Magic Community in TOTAL SILENCE as Youtube Magician EXPOSES Hundreds of Magic Tricks

[MagicbyAlfred]

When I read this argument: "Artistically speaking, are individuals like XX not what has pushed other arts forward?" (which implies that XX is furthering the art of magic),

my first thought was that it was like saying that individuals like prostitutes (XXX) are what have pushed the art of intimacy and romance forward.

Sorry. A hooker is just a hooker.

[performer]

And the claim that magic books published for the lay public are examples of the magic community's appreciation of people who enjoy methods, as well as effects, is laughable, considering the scorn heaped upon those authors by "real" magicians over the years. As we have seen on this thread and others regarding methods and the public, there are many who view any kind of access to methods, big or small, as sacrilege (I'm looking at you, performer).

.

DON'T LOOK AT ME! Unless, of course I have given you formal permission to do so. And I haven't. I tend to get very irritated when people look at me. You should be looking at yourself in the mirror. You are obviously not a magician. You are merely a layman who knows how the tricks are done. Your attitude gives it away. Learn to be a GOOD magician and your attitude will change.

Furthermore you have misrepresented my position. I don't give a stuff about exposure and I do not consider it "sacrilege". I know perfectly well that most exposure in books and television is forgotten very quickly indeed. And I am all for books explaining magic tricks. If it weren't for books I would never have become a magician in the first place. However, I do have a red line in the sand and that is you tube exposure. That will destroy magic in the long run if it is allowed to continue. It will not affect the crap magicians of whom there are several million including some of whom are on this very forum and even worse the magic cafe where they breed like flies. Laymen watching these atrocious "performers" won't care enough to look up their secrets. It is the good magicians who have to worry. They will show spectators something that in the past they would remember for the rest of their lives but now they will merely look it up on you tube and the illusion will be destroyed.

So "look at" someone else and do try to improve yourself........there's a good chap.................

[performer]

Oh, bloody hell! I just received a message from my spirit guide! He has informed me that Peter Ross is poor old Widdle that I and Brad used to argue with on here! That explains a lot. I do remember that he was banned in the past. However, I do hope he is allowed to stay and talk as much nonsense as he pleases.

[Brad Henderson]

Peter,

The magic circle does not speak for all magicians and their rules apply only to their clubhouse. For years they didn’t admit women, would we say that magic had a rule against women? Of course not.

This is bad logic on your part.

And again you have no actual cases of magicians who believe that non magicians can’t learn methods or contribute in ways other than performers. Go to any magic convention and the vast majority of attendees couldn’t successfully perform a trick if they had to. Most are buyers of secrets and enjoy magic shows where they get to look behind the curtain at the end.

Magicians love these people because they make them a lot of money. But what these people don’t do is expose that magic and treat it with disrespect as this parasite does.

By figuring out a trick and exposing it he isn’t contributing to magic in any way - hell, he isn’t even buying the secrets in the first place! Which is likely why he doesn’t value them to begin with.

And I can’t think of any art form where one can say take a copy of a best selling play’s script and give it away to someone for free. I don’t know any set where people are encouraged to sell the music and lyrics of songs other people wrote.

Your comparison to other arts is as baseless as your attempt to rationalize this sad man and his sad acts with your uninformed appealed to a non existent history.

You claim he is sharing magic - but he’s not sharing his magic. My magic is not for you to share. If you want to share my magic - ask me. And this idea that people can’t speculate about magic is nonsense. We don’t do it in forums not because some imaginary rules about secrecy - but because we value the people who don’t want their secrets speculated on.

We can’t control what real people do, but if you are in the world of magic we can shun you and offer an actual criticism of your actions - not this BS attempt to rationalize what he does as criticism, which it isn’t.

That’s like saying me posting naked photos I stole while peeping in a famous person’s window is me offering ‘critique on the entertainment industry’

This guy is a parasite. He admitted it. He hasn’t created anything. He has only profited on exposing the work of others without their consent.

He lives off the creative work of others.

That’s a parasite.

It says nothing about me

But your continued defense says a lot about you

[Richard Kaufman]

I agree, Brad. And well stated.

[Peter Ross]

XX clearly stated that he buys tricks. He doesn't steal anything.

