Double standards?

[Temperance]

Why was there no outraged uproar over the publication of Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse?

Why is it acceptable for one person to essentially rip off a marketed item when it's considered high treason when someone else does it?

Just thinking out loud.

Euan

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Euan:
Why was there no outraged uproar over the publication of Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse?...

My limited understanding of Ron Bauer's works is that he takes relatively standard items and uses them to offer practical lessons in presentation and routining.

What specifically was awkward about this publication?

[Guest]

What is a "standard item". The Gypsy Curse is a creation of Peter Kane and is still available for sale.

If I have my own personal touches and handling for a "standard item" (as everybody should), is it OK for me to republish the item for profit?

Is this any different from the rip offs of "Healed and Sealed"? Cosmosis?

I have some new patter and a subtle additional move for the quarter through soda can - can I release it in a booklet or DVD (including the workings of the original trick)?

[cgscpa]

Originally posted by Paul Higgins:
What is a "standard item". The Gypsy Curse is a creation of Peter Kane and is still available for sale.

I think that the fact that it is readily available for sale is why it was refered to as a "standard item". The publication did not come with the necessary cards. My purchase of 'Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse' was accompanied by a purchase of the original 'Gypsy Curse'.

C. Springirth

[Richard Kaufman]

There is no absolute line in the dirt on this type of thing.
Taking Gypsy Curse as an example, it uses gimmicked cards. So, publishing a variation in a book (as I did in The Complete Works of Derek Dingle) doesn't "damage" the rights of the originator because you still need to buy his cards.
Quarter through Soda Can is a different issue because there is no gimmick--you are only purchasing information when you buy the DVD.

[Guest]

Why is this issue even raised?

From the above posts it would appear that Mr. Bauer has gone above and beyond the "standard" ethics of many magicians. He apparently not only has given credit for the creator but apparently bought one of the products from the creator to sell with his additions.

This should be presented as a model of behavior, not criticized.
Al Schneider

[Guest]

Interesting points, but I think Euans original point of "double standards" is still valid. I'm sure if Billy Bloggs over at the Magic Cafe started selling an e-book detailing the Gypsy Curse with some minor variations and a new patter theme, questions would be asked to say the least.

P.S. Sorry for the double identity - don't know how I ended up with two logins.

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by jnhofzinser:
I think Euans original point of "double standards" is still valid.

How? At worst you might complain that Bauer is exposing the nature of the gaffs used in Wild Card. Is there anyone who is going to purchase this who doesn't already know that?

At best he's promoting the sale of Peter Kane's trick by adding value in the form of a "private lesson" using the trick. And, as noted above, the student has to purchase the trick.

Here's the real question. Does Emerson and West still pay royalites to Peter Kane's estate for the trick?

[Temperance]

Wild Card's a different trick Bill

Euan

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Euan:
Wild Card's a different trick...

Yes Euan, most of us who take card magic seriously know that.

Would you state your concerns and issues with the Ron Bauer product as it relates to the marketed Peter Kane item?

[Guest]

Originally posted by Euan:
Why was there no outraged uproar over the publication of Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse?

Why is it acceptable for one person to essentially rip off a marketed item when it's considered high treason when someone else does it?

Just thinking out loud.

Euan

Why the outraged uproar now, Euan, when Bauer's product went to market years ago? Have you got a problem with Ron, or are you just whacking anyone associated with Steve Youell, another of your targets for Ad Hominem attack?

As Richard noted, versions of the "Gypsy Curse" abound in the literature, with Derek Dingle's being one of better-known examples - why not attack him?

Why is it acceptable for you to infer theft when it is obvious to everyone with any background that the opposite is true?

Just thinking out loud...

Best, PSC

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bill Duncan:

Originally posted by jnhofzinser:
I think Euans original point of "double standards" is still valid.

How?

Because, as I stated in my post, if Billy Bloggs came out with a book explaining the trick with a different presentation or minor change to the handling, I believe a lot of eyebrows would be raised.

Regardless of whether either man is doing anything wrong, this is a double standard.

[Guest]

Originally posted by jnhofzinser:

Originally posted by Bill Duncan:
[b]

Originally posted by jnhofzinser:
I think Euans original point of "double standards" is still valid.

How?

Because, as I stated in my post, if Billy Bloggs came out with a book explaining the trick with a different presentation or minor change to the handling, I believe a lot of eyebrows would be raised.

Regardless of whether either man is doing anything wrong, this is a double standard. [/b]

Well, a.) There is no Billy Bloggs
and , b.) You are arguing a non-event. I believe NO eyebrows would be raised at Billy Blogg, so there...

