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

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
Fearson
Posts: 17
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 11:19 am

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

Postby Fearson » May 30th, 2002, 7:00 pm

Andy,

You are just mad because you think I didn't respond to your requests for copies of my giveaways with your affiliate link in them.

Just so you know, I did make the manuscripts for you. That is something I have done for only one other person.

I did send them to you, but they were returned. It seems your email address had become inactive.

Sorry http://www.reputationmakers.com didn't work out. But don't take it out on me, it's not my fault.

I've seen you slam me on numerous boards, so I know it's more than just this discussion.

Same thing happened to me with Tom Stone. He asked for help with his site and once I finished helping and he knew I was fairly easy to talk to, he decided it might be fun to fight with me online.

Whatever trips your trigger little guy :D

Steve Fearson

Andy Hurst
Posts: 163
Joined: March 18th, 2008, 12:55 pm

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

Postby Andy Hurst » May 30th, 2002, 7:09 pm

Steve,

I slammed you where you deserved it. Reputationmakers hasn't worked out yet, maybe it never will, it got pulled for a number of reasons and as and when I might have something to offer it may come back into play. I'm certainly not going to steal someone elses ideas and sell them from there just to make a quick buck.

My comments towards your bad ethics have nothing to do with whether a project of mine worked out or not.

I'd rather be a 'little guy' than a man with no ethics who would sell his grandmother if it made him a few bucks.

Andy.

User avatar
Ryan Matney
Posts: 978
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Abingdon, Va
Contact:

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

Postby Ryan Matney » May 30th, 2002, 7:17 pm

Steve,

I think its more a case of Andy and Tom realizing what type of person you really are. There is no personal grudge. Only a sad, creativly dry man that is profiting from others hard work.

One good thing though, we can all loosen up on Ammar now. He can't hold Steve a light to go by.

Ryan<----wonders if he can write up "static elevation" and sell it online. Nobody is using it. Its out of print. Surely the money should go to the guy that has the brains to make something of it. Yeah...My @$$
Get the Dirty Work - Available now at http://www.ryanmatneymagic.com

Jim Maloney_dup1
Posts: 1709
Joined: July 23rd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

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

Postby Jim Maloney_dup1 » May 30th, 2002, 7:22 pm

Originally posted by Steve Fearson:

You've reprinted copyrighted material in a public forum to prove that someone else is unethical.
What I reprinted is perfectly covered by US Copyright Laws, under Section 107 (Fair Use).

Describe the exact method used by Tim Ellis.

The methods are not the same.
I will do no such thing. To do so would show a complete lack of respect for Tim. And, since you seem to be confused, I never claimed that Re-Pop is the same method that Tim uses -- it is, however, the same method that Anders uses, which is what I said in my post.

From another one of Steve Fearson's posts...

It's wonderful that your wife used to work in copyright laws. I have been a copywriter myself for about 15 years now and am familiar with the very recently passed international laws specifically pertaining to the internet. What do you suppose they say about reprinting pieces from a website Tim? I asked you to stop and you have to. I can also ask you to remove the pieces you've used, and you would have to.
Care to give a reference to those laws, Steve? I'd be interested to read what they have to say, and why they aparrently ban actions that were previously allowed by the fair use doctrine. For your reference, you can read about fair use on the US Goverment Copyright Office website. A direct link to the section in question is here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

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

According to the Maloney copyright laws, I am free to post the crucial portion of the Ellis and Anders manuscripts.. correct?
First off, they're not the "Maloney copyright laws." They are thew United States Government Laws. Feel free to read them at the link I posted. Secondly, under those laws, you cannot post the crucial portion of Tim's and/or Anders's manuscripts -- that would violate their copyright.

I don't think it's fair to just take Jim's word for it.
No, don't take my word for it. Feel free to do as I did -- purchase both manuscripts and compare them. In case you want the specific references, I used Tim's notes "24 Years of Living Next to Ellis," in which he mentions Anders's method for resealing the can (with Anders's permission). I also double checked this information with Tim himself. I purchased Re-Pop from Steve Pellegrino directly.