The only difference between what XX does and every other person who buys a trick and then reviews it online, is that XX includes the "spoiler" of the effect in his video. He shows the other side of the coin. And to what detriment? Certainly not the creator, who's real enemies are the people who actually steal the effect to perform and/or manufacture without permission Those are the parasites. And certainly, not his viewers, who clearly enjoy his presentations (but who are denigrated here as lowly peep show customers).

There are whole industries that "live off the creative work of others": TV shows, magazines, books, websites, blogs, etc. Are they all parasites? Like with film or books or anything with a narrative, it is considered impolite and rude when reviewing said narrative to include spoilers without notice. There is no difference in magic. Some people like the spoilers, some do not. It is absurd to ostracise those who offer spoilers with notice. And yes, the method is part of the narrative. Speculation is part of the experience. The only respect due to the creator in terms of speculating on his/her method in public is that we telegraph the potential spoiler for others who might not want to know.

All this talk of the Creator as artist is fine until the creation becomes a commodity (see Walter Benjamin). Then it is hypocritical for the now Seller to make demands of secrecy upon the consumer of the product. IMHO

[Brad Henderson]

No Peter.

He doesn’t always buy the magic he exposes.

Let’s use his own words:

“ If you feel I shouldn’t reveal your magic, then you should perform magic that I cannot reveal. But that’s not possible since all magic has its flaws/loopholes.”

[Brad Henderson]

And if a magic review consisted only of exposing the method - then yes, that person would also be a parasite.

It would seem if this guy is helping magic, with his millions of views, we would see a great influx of interested magicians buying these props so they could indeed share the magic. We would see new and innovative ideas all stemming from this persons work and influence.

But we don’t.

We see the audiences being trained to value only the most superficial aspect of the magic experience.

Sorry peter, you haven’t made a single case for this guy and his acts.

He’s doing it for the money.

Because he thinks magic is fake.

It appears he doesn’t respect it at all, he just wants to use it to line his pocket book.

Parasite.

[Peter Ross]

The magic XX reveals that he has not bought legitimately are performances from others on TV. Now we can have a discussion about that practice, but let's stop calling this man a thief. He is not. The people who steal acts or manufacture without consent are the thieves and the ones that deserve your venom.

"I have spent a lot of time, practice, and money learning their magic, so what you see from me is real and comes from my learning it. I’m willing to share it with you all. I haven’t stolen it from anyone."

The magic reviews of products XX bought consist of performing the effect and then talking about the method. It is the latter part that is taboo in magic, and I think there is no reason why that can't be a topic of introspection and debate. You simply want to call it parasitic, which I find odd.

As noted earlier, viewer comments from XX's site (I'm really getting tired of having to censor his name. What's the point?) indicate his audience not only enjoys the presentations but that they are also learning and have respect for the creators. If you want to call that "superficial," that's on you.

Yes, XX is upfront about doing it for the money. But again, he is not taking money from the creators; He has created an entertainment channel within the ecosystem of magic that peacefully co-exists with the inventing, performing, and selling of magic. The money-grubbing parasites are the copyists and thieves of acts. There's no question those people do damage to magic. It is unfair to put XX and the like in the same group.

[Jackpot]

The magic XX reveals that he has not bought legitimately are performances from others on TV. Now we can have a discussion about that practice, but let's stop calling this man a thief. He is not. The people who steal acts or manufacture without consent are the thieves and the ones that deserve your venom.
...
Yes, XX is upfront about doing it for the money. But again, he is not taking money from the creators; He has created an entertainment channel within the ecosystem of magic that peacefully co-exists with the inventing, performing, and selling of magic. The money-grubbing parasites are the copyists and thieves of acts. There's no question those people do damage to magic. It is unfair to put XX and the like in the same group.

How is he not a money-grubbing parasite? He just does it for the money. He is taking money from the creators. They have invented, he has not. He is taking money form the performers. They have performed magic, he has not. He is only copying and revealing what they have invented and performed.

Yes, let's have a discussion about his practice of copying and exposing the performances of others. How is it not the work of a thief, parasite, leech or hooker? He steals the creations and acts of others to make money. It is not only fair, but it is just to put him in the same group with the other copyists and thieves.

[Peter Ross]

I see how XX is making money through clicks, but not how he is taking money from the creators and performers. How exactly is he doing that, Jackpot? you also accuse him of copying - please explain how? You accuse him of stealing - how?

