Chris Kenner in front of Chris.

This is all sad, but funny. (oxymoronic statement, sorry.)

Just think, we waivered off the true topic, because Stuart complained that Lee didn't credit Townsend. Then, it was immediately pointed out that Jonathan Townsend did receive the first credit.

In a court of law, if you find error in somoene's testimony, you are instructed to disregard the rest of their statements. Hmmm.

I admit exactly what I do and don't know about this subject. A lot of what I say is conjecture, and not meant to offend Mr. Townsend.

For example, I did not discuss the "whys" of J.T.'s lack of publication. As an author, folks tell me all of the time about 'the book' they are working on. These books rarely get completed and/or published. Everybody is writing a book, it seems.

We aren't here to discuss the motivation or lack thereof behind not publishing a trick.

In fact, we weren't here to discuss Three Fly at all. Oops, on my part, too.

Kip

PS Mr. Townsend sounds like a nice guy, based on the little I know about him, and the private letter I received this morning from him, off thread.

Chris Kenner was the perfect host.

Lee Asher is one my favorite people on this earth.

Stuart is a little brash, and needs a "time out," in the corner, without cookies and milk.

And I Kip Pascal, apologize for having to affect this occasionally condescending attitide. The only excuse I can offer is that I was a high school teacher for over a dozen years, before turning to writing full time.

Again, sorry for the attitude in this post.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keith Pascal has authored (and published) over 500 articles on the martial arts.

His book "The Punch Papers," contains over 40 of his articles on "How to Punch Harder, Faster, and More Efficiently."

You can read some of Pascal's articles weekly, in the ezine that is sent to over 8,000 martial artists: "Martial Arts Mastery: A Tell-All of Tips, Tactics, and Techniques." Sign up at:
http://www.KerwinBenson.com

[Guest]

Suddenly, the notion of deleting this man's posts is not such a shock...

Magic Makers consider themselves to be more important than (some) basic ethics.

Apparently, some of their opponents consider themselves to be more important than (other) basic ethics -- namely, good manners.

As always, if you are "big enough", you can "get away with" all manner of nonsense. But we always find the other man's nonsense to be much more reprehensible than our own.

[Richard Kaufman]

Let's get back to the main topic of this thread, please, otherwise I shall lock it.

[Pete Biro]

Is the Penetrating Wand on the Penguin site not the same as John Kennedy's STIR FRY? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Guest]

Funny, now I understand why so many peers in high school can barely read, their teachers can't either!

I never said that Townsend's original routine encompassed all the things you mention, I said that he had explored all of those options, trying them all for his concept, to see how they work in different situations.

You again mention his work has not been published, and that one cannot cite an un-published source. EXACTLY . None of the variations that have been published by others are ethically valid, precisely BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL WAS NEVER PUBLISHED.

I have long since apologized for saying Lee did not credit Townsend. He however did NOT ask Townsend's permission, which is still a mark against him. There can be no ethical or artistic unity amongst the "good guys" while such continues.

I am not Mr. Townsend's "disciple". I have never met the man. Rather, when I began looking into the Visual Coins Across concept, I did some research. I looked over all the threads I could find, spent hours reading, and have verified things with people who are beyond reproach, and had no reason for bias in the matter. Since then, I have found Mr. Townsend to be getting the short end of the stick in discussion after discussion.

And again, it keeps getting brought up, in discussion after discussion, which bothers many people. I AM SORRY Mr. Biro, for instance! I even apologize to Mr. Kauffman for bringing this up, once more! But do you not see? As long as such attitudes as the above continue, how can we stop discussing it? And it is a fairly good example, a good case to discuss and illustrate exactly the nature of the beast, the ugly doublesidedness of the problems which we face.

Thank you Mr. Peters.

EDIT: the last couple got in before me. Funny, I did manage to Apologize to Mr. Biro, and Kauffman in advance. Please, by all means, let the discussion continue on the more general sense...

[Guest]

I must say that I am glad we can discuss issues with Genii's advertisers on this forum. Funny they don't realize at the cafe, they'll only draw flak, deleting such posts.

Now, it only remains to get them to stop accepting them at all. It wouldn't be everything, but I wonder if we can approach this step by step?

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Publishing is not the sole criteria by which to determine precedence and ownership. We also have the eyewitness accounts of those present during the early development of a particular routine and when that routine is performed/taught in person.

-Jim

[Guest]

I was going to reply with a funny post to Doug about his comments on me being big (yes, I do have a bit of a belly -- I am working on it).