Good day,
Jim

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25230
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » May 30th, 2002, 7:28 pm

Steve Pellegrino keeps writing that Anders Moden's method is not new. I think we would all be greatful if Steve would tell us EXACTLY where it has been published and/or marketed, EXACTLY as Anders does it, earlier?
Where oh where?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2002, 7:34 pm

I don't know Anders method - I only heard tonight from my customer Jim Maloney that it is the same method.

Now, since I asked my question first - when did Mr. Moden first publish his effect ?- After I get an answer to that, then I will then answer your question Mr. Kaufman as to my sources.

When, oh when did Anders publish his?

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 7:36 pm

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

In other words, he's allowed to cut & paste from the internet and post things on his site.

He also claims:"What do you suppose they say about reprinting pieces from a website Tim? I asked you to stop and you have to. I can also ask you to remove the pieces you've used, and you would have to."

In other words, I'm not allowed to cut & paste from his site and post here.

Then he says: "According to the Maloney copyright laws, I am free to post the crucial portion of the Ellis and Anders manuscripts.. correct? I think that would clear everything up. I don't think it's fair to just take Jim's word for it."

Despite what Steve Fearson says 'International Law states, Maloney's words make it okay for Steve to post.

Situational ethics in action.

The bottom line is Steve, my wife worked in copyright, you worked as a copywriter. There is a difference which you seem to be deliberately ignoring. At least I hope you're ignoring and simply not stupid.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25230
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » May 30th, 2002, 7:39 pm

Steve, if you would reread the thread you would see that Anders published his method as freeware on the EG several years ago. I think several people have mentioned learning it from this.
Now: if your method is nothing new (though you also state that it is something you came up with after watching the Blaine show--and I'm really waiting for you to reconcile those two statements), then you have nothing to lose by telling us where it is published if it's so old? And, if it is the same as Anders' method, then we will all know that he took an old method (or possibly reinvented it), but at any rate it isn't his. You've stated several times in your posts that Anders' method is not new. But you've also claimed that you didn't know Anders' method until today.
Can someone wake me from this nightmare?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 7:41 pm

Steve Pellegrino, Anders Moden published his effect on the Electronic Grymoire on February 13, 1997.

So where's your source?

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 7:45 pm

Oh let me get in before Steve P replies... I know the "old principle" he's going to reference. Biting a plate. GET OUT OF TOWN!

TIM ELLIS

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 30th, 2002, 7:48 pm

The first source that I can prove, assuming you will not believe me when I say I saw this back in the early 1970's is...

drum roll please...

Printed in a book called The Secrets of The Astonishing Executive - Paul Harris - Bill Herz Avon Books 1991. ( I think that is earlier than Moden's version???)

In this book they credit John Kennedy who earlier had created a similar effect.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25230
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » May 30th, 2002, 7:48 pm

Hey Tim,
Do you mean a "dental plate"? AKA a pair of choppers? I mean, c'mon, millions of people bite down on their plates every day. :)
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25230
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

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

Postby Richard Kaufman » May 30th, 2002, 7:49 pm

Do we hear the stampede of footsteps of Forum members running to their bookshelves to pull out their copies of "Astonishing Executive"?
No, I'm going to sleep.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 8:20 pm

Well Mr Pellegrino, as I don't have that book to check, I'll take you at your word.

The facts seem to be:

1 - Blaine did Anders trick on TV (a can uncrushes and reseals itself)

2 - You "invented" a trick the next morning, which happened to be from the book 'Secrets of the astonishing executive', and sold it on ebay that day as 'David Blaine's Resealing Can Trick from Vertigo'.

3 - Customers buying your trick will be disappointed because the can does not uncrush itself.

4 - You gave your method to Fearson to give away, and he promoted it, not as "from the book 'Secrets of the astonishing executive' but, "Recreate the trick you saw on TV'.

So in summary, you are saying that really Anders has no right to be mad at you, because you're ripping off someone else... but you are selling the rip-off as Anders trick featured on Blaine's show...?

Yeah, it's all much clearer to me now...

Fearson
Posts: 17
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 11:19 am

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

Postby Fearson » May 30th, 2002, 8:29 pm

You guys are great.

The truth is never good enough for the folks on the genii board.

As for publishing my static elevation because I'm not using it.. Go ahead. How does that hurt me?