There are very clear and direct examples of people copying/stealing acts and calling them their own. There are very clear examples of people manufacturing and selling tricks without the consent of the inventors. What does XX do exactly? He either:

1) Legitimately purchases a marketed trick, performs it, then explains/teaches it on video.
2) Shows a previously televised performance, praises it, then offers an explanation of its method on video, usually praising the performance again.

How are either of those two things in any way related to stealing or copying?

In the case of #2, XX can only really be accused of using television footage without consent. And to that, I acknowledge and disapprove - from a legal standpoint.

[Joe Lyons]

Obviously, I'm getting too old for this @#$%^&.

I feel like I'm trapped in a bad production of the emperor's new clothes.

1) Legitimately purchases a marketed trick, performs it, then explains/teaches it on video..

The very definition of theft in our field. What if I bought a copy of Drawing Room Deceptions (fill in your own favorite book or dvd) then performed and explained it on video for profit?

In the case of #2, XX can only really be accused of using television footage without consent. And to that, I acknowledge and disapprove - from a legal standpoint.

So you admit he's a thief and continue to defend him?

I am afraid the internet has confused what is possible with what is morally correct, to the confusion of small minded individuals.

[Jackpot]

1) Legitimately purchases a marketed trick, performs it, then explains/teaches it on video.
2) Shows a previously televised performance, praises it, then offers an explanation of its method on video, usually praising the performance again.

1) If XX purchases a marketed trick he has the right to perform it. He does not have the right to teach it. That right belongs to the creator. Explaining it, tipping it to others, or teaching it on a video takes potential income from the creator.
2) If XX shows a previously televised performance and then performs that effect he is copying. This is true whether he praises the original performance or not.

XX makes money off of clicks, but at the expense of the creators and performers, and ultimately at the expense of the art of magic.

[performer]

One danger of this guy's activities is that it will encourage other greedy tech savvy people to do the same thing and then there will eventually be no magic left. If I were tech savvy and a bit younger I bet I would be doing exactly what he is doing. I love the art of magic but I also love money. I have a horrible feeling that my love of money would win.

Maybe the Jerry Sadowitz solution might be the best one. Harass the chap with DMCA notices whether they have legitimacy or not. The videos WILL have to be taken down until it is all sorted out. I know all about the objections that you will be making false statements etc; so of course the answer to that is to have at least a weak and not necessarily a tenable claim but just enough to get the video take down even temporarily. Just say you invented the bloody thing (there is such a thing as independent invention you know) and that should be enough to cut into his activities.

[Peter Ross]

Joe, one of the reasons I returned to this forum under my real name was to avoid using personal insults when having discussions, something I didn't entirely adhere to when I was posting anonymously. I'm disappointed that you are using them, real name or not.

When a piece of art (a trick) enters the realm of the marketplace, the creator becomes a seller. The piece of art has become a product. I'm of the opinion that the consumer has a right to use the product in any way they see fit (within the law).

The consensus here says it's morally objectionable to reveal the method of a marketed trick to make money; To do so deprives the seller of income because potential consumers of the marketed trick are less likely to buy it once they have seen the method. Is this a correct summation? If so, I believe it deserves a closer look. Is there real evidence of this claim? Is the secrecy of the method essential to the financial success of the product? Due to the unsaid but assumed pact purchasers of magic tricks have with sellers to not reveal the method, (even after purchasing) these questions really haven't been tested, as far as I can tell. I think it's a subject worth exploring. Obviously, on this forum, I am alone in that opinion. Unless I see persuasive evidence to back up these accusations of theft by revelation, I will continue to question it, not in an antagonistic accusatory way, as others seem to favor, but a curious, intellectual one.

respectfully,

Peter R.

[performer]

Everyone has to look after their own interests. I am not particularly concerned about the interests of the creators. That is their problem--I have enough of my own thank you. And this you tube personage has to look after his own interests too. In other words the MONEY. We do have to be realistic about these things. I am not interested in the justifications--just the reality.