And I would love to address Stuart's slam on my teaching ability. His statment is like claiming that Copperfield is afraid of performing in front of an audience.

But let's respect Richard's wish of returning to topic. (Much better to do so, than for me to fill this post with defense of my teaching ability.)


So, back to topic:
We were not talking about derivations of coin tricks specifically -- who has progressed a coin trick to the next level, and all of that.

We 'are' talking about blatant rip-offs, in this particular thread.

So, I agree with Richard 100%, let's get back to discussing how Magic Makers and Penguin are going to raise magicians on their knock-offs, how the younger set of magicians don't seem to care, how many magic shops support this 'bad practice,' and what 'we' can do about it.

Kip

PS And if Stuart insists on continuing his slams and criticisms, maybe Richard would be so kind as to start another thread about 'the respect' that magicians should demonstrate.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Let's get back to the main topic of this thread, please...

Agreed. There appears to be unauthorized sale of folks work happening at one place.

Nobody likes to find their work taken and sold by others that way.

[Guest]

Amen, Jonathan.

BTW -- it can be done. When a company sold unauthorized downloads of my book "Secrets of Teaching Martial Arts More Effectively," I took steps to have it taken down immediately.

I even received a check in compensation for unauthorized copies sold.

So yes, it can be done.

Kip

PS Fortunately, this type of dishonesty doesn't run as rampant in the field of martial arts as it does in magic. Unfortunately, I see myself coming out with a creative effort in magic ... soon.

Please don't suggest that I just give Rob Stiff the password to my comuter and save him a few steps at ripping me off. (Ahem, that was a teensy attempt at humor.)

[Guest]

Originally posted by Jim Riser

Originally posted by nola:

Originators of magical methods and effects will no longer choose to release material to the magic community. Our loss. Sad. Very sad.

(Riser)
The immediate changes in magic being offered to others will be seen from the originators. There will be fewer new releases to the whole magic fraternity. These releases will come with strings attached - such as nondisclosure agreements etc. Prices will go up due to sales lost to the rip off versions.

Considering the topic (or topics) I think it is funny that at least twice Jim Riser has been credited with making the point that creators will stop releasing material when in reality I am the Originator of that particular line of thinking within the context of this thread in this forum.

some may argue that Mr Riser has improved my quote with his big words and stuff and I guess i agree, however let us please get the credits correct here!!!
:p

peace.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by nola:
...
some may argue that Mr Riser has improved my quote with his big words and stuff and I guess i agree, however let us please get the credits correct here!!! :p peace.

Have folks read Atlas Shrugged?

Who is John Galt?

No more fal$e profit$!

[Jim Riser]

Originally posted by nola:

Considering the topic (or topics) I think it is funny that at least twice Jim Riser has been credited with making the point that creators will stop releasing material when in reality I am the Originator of that particular line of thinking within the context of this thread in this forum.

some may argue that Mr Riser has improved my quote with his big words and stuff and I guess i agree, however let us please get the credits correct here!!!
:p

peace.

This brings up another question: "How much crediting is enough?". If I quote Nola at the top of my posting, does this sufficiently establish Nola as the originator? :help:

Let's try to stay on topic here. If anything is to be done about the above two rip off firms, we must avoid side trips. While we have been arguing about each others ages etc., Magic Makers and Penguin have each made two trips to the bank with profit from their plunder.
:mad:
Jim

[Guest]

Simple question (I hope)--

Many of us already don't buy from the "rip-off" dealers.

However, how then do we get original material supplied exclusively by them (e.g., Lovell or Sanky)?

:confused:

[Robert Allen]

Warlock,

- first, I'd wonder how exclusive it really is, or will be, given the rampant theft in the business.

- second, I'd question the motives of anyone who would offer exclusive material to rip off artists.

- third, I'm sure a thread started here might eventually be noticed by the people producing the material, as would a lack of sales of their exclusive material if the vendor was being boycotted.

- fourth, do you really, really, really really need said exclusive material?

[Richard Kaufman]

nola, the idea of creative people not releasing material because it will get copied is ancient, so please give me a break.
Kip's book, which he states was copied, was protected by copyright and has no relation to the material under discussion here.
Customers vote with the money. If no one bought copies, then manufacturers would stop copying things.

[Ian Kendall]

I have a sad feeling that the sermons being preached here are aimed at the converted. I would wager that the vast majority of Penguin/MM customers do not visit this board, preferring instead the Cafe, Penguin's own or any one of the seven hundred and thrity two other magic boards on the web tonight.