Seriously, how can there be a double standard for a non-existent person or event?

Next, the fact that Euan, for one, has HIS eyebrows raised means that Bauer ISN'T immune to criticism, so no double standard, even imaginary, exists, does it?

Finally, the topic isn't about a double standard, really, is it? It's about one person's agenda, as yet unrevealed...

Best, PSC

[Guest]

You know, I've just noticed that there is a guy imposing his "vast ethical sensitivity" on us. Namely his harping on the issue of double standards. Are there any shrinks out there? Perhaps you'll address the double standard issue for him - not the one on this thread, the one he has.

The reason I'm calling attention to this is BECAUSE I understand that he has two logins and doesn't know why. I prefer NOT to respond to him anymore because it appears that he is the type of person that could become dangerous as his schizophrenia advances. Of course it might be a mild case at this point, but I'd rather not take any chances that his symptoms will escalate...

Best, PSC

[Temperance]

Originally posted by pchosse:
Why the outraged uproar now, Euan, when Bauer's product went to market years ago?

Because I only became aware of it recently.

Originally posted by pchosse:
Have you got a problem with Ron, or are you just whacking anyone associated with Steve Youell, another of your targets for Ad Hominem attack?

I don't see how anything I've said here can be considered 'Ad Hominem', the same goes for anything I've said regarding Steven Youell. For it to be Ad Hominem I would need to reject a claim or argument on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the claimant. That's not the case here, In fact ironically it is you sir who is offering an Ad Hominem attack against me by inferring my opinion holds no sway because of something I have said about Steven Youell, which is irrelevant.

As Richard noted, versions of the "Gypsy Curse" abound in the literature, with Derek Dingle's being one of better-known examples - why not attack him?

What kind of weak Appeal to Common Practice argument is this? 'Lots of other people have done it (though you only cite one person, Derek Dingle no less) therefore it's ok for everyone else to follow suit?' I can't make a comment on Derek Dingles 'version' one way or the other as I'm not privy to the handling. However, throwing this up is pretty irrelevant not to mention pointless. What would be the idea behind attacking someone who is no longer here to defend themselves or to set a wrong right? If however, the handling is an ultra minor handling change which offers no real difference in the approach and the resulting effect, then at the time of publication he should have been lambasted for it, sure. Just because you're a 'name' doesn't make you infallible or beyond criticism.

Why is it acceptable for you to infer theft when it is obvious to everyone with any background that the opposite is true?

Because it is my right to express my opinion. Further, why would it be 'obvious to anyone with any background that the opposite is true'? So do you think there is significant change to the handling and effect to require the issuing of credit? If so, what is it? If you compare the two handlings they are for the most part the same, the effect and presentations are pretty much identical. However, the introduction to the manuscript infers otherwise. In fact, Bauer makes a point of saying that he felt the original effect 'missed the mark' and that the handling was 'cosy and contrived'. He then goes on to say that his changes have made the effect 'so clean and clear, there's no warning to tip off the sudden, startling climax!'. Inferring that this was not the case in the original (which anyone with a background in these things will know to be false).

Just thinking out loud...

Thank you for having the grace to rise above the need to be condescending.

My main concern here is that Ron Bauer (in this case) is given too much credit for something which he didn't create. By calling the manuscript 'Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse' he makes the effect appear to be his own by prefacing it with his own name. If he wants to publish booklets teaching pacing and presentation, then why not do so with his own material? Why stoop to the use of other peoples?

Euan

[Guest]

Ok, ok, we are talking ethics here so I have to reveal an earth-shattering secret. Hold on to your hats, boys!

Steven Youell, in a diabolical scheme to grab the attention of the online magic fraternity, devised an advertising strategy that would challenge the secrecy and deviousness of Milbourne Christopher and Frank Joglar.

How would he bring out his ground-breaking approach to teaching advanced card magic? By creating a character so repulsive and annoying to challenge his integrity at every turn that readers would see how dedicated, loyal, and giving Steven truly is...

By now perhaps you've guessed - that Steven Youell and Euan Whatchamacallit are the SAME GUY!

I warned Steven, I tried to tell him, people are gonna notice that if they say Youell and Euan together the similarity will be revealed, but he modestly said, "Aw, what the heck, it's all in fun anyway..."

So, there you have it folks - Euan is... NOBODY!

Best, PSC

[Temperance]

Did you feel the need to insult me because you can't challenge my argument and/or answer the questions, or do you have another agenda? (that of having the thread locked perhaps?)