However, I am concerned about MY interests! And it is in my interest and the interest of magicians generally that this exposure comes to an end. It is harmful to the art and it is about time something was done about it. Put this chap (or chapess) out of business if you can think of a way of doing it. Nothing personal of course. Just business. Start with the DMCA notices and see what happens. And if you ARE the creator then you should start doing that immediately. Bleating about it on the genii forum and elsewhere won't do it. You have to be as ruthless as the person doing it.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Unfortunately, unlike the case with other creative art forms like music, literature and movies, the intellectual property laws in the U.S. do not yet afford copyright protection to the creation of a magic trick. This seems particularly unjust given that the value of a magic trick, to a very great extent, lies in its secret. There is no less ingenuity and creativity involved in devising a magic trick than there is in other creative art forms. Whether conduct is legal versus illegal should not be the only compass by which we are guided. Lying to a spouse is not illegal, nor is gossip, or trashing a friend behind his or her back. There may be nothing unlawful in one posting a "There's no such thing as Santa" video on YouTube (yes, even very young kids watch YouTube), and from reaping the ill-gotten financial gain from doing so. The poster could even attempt to justify it by saying he/she is furthering "truth." But would it be the right thing to do from a moral standpoint? I think not. XX knows full well that what he is doing is just flat-out wrong, but he obviously does not care, or is in denial, because he is guided by profit alone - period, end of story.

[Joe Lyons]

Joe, one of the reasons I returned to this forum under my real name was to avoid using personal insults when having discussions, something I didn't entirely adhere to when I was posting anonymously. I'm disappointed that you are using them, real name or not.

Mr. Ross you are correct, I shouldn't call someone small minded if they don't share my views, though I do miss my collegiate philosophical discussions when we could argue passionately over a pitcher of beer on a wide range of subjects , call each other crazy, and part friends.

When a piece of art (a trick) enters the realm of the marketplace, the creator becomes a seller. The piece of art has become a product. I'm of the opinion that the consumer has a right to use the product in any way they see fit (within the law).

I'm pretty sure I couldn't legally copy a current artist's painting, sell prints of it, and give instructions on which oils to choose and which brushstrokes.

I don't think the law has ever fully done justice to "our thing", though, but I'm not suggesting we aspire to obey the law.

I suggest we aspire to something more important than the law and do what's right.

[Brad Henderson]

“ 2) Shows a previously televised performance,”

That’s copyright Infringement.

If what this guy is doing is so noble, why doesn’t he ask the people whose work he is profiting off of for permission?

[Brad Henderson]

“ I'm of the opinion that the consumer has a right to use the product in any way they see fit (within the law).

The consensus here says it's morally objectionable to reveal the method of a marketed trick to make money; To do so deprives the seller of income because potential consumers of the marketed trick are less likely to buy it once they have seen the method. Is this a correct summation? If so, I believe it deserves a closer look. Is there real evidence of this claim? Is the secrecy of the method essential to the financial success of the product? Due to the unsaid but assumed pact purchasers of magic tricks have with sellers to not reveal the method, (even after purchasing) these questions really haven't been tested, as far as I can tell. I think it's a subject worth exploring”

First, there is a difference between what is legal and what is moral. It would be legal for RK to ban you for any reason whatsoever. Would that be the right thing to do?

It’s funny that you want to question the claim that knowledge of the secrets leads to loss sales but yet insist we make decisions based on your forever unfounded assertion that exposure like this leads to more people becoming involved in magic and if so in a positive manner.

It would seem that these videos do NOT lead to further sales or else - given the millions of clicks this guy has - so many of these products would be selling out instantly.

That hasn’t happened.

Not have we seen this new wave of magic innovation coming from his students.

Because he doesn’t have students. He has johns who pay him to get a peek up Magic’s skirt.

[Mahdi Gilbert]

The idea that he is protecting the Chinese public by exposing magic is absurd. People in China present, watch, and engage with performances of magic very much like they do in the West. Where is the proof that China has a history of magicians performing magic as occult demonstrations? I would very much like to learn more about this as I have traveled to China many times and know many, many Chinese magicians and have never heard of this.

This whole idea is akin to saying that someone is protecting the American public by exposing David Blaine and David Copperfield because they might believe they are performing real (occult) magic.

[performer]

Mahdi. Look at the all the fuss you have caused! Five pages long! You might get up to the length of the Erdnase thread if you keep this up!

[Peter Ross]

What if I bought a copy of Drawing Room Deceptions (fill in your own favorite book or dvd) then performed and explained it on video for profit?

Explaining it, tipping it to others, or teaching it on a video takes potential income from the creator.