Really, I doubt that anyone would. The world is full of lazy people who do nothing but talk and criticize the few of us that actually do all the work. Publishing something and putting together a successful marketing plan actually takes effort. Criticizing the work of another is easy. Especially when you don't bother to investigate the facts and choose to ignore them when they are finally presented to you.

If somebody markets a trick I'm not even selling you're not going to hear me crying about it. I've been ripped off more times than most of you will ever hope to be, and I continue to produce.

Kipling said it best-

"And they asked me how I did it, and I gave 'em the Scripture text, 'You keep your light so shining a little in front o' the next!'

They copied all they could follow, but they couldn't copy my mind, And I left 'em sweating and stealing a year and a half behind."

Like that quote? I've always loved it.

A truly creative person who works as hard as I do isn't going to worry about somebody "stealing my magic mojo". If I had an original copy of the static elevation manuscript, I'd send it to you and tell you to go nuts. I'm on to other things.

So I've lost the respect of a few strangers.

I deal with over 15,000 individuals a month on my website and have over 100 affiliates who help to peddle my wares. My top affiliate made over 80 dollars yesterday by simply linking to my website and collecting 35% of sales made. My customers, and my affiliates are very happy with the way I do business. A few here may not be, but you are the very very small minority. And I believe I get picked on only because I'm visible. Because I work hard.

There are true injustices going on in the world people.. and in magic. Get off your butts and go find them if you really want to help somebody.

Steve Fearson

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 8:33 pm

Hey! Look on ebay - a NEW auction from Steve Pellegrino

"Re-Pop The Resealed Can Trick -David Blaine. Now you can recreate the effect you saw on TV"

Some people just DON'T GET IT, do they.

He's now got THREE auction sites running selling the same item.

And Steve F said: "There are true injustices going on in the world people.. and in magic. Get off your butts and go find them if you really want to help somebody."

That's actually what we're doing Steve, well spotted!

Fearson
Posts: 17
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 11:19 am

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

Postby Fearson » May 30th, 2002, 8:36 pm

Tim,

Steve's source pre-dated yours.

So you and Anders are the first to rip someone off. Why can't you see yourself, only others?

I still don't believe you don't know how David vanished the statue.

Steve Fearson

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 8:40 pm

Steve,

Steve's source predated Anders.

Steve's source was not the uncrushing and resealing.

Anders did not rip Steve's source off.

Steve ripped Steve's source off.

Steve presents his trick as Anders trick, as performed by Blaine.

See something wrong here?

TIM

PS: Why do you think I care how Copperfield vanished the Statue of Liberty? That special hasn't even been aired here in Australia. What does it have to do with resealing soda cans?

Fearson
Posts: 17
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 11:19 am

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

Postby Fearson » May 30th, 2002, 8:58 pm

Tim,

You are no longer debating the crushing part. We are talking about the sealing and you know that. You are accusing Steve of stealing something from anders which does not belong to him in the first place. (the sealing)

You have a very selective memory Tim.

And what does Copperfield have to do with the can trick??

You are repeating my words now Tim. Just as I suspected, you're not really reading the posts. Go back and review. For some reason you brought up Copperfield's secrets and I asked if you knew the method to the statue vanish and where you learned it. I asked if you learned it in an ethical manner, and if you agreed to a magician's code or paid anything for the secret. I was attempting to make a point but...

You said you don't know how he did it. How convenient.

You're making me think that I'm wasting time responding to you at all. Actually, I knew it all along but it's getting old now. A debate is two sided Tim. You are just making an attack, and it is becoming very obvious. Maybe we should cut to the chase..

I am not going to bow down, or agree with you. I doubt that Steve is either. I have been forthcoming and honest in my responses, as has Steve. You are in the wrong here. You even admit that you don't know for sure that Blaine did your trick. So what's your problem and where are you planning on going with this? I told you many posts ago that if I have infringed upon your rights or property to have a lawyer contact me. That would be the proper thing to do.

Steve Fearson

Fearson
Posts: 17
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 11:19 am

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

Postby Fearson » May 30th, 2002, 9:08 pm

Tim,

I am going to let you state your case and that's it for me. I've been reviewing these posts and it's obvious you only hear what you want to hear.