Euan

PS.. What has Steven Youell to do with any of this?

PPS.. If I'm Steven Youell posing as Euan and Euan is 'nobody' then by that logic, your friend Steven Youell is also 'nobody', which begs the question. Who's doing the typing?

[Pete Biro]

Until I got Ron Bauer's routine for the Gypsy Curse I didin't like any of the handling (including my old pal Dingle's, becaue you had to handle too big a lump as one card).

Having purchased several several sets of the Kane Cards, I never felt like getting the Bauer routine was a crime.

[Guest]

I lurk alot, so I decided to create a new user name; in other words, please don't take this as some registering to jump into a fight.

I was enjoying reading this thread, hoping that it would generate some interesting discussion. It's a shame that it had to come down to a cheap laugh and personal insults rather than answering points made.

So, there you have it folks

I respect and admire you greatly Paul, I've read much of your work and I've been taught alot by Mr. Youell, but what is that all about? You're not performing, this isn't a chance for you to get one over on some one else. Ron is obviously a mentor and a friend to yourself and I can see why you would not take this matter lightly. But it's sad when it comes down to you "playing up for the crowd".

[Guest]

Originally posted by Pete Biro:
Until I got Ron Bauer's routine for the Gypsy Curse I didin't like any of the handling (including my old pal Dingle's, becaue you had to handle too big a lump as one card).

Having purchased several several sets of the Kane Cards, I never felt like getting the Bauer routine was a crime.

It's a great routine from Peter and Ron does an excellent job of writing up the handling and his usual nuances in presentation. I don't think that's being debated. I think it's the morality of some one, no matter who they are, writing up anothers trick with their name on it. In the grand scheme of things, obviously it means nothing. But to magical ethics (something I know yourself and Mr Chosse have a much greater understanding of than I) it's pretty important.

What if, I know this is hypothetical, but what if Euan was to write up one of Mr. Chosse's effects with his name on? Euan Binghams Sudden Death Triple Header? I'm sure Paul wouldn't be too happy. I'm sure he would be much more happier with;

Paul Chosses' Triple Header

Performance Ideas and Thoughts from E. Bingham.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Euan:
Did you feel the need to insult me because you can't challenge my argument and/or answer the questions, or do you have another agenda? (that of having the thread locked perhaps?)

Euan

PS.. What has Steven Youell to do with any of this?

PPS.. If I'm Steven Youell posing as Euan and Euan is 'nobody' then by that logic, your friend Steven Youell is also 'nobody', which begs the question. Who's doing the typing?

Aw, quit the kidding, Steven!

Best, PSC

P.S. I'll talk to you tomorrow...

[Temperance]

"So do you think there is significant change to the handling and effect to require the issuing of credit? If so, what is it?"

Euan

[Guest]

Who "could become dangerous as his schizophrenia advances."

Is it me because my two different computers have automatically saved 2 different logins (due to a problem with recovering a password some time ago)? Is it Euan because he is really Steven?

Your reference to the double login leads me to believe that you are referring to me, but then I can think of no reason for the senseless personal attack other than your animosity towards Euan.

Sorry, but resorting to such childish drivel indicates that you really have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

If you read my posts you will find that I merely raised some discussion points in a non-confrontational manner. I did not attack any individual or question anybodys honesty.

As can be seen by the posts in this thread, the question of a double standard is a valid one and just because there is no such "Billy Bloggs" in this this particular case should not prevent us from discussing it hypothetically.

I stand by my assertion that should I start to sell a minor variation of a marketed product, you Mr Chosse would be one of the first people to tell me that I was not acting correctly.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Still waiting to read a cogent discussion of the basic question about the item.

Euan, what specifically do you find questionable about the Ron Bauer lesson?

[Temperance]

Excuse the redundancy.

"My main concern here is that Ron Bauer (in this case and others) is given too much credit for something which he didn't create. By calling the manuscript 'Ron Bauer's Sudden Death Gypsy Curse' he makes the effect appear to be his own by prefacing it with his own name. If he wants to publish booklets teaching pacing and presentation, then why not do so with his own material? Why stoop to the use of other peoples?"

More closer to home, what would be your thoughts if ron bauer released a manuscript called 'ron bauer's finger tip coins across' charging money for what is essentially your idea with a preface slagging said idea into the ground.