Like these people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqPiVCtD94

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4YOHq1Wr4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNTAcy1nBy0

[Joe Lyons]

Like these people?

Anyone of us could post any number of immoral and/or illegal links with millions of views including those of stolen magic products.

That’s what I meant by people confusing ubiquitousness with appropriateness.

What’s your point?

Have you come over to the correct way of thinking?

[Peter Ross]

I just want to know if you think what these people are doing is wrong.

[Joe Lyons]

I just want to know if you think what these people are doing is wrong.

It depends on whether they have permission from Gordon, Snoop and the estate of Julia Childs (we're still discussing magic, right?).

If not then yes.

Something I'm not sure you're considering is that magic is unique, unlike other hobbies, professions and art forms and requires unique consideration.

I am going to bow out of this discussion now because:

1) Brad seems to have infinitely more capacity for this type of dialogue and doesn't need my help.

2) I am not a paragon of moral righteousness and don't wish to portray myself as such and

3) I've just got better things to do.

Good luck.

[Jackpot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqPiVCtD94

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4YOHq1Wr4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNTAcy1nBy0

I thought this discussion was about morals, ethics and integrity pertaining to magic. Imagine my surprise when cooking entered the discussion. I pulled my copy of The Ramsay Legend off the bookshelf to make sure I wasn't the one who'd confused Gordon and John. After verifying that they are not the same person I realized that this thread has become too confused and tangled to be of any value or use to me.

[Tom Stone]

Unfortunately, unlike the case with other creative art forms like music, literature and movies, the intellectual property laws in the U.S. do not yet afford copyright protection to the creation of a magic trick.

That’s nonsense. Of course it does.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Mr. Stone, you have an abrasive, disrespectful, off-putting manner of interacting with people on this Forum - aside from the fact that you are either ill-informed or have a profound misunderstanding of U.S. copyright law. But i will not argue with someone who obviously knows-it-all...

[MagicbyAlfred]

Just for the sake of clarity, my post that Mr. Stone attacked, stated: "the intellectual property laws in the U.S. do not yet afford copyright protection to the creation of a magic trick." I did not say that a particular performance unique to the creator of that performance could not receive copyright protection. In any event, while Mr. Stone has categorically attempted to refute my above statement (without any legal support in the statutes or controlling case law), he must also believe that the United States Federal Court is guilty of "nonsense." Here is an excerpt from the the Court's decision in Teller v. Dogge:

"While Dogge is correct that magic tricks are not copyrightable, this does not mean that 'Shadows' is not subject to copyright protection. Indeed, federal law directly holds 'dramatic works' as well as 'pantomimes' are subject to copyright protection, granting owners exclusive public performance rights."

Teller v. Dogge, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1228, 1233 (D. Nev. 2014)

[Tom Stone]

You claim our craft & art lack the copyright protection that other artistic fields have, and to support that, you post a case where the magician’s copyright actually was protected?

[MagicbyAlfred]

I'm sorry Tom if you either did not understand, or simply decided to blur the distinction between the NON-Copyrightability of a magic trick and the copyrightability of an original performance, in Teller's case, "Shadows." You called my statement that a magic trick could not receive copyright protection "nonsense." You were clearly and indisputably wrong. I cited the court's express statement that "magic tricks are not copyrightable." Did you not read that? I understand that, above all, you do not want to do the gentlemanly thing of simply admitting you were wrong, and are going to stand, at all costs, by your unjustified (and now-discredited) attack on my statement (and that of the court) as being "nonsense." As far as I'm concerned, my discussion with you on this point is over, Dude. I am simply too busy to pursue it further, because I am arguing with Steven Spielberg right now that I know more about film directing than he does...

[Richard Kaufman]

Magic tricks are not protected by copyright in the United States. Magic tricks are considered "ideas," and "ideas" cannot be copyrighted in the United States. For reasons I do not pretend to understand, Tom refuses to accept this.

[Dave Le Fevre]

Mr. Stone, you have an abrasive, disrespectful, off-putting manner of interacting with people on this Forum

I have to disagree. Tom Stone and I had a difference of opinion on another Genii thread a few days ago, and his response simply made me smile. However, it's possible that others would have taken offence.