One question though..

Your wife "worked in copyright"? Like a copyright attorney? or a copyright coffee fetcher? Copyright expert I suppose.

Make sure you clear that up in your closing arguments. I think it's important.

You get the last word.. go nuts! (you don't have far to go)

Steve Fearson

I still don't believe you don't know how David vanished the Statue.

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 9:10 pm

Steve, you are right. I don't know for sure if Blaine did MY version of Anders trick.

I DO KNOW FOR SURE he did Anders trick.

Pellegrino is selling REPOP as the one Blaine did on TV.

You are selling REPOP as 'Recreate the trick you saw on TV'... what's THAT supposed to imply? Are you referring to Blaine's trick? Selective wording there.

And yet you still say that I am in the wrong? Steve?!

The issue FROM THE BEGINNING is that Blaine did Anders trick and you guys are cashing in on it.

You are not selling Anders complete method, which we have seen is true,(you are just selling part of it, claiming that's okay because someone else used that principle years ago), so you are NOT selling people the secret of Blaine's effect.

Either way, you are in the wrong.

You have NO RIGHT to sell Blaine/Anders trick.

You have NO RIGHT to deceive your loyal customers by saying that you are selling it.

I am standing up on behalf of magical ethics here. As far as lawyers go, it would be Blaine's you'd have to deal with, but as you know from our experience with the MASKED MAGICIAN shows, magic secrets can't be protected. If someone wants to reveal them, legally, they can. The best we could get you on legally is false advertising.

This is an ethical issue Steve & Steve. I'm soooooooooo sad you would prefer to skirt around it by bringing up side issues instead.

Why can't you let Anders and Blaine have their moment in the spotlight without trying to cash in on it? It's JUST AS BAD as what the Masked Magician does.

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 30th, 2002, 9:14 pm

She was a Copyright Officer Steve, in the Board of Studies, NSW. She would gain copyright permission for various articles which would then be used for educational purposes.

Why is it important for you to know that Steve? I didn't question you when you said that you worked as a "copywriter".

Andy Hurst
Posts: 163
Joined: March 18th, 2008, 12:55 pm

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

Postby Andy Hurst » May 30th, 2002, 9:41 pm

Originally posted by Tim Ellis:
This is an ethical issue Steve & Steve. I'm soooooooooo sad you would prefer to skirt around it by bringing up side issues instead.
Well said! Mr Fearson chooses to skirt around with side issues because he knows that he's ethically wrong.

If you say something he skirts about it with "you don't know how the statue vanished" or "what does your wife do". If I post then its something to do with sour grapes because a project I was involved with long ago hasn't taken off (never mind the many projects, magic and non-magic that have).

And lines about how wasted his time is wasted on 'forum members' is equally as lame.

Tim, you are in the right, but maybe you should give it up. Fearson will keep posting nonsense that skirts around the issue to avoid having to admit he is magic's new 'anything for a nickle' whore.

I'm tired of him shafting magic up the back passage and tired of this thread.

Andy.

User avatar
Ryan Matney
Posts: 978
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Abingdon, Va
Contact:

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

Postby Ryan Matney » May 30th, 2002, 10:04 pm

Well I give up. If Steve Fearson really believes it would be ok for me to market one of HIS tricks and take all profit simply because he is not using it, he's wrong. I would never do that. Not because I am lazy, but because I believe it to be wrong.

This merely shows his total lack of respect for magic and others creative property.

If Fearson is so inventive with his magic Mojo, why not just invent whatever he needs to market? Instead of pilfering ideas from Elmsley, Anders, Ellis and I don't even know who else. Maybe because he is the lazy one? It's certainly much easier to write up someone else's trick than work out your own. I'll leave you Static Elevation Steve. You should use it, it's one of the few things that is yours.

I doubt you have any clue what real work is. Sitting on your ass all day and writing up others material does not constitue hard labor.

Kipling is probably spinning like a gyroscope that you would quote him in such a crude context. I fail to see where you have legions of thieves robbing you and being a year and half behind your brilliant mind. I do see where you are decades behind others in marketing thier effects.

However, if you feel you are in the right, simply because it is (unfortunatly) legal, there is nothing any of us can do to change your mind.