Euan

[Guest]

I think Jonathons is a bad example, because it's already been stolen, re-written and "slagged" into the ground by many, despite its brilliance. Or maybe it's a prime example and Jonathon can tell us exactly how that feels? Maybe he isn't as bitter about it as I imagine I would be in his position; please share Jonathon. ;)

[Richard Kaufman]

Jonathan's Fingertip Coins Across idea has not been "stolen"--he has repeatedly been given credit by people for the basic idea. I would say that discussion has just about been beaten into the ground.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Shaun:
I think Jonathons is a bad example, because it's already been stolen, re-written and "slagged" into the ground by many, despite its brilliance. Or maybe it's a prime example and Jonathon can tell us exactly how that feels?

At this time I feel it's an awkward example, as neither my work nor the proper crediting for my work is in print. Likewise let's avoid discussing how or why others attempt to fabricate histories involving inventors and books from which nobody seems to have learned.

Let's set all that aside and imagine a time after I've let the thing into print and made sure those whose works informed my efforts have been properly thanked (by me). I'm looking forward to releasing the VCA into print as well as the ideas and other smaller items related to that project.

Let's imagine a future where the VCA hit print a few months or years ago...

Suppose we find out that Ron Bauer is about to offer Watching the Eagles Cross the Road in his lessons series, with a sentence at the end crediting the basic trick to me.... I'd be flattered. If Ron Bauer found a way to perform the routine so that it is both more engaging and also less stressful on the performer... I'd be delighted.

[Temperance]

If Ron Bauer found a way to perform the routine so that it is both more engaging and also less stressful on the performer... I'd be delighted.

'If' being the operative word. What 'if' it was published without this 'more engaging less stressful' qualifier.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Euan:

If Ron Bauer found a way to perform the routine so that it is both more engaging and also less stressful on the performer... I'd be delighted.

'If' being the operative word. What 'if' it was published without this 'more engaging less stressful' qualifier.

I can answer that question using real examples in our literature. The items "Impromptu Wildcard" and "Coin Go-Return" were sent into print to get some ideas and sleights out to the community. Among other things, the retention-to-edge-grip and "flying shuttle" are right there for those who want to look.

About six months after the items made print, a variation of each was published. The coin item variation used Downs palm instead of Edge Grip and offered no insight into how one might present the material. The card item offered some streamlining of the basic method and likewise nothing on presentation. How did I feel? I was happy to see folks were exploring the ideas.

That covers the personal side of the matter.

Your question also brings Ron Bauer into the discussion. From what I recall of him and from a few moments glancing over a couple of his lesson books, I expect his offerings provide useful and tested advice, strategies and procedures for performance. In the unlikely event that he were to offer a "clunker", that would reflect upon him and not the item he chose for his lesson.

Getting back to your objection, Euan, is this about the title of the item? A concern that some novice might pick up the booklet and not already know "Gypsy Curse" is a Peter Kane trick?

[Temperance]

The title is part of the issue. I object to the entire series, I was using the Gypsy Curse booklet as an example.

He is selling other people's material for monetary gain. He also demands credit by association by offering tiny tweeks in handling which overshadows the original creators efforts; doubly so for those not familiar with the original sources.

If he wishes to offer advice on timing and presentation then he should do so with his own material. Why is this so hard to grasp? The bottom line is that selling other peoples material for profit is unethical.

Euan

[Bill Duncan]

Originally posted by jnhofzinser:
...if Billy Bloggs came out with a book explaining the trick with a different presentation or minor change to the handling, I believe a lot of eyebrows would be raised.

Regardless of whether either man is doing anything wrong, this is a double standard.

You came to the right guy with this question. A while back I published a booklet called Tubthumping. It was (is) filled with presentational ideas about how to "fix" well known tricks like Paul Harris' "The Ultimate Rip Off", and David Roth's "Hanging Coins". I was unknown to anyone in the magical community outside of the Seattle area, and this BBS.

Rather than being criticized, it was met with positive reviews in Genii and MAGIC magazine, and nice compliments from people I have never met. In the two cases cited (the Harris and Roth tricks) I didnt even bother to explain my handlings (which are rather different) because the book was about presentation and I believed anyone who would be interested in reading what I had to say would already know the tricks.

So I can attest that from personal experience, a nobody like me did exactly what you were concerned about and was treated fairly by the magic community.

best,
bill

[Temperance]

That's not the same thing at all. As you said, you didn't explain the workings, you only described all you had to add; the presentation. Nothing wrong with that, assuming the presentations were original.

You didn't try and claim credit for something which ultimately was not yours to claim.

I've said this before, but in my opinion, if all you have to add is the presentation, then all you should publish is the presentation!

You can't just add tiny touches in the handling e.g change a KO move into a spread cull and then call the trick your own. That's a handling preference, not a discovery.