I doubt that MM are losing too much sleep over this one; threats of boycotts from a group that does not spend anyway carry little weight, and pleas of ethical behaviour, however impassioned, are unlikely to sway the generation of clones that have risen from the Dragon's teeth. Contacting the lost boys will be the first hurdle, those who have ventured into the Penguin's board will realise that it more tightly edited than the Cafe ever could be.

Another avenue would be full page adverts in the glossies, but who would pay? And to be fair, who among the targets would read them (from seeing messages, Genii and Magic are not on the preferred reading list - perhaps the reading bit is the deterrant?). RK has mentioned ad nauseam that it is not his lot to police the advertisers, and I doubt Stan has another view. Dead end.

Hit them where it hurts? Perhaps someone should make an alternative DVD of Liquid Metal, or perhaps the Dixie Dooley series? (I'm assuming noone is actually taking this idea seriously). No, sinking to their level is not something to be considered?

Wilson's pretty handly with the Martial Arts. Perhaps we should send him and Kip down to explain the principles behind 'Jeet Kun Do and ethical marketing'? Perhaps not.

The sad fact is that there is no answer. These effects are plainly aimed at the Clones who have no knowledge, much less respect, for the history of magic effects. The bottom line is the cheapest way to be k3wl, and the fastest way to achieve that. I imagine that six months down the line, were we to question all the purchasers of this DVD, very few of them would be able to pick Lee out of a line up.

There is a closed market at play; Penguin provides a one stop shop for the Hip street magician of today and there is no need to go anywhere else. RK summed it up in a post a few months ago; 'you cannot copyright a trick'.

It's a sad day, of that there is no doubt. But it won't be the last.

Take care, Ian

[Guest]

Richard is absoutely right. It is a question of copyright with a book. The point, which I failed to make, was that I got my book pulled and the check in the mail without resorting to the legal arena.

I used good, ol' fashioned peer pressure. And yes, they lost a bunch of business as a result of their practices.

How do you stop magic makers and penguin?

Hit them where it hurts -- in their wallets. Take their customers away....

Convince magic shops not to order from Magic Makers -- boycotting is legal.

In my case, my goal was to convince companies that dealt with the crooks. And I also approached some of their affiliates. I offered them loyalty, support, and "my" customer list, if they would turn away from the crooks.

Now -- how to reach the Penguin buyers -- I am working on it "actively."

These discussion boards are really helpful, but they are "passive." Until we start a snowball effect.

In the last 24 hours, the topic of knock-off artists is appearing everywhere. The topic has appeared before -- but I am willing to bet that this time it will be different.

Kip

[Brian Marks]

I refuse to post on this thread because it is knock off of a conversation I had with fellow magicians. This thread was started with out my permission and it hasn't added anything new to the topic. I think Ill call my attorney.

[Brian Marks]

In reality I cant believe anyone would knock off such a well known trick.

[Guest]

The majority of people buying from Penguin, I think, fall into two categories:

1) People looking for a big discount. With online shopping being a widespread trend, and people used to discounts on other products when shopping on amazon.com or similar sites, many have come to expect and look for a discount. Telling most of them a dealer is "bad" I doubt will do much, since, in many cases, they're still offering the lowest price.

2) People who don't really know much. They don't have the knowledge to make accurate purchasing decisions, so as soon as they see something good, they're going to think it's great, not realizing it's really someone else's. Many of them are unlikely to probably read these message boards extensively, other than trying to find information on the newest product, not wanting to bother with ethical issues.


Face it Penguin is attacking a certain market, and it's probably the widest market. They're also offering a lot other dealers are not doing.
1) Providing a list of popular products. If other people think it's good, it's likely to be good.
2) A lot video demonstrations, with many different viewing options to meet your needs. You can try before you buy.
3) Instant Downloads. No delivery delay.
4) Providing a place for users to voice their opinions. They want you to be heard, and, you're likely to come back for more for that reason. Everyone wants to be heard.
5) Their site is also fairly easy to navigate, there's photos of all the products, and you don't have to know the name of what you are looking for to find something you want to buy. Few other dealers are supplying any of this.

In fulfilling these qualities and the value-pricing, Penguin Magic is attacking much that the Net Generation is looking for in a purchase(for an excellent overview of this subject see Don Tapscott's book The Rise of The Net Generation).

My suggestion: Help reliable dealers change their sites to incorporate all of these features, and engage in extensive promotion. The only way to beat them is to get their customers by offering everything they're getting there and more. As it stands now, no one else is matching up.