Word to Tim Ellis: It's a shame Tim, but don't wrestle with Pigs, they like it, etc.
Get the Dirty Work - Available now at http://www.ryanmatneymagic.com

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1301
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

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

Postby Tom Stone » May 31st, 2002, 4:18 am

I've been looking through my old manuscripts.

It seems like John Kennedy probably was the first to have a re-sealed soda effect, using the same method as in Anders' effect and in Tim's handling (though all three prefer different materials. Tim's choice is perfect for stage, Anders' choice is better in close-up. Kennedy's choice works in both, depending on the brand that is used).
Kennedy uses it as a climax in "Inexhaustible Soda Can" that was published in "John Kennedy's Lecture III" in 1983.

While it would have been nice if Anders (and Tim) had been mentioned in Pellegrino's manuscript, as a curtesey, it isn't required. Re-Pop isn't a rip-off of Anders' effect.

Though, I don't know how well it stands in comparison with Kennedy's climax. Has anything new been added to make it justified to re-publish Kennedy's idea?

The main confusion here is :
It is known that Blaine performed Anders' effect. Re-Pop is sold as beeing what Blaine performed.
Using advertizing like that can't be viewed as anything else than an open invitation to rip-off accusations.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1301
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

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

Postby Tom Stone » May 31st, 2002, 4:31 am

Originally posted by Steve Fearson:
Same thing happened to me with Tom Stone. He asked for help with his site and once I finished helping and he knew I was fairly easy to talk to, he decided it might be fun to fight with me online.
That's not really true.
We were making conversation. I mentioned that I'd put up a new web page, and asked what you thought of it. You replied with technical information, while I've expected a general comment about the design.

And all that was while I still thought that you was working on some kind of huge improvement to the Self-folding Bill, so the conversation was rather nice and polite. It was not until later that I discovered that you had been selling it all along.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1301
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

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

Postby Tom Stone » May 31st, 2002, 4:46 am

Originally posted by Steve Fearson:
My self folding bill manuscript is one of dozens on the market and I credit the person who I feel is the most likely inventor, after doing months of research. After all your slams, I am going to end up being the one who was right.. and I'm sure there will be no apologies.
Dean Hankey have, earlier in this thread, mentioned that there is a possibility that someone else originated the Self-folding Bill long before Stefan Schutzer, and that it was well known and considered "old" in California in the mid 70's.
I'm doubtful, but I'm trying to find out more about this. Should Dean be right, then I will apologize to you.

But until then, things are like they are.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 31st, 2002, 6:14 am

Tom Stone - you asked if I've added anything new to justify the publishing of the Kennedy effect. Honestly, I don't know because I've never seen the Kennedy version. My immediate verifiable reference is "The Secrets of the Astonishing Executive" where the Kennedy effect is mentioned.

Re-Pop has three different handlings. These three handlings are completely different from what is in that book. When I told Tim Ellis that I worked it out this morning, but it's based on old principles, I wasn't lying. I worked out my handlings for this that morning. I already knew the method, it was just a matter of working out alternative handlings.

One different twist I added to this was if you are using a soda can, you could actually remove a straw from the open can. That was based on something I read from David Harkey sometime before 1995. He is credited in the manuscript.

I have only seen the Blaine special once. When all of this "controversy" started on the web I had no idea that when Blaine did it, the can uncrushed itself. I thought all he did was put a small dent in the can and by the way he was holding the can was just "popping out" the dent. Some effects just don't do well on TV and that part of the effect just went past me. I'm sure live it's a killer effect.

Regarding my ebay auctions, if my customers have felt ripped off due to what they percieved as misleading advertising, they have free to ask for their money back or leave negative feedback for me on ebay. All of my customers from my first auction were sent to a web page with some further history of the effect as well as some bonus downloads. I also encouraged them to buy every version they could - including Anders and Tims. My feeling is that if you are going to do an effect, learn everything you can and find what works for you.

To sum this up for those keeping score - Re-Pop is my legal original manuscript. The principles involved go back 30 years (at least), but I can only verify 12 - 20 years. What I used to create this effect pre-dates Anders Moden version. My 3 handlings are different than what is in the "Secrets of The Astonishing Executive". There is a new addition to the effect with a straw.