I aim to have a symmetrical relationship with offence, in that I try neither to give it nor to take it. Not that I always succeed in either case.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Mr. Stone, you have an abrasive, disrespectful, off-putting manner of interacting with people on this Forum

I have to disagree. Tom Stone and I had a difference of opinion on another Genii thread a few days ago, and his response simply made me smile. However, it's possible that others would have taken offence.

I aim to have a symmetrical relationship with offence, in that I try neither to give it nor to take it. Not that I always succeed in either case.

This is apparently my day for having people disagree with me. And I have no problem with that when the disagreement is respectfully stated and supported. Dave, please note that I did not state that Tom was abrasive and disrespectful in every difference of opinion he has had with every member on here. In contrast to your interaction with him a few days ago, his comment stating that an accurate and documentable comment I made was "nonsense," did not make me smile. But it's not going to keep me up tonight either. And even insofar as his response to you the other day, you have conceded that others might have taken offense, and that even you do not always succeed in not taking offense. People who know me will tell you I am a very light-hearted and easy-going person. But, notwithstanding your own "symmetrical relationship" with offense, and whether you agree with me or or not, when someone is rude and wrong, I'm going to stand up for myself.

[Steve Mills]

Mr. Stone, you have an abrasive, disrespectful, off-putting manner of interacting with people on this Forum - aside from the fact that you are either ill-informed or have a profound misunderstanding of U.S. copyright law. But i will not argue with someone who obviously knows-it-all...

Certainly not the 1st time. He's on my ignore list and I didn't see it, but I'm sure it's a cut and paste from many others with minor changes.

A few ignores make these tedious threads nearly readable.

[Tom Stone]

Magic tricks are not protected by copyright in the United States. Magic tricks are considered "ideas," and "ideas" cannot be copyrighted in the United States. For reasons I do not pretend to understand, Tom refuses to accept this.

Ideas can’t be protected. Realised works can.

You can’t perform an idea. Once you can perform it, it is no longer an idea but a realised expression of that idea, and that expression is covered by copyright.

I am equally lost in why you would argue otherwise.
Are you perhaps thinking of the pre-1989 situation? That was 30+ years ago. Times have changed.

[Tom Stone]

I'm sorry Tom if you either did not understand, or simply decided to blur the distinction between the NON-Copyrightability of a magic trick and the copyrightability of an original performance, in Teller's case, "Shadows." You called my statement that a magic trick could not receive copyright protection "nonsense." You were clearly and indisputably wrong. I cited the court's express statement that "magic tricks are not copyrightable." Did you not read that? I understand that, above all, you do not want to do the gentlemanly thing of simply admitting you were wrong, and are going to stand, at all costs, by your unjustified (and now-discredited) attack on my statement (and that of the court) as being "nonsense." As far as I'm concerned, my discussion with you on this point is over, Dude. I am simply too busy to pursue it further, because I am arguing with Steven Spielberg right now that I know more about film directing than he does...

What the US court said makes little sense. Probably because they didn’t know the topic at hand. So you have to go after the outcome

"While Dogge is correct that magic tricks are not copyrightable, this does not mean that 'Shadows' is not subject to copyright protection. Indeed, federal law directly holds 'dramatic works' as well as 'pantomimes' are subject to copyright protection, granting owners exclusive public performance rights."

Magic routines are ”dramatic works”, so the outcome was correct. Exactly what they mean with the first sentence is unclear, since they then immediately contradict what they’ve just
Maybe they mean public domain tricks? Or simple tricks below the threshold of originality, like pulling your thumb off? Or maybe they mean sleights - in the style of ”chords can not be copyrighted, but music compositions can.”?
Don’t know, but it seems clear they have no idea what the nature of a magic routine is. But they still recognized Teller’s trick as a dramatic work, and acted accordingly.

As they would do in any other magic related case. They might phrase it in weird ways, but the outcome would be equal to the outcome any other artistic field would have.

Teller did not lose, regardless of how much you argue otherwise. His magic trick was found to be a dramatic work, and covered by copyright.

[Richard Kaufman]

Only his performance of it was covered by copyright, not the actual trick itself, and not the method.

[Jonathan Townsend]

The Teller decision is available here -> https://casetext.com/case/teller-v-dogge-20

Richard's choice to exclude XX from the benefits of reference here at the genii forum makes sense. It's not indifferent silence so much as choosing not to add fuel to a fire, or give resources to a problem.

How does one write up a dramatic presentation in a way that gains the benefits of existing legal protections?