[Guest]

Aaron,

Your comments, though painful, ring true.

Another suggestion:

I know at least one magic shop, that as a favor to me, would refuse to carry magic makers.

If I only had five friends who had the same relationships with magic shops, and they had five each, and those 25 had...

In reality, I know a lot more than five magicians with a certain amount of 'pull' at various magic shops.

Any guesses how many shops Makers deals with?

Any guesses on how many it would take to cripple their sales?

The on-line effort, to the Net Generation, would, as you say, take different measures.

Just a few late-night thoughts.

Thanks again for posting, Aaron. I copied down a few of your comments, to ponder later.

Kip

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
nola, the idea of creative people not releasing material because it will get copied is ancient, so please give me a break.
Kip's book, which he states was copied, was protected by copyright and has no relation to the material under discussion here.
Customers vote with the money. If no one bought copies, then manufacturers would stop copying things.

My appologies if you took that as anything other than a joke.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Brian Marks:
In reality I cant believe anyone would knock off such a well known trick.

It's amazing what the market will bear.

I've posted some food for cogent discussion on the caf. There is the customer base. Here are mostly empty words. Unless some here are competent IT folks with friends who do bad things.

[Richard Kaufman]

Jonathan, your final comment is a dangerous one. If someone does tamper with the Magic Makers or Penguin websites, that is a federal crime. Making a statement such as yours in a public forum could bring unwanted scrutiny from the FBI if such a crime should come to pass.
Remember your Shakespeare: "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

[Guest]

I wont tell if you wont.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Jonathan, your final comment is a dangerous one. If someone does tamper with the Magic Makers or Penguin websites, that is a federal crime. Making a statement such as yours in a public forum could bring unwanted scrutiny from the FBI if such a crime should come to pass.
Remember your Shakespeare: "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Okay Richard, I do not condone ANY attack upon the property of another.

I'd like to propose more creative solutions to our market problems. Sure, and I'd like to thank Gutenberg for the printing press, Xerox for the photocopier and P. T. Barnum for reminding me that there is a sucker born every minute. And my science teacher for letting me know that today, unlike in Barnum's time, there is a sucker born every second. Also thanks to Al Gore for inventing the internet so I can put my ad copy before so many sets of hungry eyes. And of course to copyright law which protects only textual expression and not cognitive property.

Inspired by all of the above, I have decided to artistically remake all the conjuring books on my shelves, updating the text into modern language and updating the illustrations to show scantily clad women posing suggestively with the props. This modern library of conjuring will be made available one volume at a time, starting with a work inspired by Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft and a wonderful issue of Hustler Magazine featuring models dressed as clergy. Coming soon to an adult bookstore and website near you. The DVDs are looking very hot!

[Timothy Hyde]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:

Remember your Shakespeare: "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Ahh, Henry II, my favourite work of the Bard :)

[Guest]

Al Gore invented the Internet? I thought it was DARPA.

[Frank Starsinic]

My thread on this topic was removed from the magic cafe :(

Aparently it is their policy.

Which Shakespeare play was that Richard?
Not Richard III, I presume? :)

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
Remember your Shakespeare: "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

For those who read: http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1229almanac.htm

Much more interesting than the bizarrist stories of summoning demons.

[Tim Ellis]

Maybe you will find this page useful:

http://www.magicunlimited.com/magic_fakers.htm

Please feel free to email me with additions or corrections.

[Randy DiMarco]

Re: How to get legitimate material (Sankey, Lovell) from these sites.
-----
I think the answer is - DON'T. If enough people refuse to buy this material these and other creators will eventually refuse to do business with these companies. No one really "needs" the newest Sankey trick.

[Robert Allen]

Tim, your page (which shows the original prop next to its cheap, Chinese ripoff) is an excellent idea. I think I'll go post a link to it over at the Magic Cafe. Steve Brooks will probably delete my posting pretty quickly, but in the meantime...

Here's the link:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... forum=30&0

[a few hours later]

I have to eat crow. Though my topic was moved to a different forum at the Cafe (and the link above is now updated to be correct), Steve did not remove it. For that I thank the Cafe moderators. So far my post with the link to the magic fakers site has been viewed 30+ times.

[a few minutes later]

Well, ok maybe just a couple moouthfuls of crow. My topic is there and readable and has the link to the fakers site (which is good) but it's locked so people can't say "Hey isn't all the stuff in the ripoff section made by XXX?" But it's a decent compromise I guess.