Steve Fearson has my manuscript and has my permission to do what he wants with it.

Thank you Genii Forum members for keeping this going. This was much better than paying for ad space in a magazine.

Steve Pellegrino
www.stlouismagic.com

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1301
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

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

Postby Tom Stone » May 31st, 2002, 8:23 am

Originally posted by StevePellegrino:
Tom Stone - you asked if I've added anything new to justify the publishing of the Kennedy effect. Honestly, I don't know because I've never seen the Kennedy version.
How could you then be sure that you didn't duplicate Kennedy's material?

Randy DiMarco
Posts: 173
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 3:45 pm

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

Postby Randy DiMarco » May 31st, 2002, 9:06 am

Steve Pellegrino wrote

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

This quote tells me that you do not believe that you are the originator either. If you are not the originator then why would you want to publish it? Only one answer I can think of - GREED

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 31st, 2002, 9:18 am

Tom Stone - How can I be sure Anders Moden isn't duplicating Kennedy's material?

Randy DiMarco:
"This quote tells me that you do not believe that you are the originator either. If you are not the originator then why would you want to publish it? Only one answer I can think of - GREED "

Randy - The material was based on an older principle which has already been discussed. I NEVER claimed to be the originator. Why did Paul Harris and Bill Herz publish an effect that wasn't theirs? Greed? Why didn't Anders Moden research the effect more before he claimed to be the originator?

Nobody "owns" the principle to what I am selling.

It really doesn't matter what you say in this forum to try and "damage my reputation". The longer you keep dragging this out - the more sales I get.

Thanks again for the free advertising!

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 31st, 2002, 9:34 am

Remember the old inexhaustible pop can? Where a cup is filled over and over then the can shown sealed? I bought it back in the 70's I think. I don't remember who claimed that one. (More than one person I presume?)

Randy DiMarco
Posts: 173
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 3:45 pm

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

Postby Randy DiMarco » May 31st, 2002, 9:57 am

Steve
Personally I don't care whether you sell this effect or not. Do you have a legal right to do so - yes. However, don't confuse your legal rights with what is ethically accepted in the magical community. Everytime this arguement comes up over a certain effect (which is quite often) the excuses given are the same
-I can legally sell this
-I came up with it myself
-You can't patent ideas
-It's an old principle and there is nothing really new in magic
-I didn't know about the other sources and who has time to keep up with all the crediting
All this may be true but the fact remains that the effect and method were created prior to you doing so.
The only way that I can see that this kind of thing will stop is if people stop buying from these people. Do I think this will happen?
No, I don't. You can now buy 10 different ripped off versions of John Cornelius' Pen Through Anything at magic stores all over the country. The reason is that magicians are willing to buy them. At the beginning of this post I wrote not to confuse legal rights with what is ethically accepted. Thinking about it further I realise that this practice probably is ethically accepted by many magicians. Nevermind.

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 31st, 2002, 10:06 am

Randy,

Why don't you let me know who I am being accused of "ripping off"?

We now know for a fact Anders Moden didn't create this. Tim Ellis has a variation on it, based on Anders Moden's version.

My version is based on Paul Harris and Bill Herz version of John Kennedy's version. In fact I give three different handlings for the effect, none of which resemble the Paul Harris and Bill Herz version.

So who's pocket am I taking money out of?

$$$$$$$$

User avatar
Steve Bryant
Posts: 1890
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Ballantine
Location: Bloomington IN
Contact:

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

Postby Steve Bryant » May 31st, 2002, 10:23 am

Brad, help! This topic (plus all the others) is turning into a huge spam generator for me. I'd like to turn off ALL email to me from The Genii Forum. How can I do this? I don't need the email anyway as I log in quite often to see if some total goofball has posted something Richard is going to delete once he knows it's there. (This is a test message to see if unclicking the box does the trick, at least for one thread.) At least I did log in often. Now, where is this thread going? The Steves stole some idea from Bill Herz and are passing it off as David Blaine's? Or they are the same guy? They say they aren't, but who has ever seen a photo of Pelligrino? The plot sickens. I just wanna stop the email.