These 'private studies' are no different to the kind of things Paul Gordon is publishing and in my opinion, they are unethical and should not be allowed.

Euan

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Euan:
...selling other people's material for monetary gain...overshadows the original creators efforts; doubly so for those not familiar with the original sources. ...

Okay, that's your concern and position on the matter.

As a matter of taste, and on a scholarly -academic level, I happen to agree with those sentiments and when writing, prefer to point the reader to primary sources for items where possible. I have made direct requests that my ideas and methods NOT be taught outside of their published sources. This also for the reason of preserving the value of the primary sources.

Do we have significant books that have proved themselves over time which follow the aesthetic described above? Would our market support such a policy?

I'm not gonna criticize the Ron Bauer series just yet about this issue. The intent of teaching theatrical and dramatic methods to magicians by using accessible routines seems laudable. How to do so without raising the issues and concerns you've raised is a good question. I don't believe one can learn theatrical skills without a script and some direction and feedback. What do you suggest?

On a similar track, what are your feelings about encyclopedic re-teachings of other people's material?

[Steve Bryant]

This David Eldridge video advertised on Brad Burt's site addresses both Three-Fly and Gypsy Curse. Hmmm.

On this video you will learn some of David's coolest, most commercial, and most magical effects. There is a "3-Fly" routine that is easy and CLEAN! "The Gypsy Hex" is Dave's version of Peter Kane's "Gypsy Curse" that will have your spectators rubbing their eyes in disbelief. "The Calendar Trick" is one of the scariest, most ingenious tricks ever devised! Dave's version of Guy Hollingworth's "Waving the Kings"- complete with four-aces finale- will freak you out, because there is no difficult sleight-of-hand and no packet switch! Best of all it is nearly impromtu! Also included is Dave's HILARIOUS "Bag Gag". Similar to the Head Twister Illusion, but without the big, expensive stage prop. This is a KILLER video, and I highly recommend it!

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Steve Bryant:
This David Eldridge video advertised on Brad Burt's site addresses both Three-Fly and Gypsy Curse. Hmmm.

Anyone remember Stars on 45?

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/

[Scott Fridinger]

Isn't 90% of all NEW magic, just someone elses?
I have a routine which I use based off of Greg Wilson's ambitous card using a blank deck. I have expanded the use of the blank deck to include an Ace production (Acrobatic Aces/Ammar, Daley's Last Trick/Daley with Bannon's plot using Hammon's Gemini count, Jazz Aces/Kane&Ortiz (which is a very clean handling using double blanks), Ambitious/Greg Wilson, and finally Ultimate Fusion/Ortz. After all of this discussion, could I write this up giving full credit or would that be stealing?

It is kinda fun to read this argument every other month.

[John LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Scott Fridinger:
Isn't 90% of all NEW magic, just someone elses?

Where'd you get that number? (And try not to be graphic.)

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/

[Scott Fridinger]

Originally posted by John LeBlanc:

Originally posted by Scott Fridinger:
[b] Isn't 90% of all NEW magic, just someone elses?

Where'd you get that number? (And try not to be graphic.)

John
http://www.escamoteurettes.com/blog/ [/b]

I don't know I just threw that out there. I mean it seems like everyting is just another Matrix/Coins Across/Triumph. I know alot of it has to do with some of the Companies who are out there releasing certain products. I in no way am trying to speak badly about the many people out there trying to advance the art. But if you look at the rate at which Ellusionists, Magic Makers and Penguin are releasing some of thier stuff, that might not be off by much. That is if you look at quantitiy of NEW magic released each month.

I like the way Michael Close touches on this type of thing. In his Closely Gaurded Secrets he has a hadling for Aronson's Side Swiped and Farmer's Bammo Card Walloper. He describes his plot and his additions, but leaves it to the purchaser to buy both effects to learn the inner workings of the original effects.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Scott Fridinger:
Isn't 90% of all NEW magic, just someone elses? ...

That sounds like a cynical take on Sturgeon's Revelation.

In the spirit of this discussion... here's a citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon\'s_law

Puzzled by the routine example cited, about what is "new" or worthy of publication? Has the routine proved so useful to you and your students that it merits inclusion in our literature? Is there something in that routine that might lead others to change the way they construct routines? Are the presentation themes so strong that they merit publication as a script?

Taking a lighter tact for a moment...
For some reason I am getting mental images of folks publishing designs for kindling and log arrangements. Shelves of books, pamphlets and lectures given on the subject of making fire. And then we start to hear squabbling over the line "get the steaks out, this should be ready in a few minutes".