Doomo
Posts: 359
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 3:23 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Doomo » May 31st, 2002, 10:59 am

Ya know, I bet Blaine is just loving this...lol...
RFA Productions yeah... It is cool stuff.

www.rfaproductions.com

Guest

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

Postby Guest » May 31st, 2002, 1:52 pm

Originally posted by Steve Fearson:
I have better things to do than educate everyone on the workings of the internet and other things you've never seen before...
Apparently not....

:p

User avatar
Ben Harris
Posts: 153
Joined: March 23rd, 2008, 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

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

Postby Ben Harris » May 31st, 2002, 3:23 pm

From memory, people started to kick around the idea of the can de-crushing in the seventies (or was it the 80's) when Jeff Stewart released his crushable soda can.

It all started as a bit of a joke with crushing the can against the forehead and then "willing" the can back into shape.

Cheers

Ben Harris
Creator of the famous "Floating Match On Card" illusion.
WOWBOUND.COM - INSTANT DOWNLOADS

User avatar
Tim Ellis
Posts: 927
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 4:08 pm
Location: Victoria
Contact:

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

Postby Tim Ellis » May 31st, 2002, 4:44 pm

Well, this thread really seems in need of a summary, and seeing Steve Fearson told me I could have the last word:

1 - STEVE PELLEGRINO

A man who, after seeing Blaine uncrush and reseal a soda can on TV (though he says he didn't notice the uncrushing bit) "invented" a way to do it (well, the resealing bit) which he remembered from the book 'Secrets of The Astonishing Executive' which credited John Jennedy as an earlier source.

Mr Pellegrino didn't try to find out who's routine Blaine was doing, though he knows now, yet he advertises "his" routine for sale on the net as "Re-Pop The Resealed Can Trick -David Blaine." "Now you can recreate the effect you saw on TV." Thanks to Mr Fearson, he now had added a straw to "his" routine, to soften the blow to his customers when they discover they didn't get what they paid for.

Mr Pellegrino has no problem selling this routine over the net as he feels it is "his" (though it is the resealing part of Anders/Blaine's effect and, as we have discovered, the resealing part of Kennedy's effect which was then used in 'The Secrets of The Astonishing Executive'). Even if he has "reinvented" someone else's trick (or at least part of it) he feels he's in the right because it's "an old principle" and "no-one owns it".

In fact, he's so happy with all the talk about how unethical he is, once his initial auction closed, he opened three more, gave "his" routine to Steve Fearson, and sells it on his St Louis Magic website for $7.95.

2 - STEVE FEARSON

COPYRIGHT:
Mr Fearson brought up many issues, unrelated to the can. He discussed copyright: he felt that "cutting and pasting" from his site was illegal while, in the same post, he let us know he was "cutting" all the post referring to him from this and many other forums, and "pasting" them onto his "Magic Sucks" website.

THE MAGICIANS CODE
He was accused of breaking THE MAGICIANS CODE which appears on his own website, so he accused us of not having MAGICIANS CODES on our websites. He pointed out that he had to make up his MAGICIANS CODE because "it doesn't exist anywhere on the net except as referring to "Breaking the Magician's Code", or the masked magician specials." Yet at the start of his code we read "Parts of this code were inspired by the Magician's Code established in 1993 by the International Brotherhood of Magicians and modified for use with the Magic Secrets Network."
Obviously, it has existed for almost 9 years now, and what does Steve mean by "inspired by"? Did he cut and paste here too?

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

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

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

Yet 5) He doesn't credit Anders or myself when promoting 'Repop - recreate the magic you saw on TV'. 6) His ad for 'Repop' is misleading as it implies you will be able to do the same effect Blaine did, but the can will not uncrush. Though Mr Fearson claims: "nowhere on my site do I claim that it was the same method used by David Blaine. The effect though, is the same. It's a resealed can." Did he even see the Blaine special? 7) Is cleverly worded as Mr Pellegrino has repeatedly pointed out, you can't legally own an idea, only a manuscript. Seeing Mr Pellegrino wrote out the text for 'Repop' himself, he "legally" has the right to sell it, but as we have seen, he is most likely selling the ideas of Kennedy, Harris, Herz, or Moden.

However, regarding point 7, when you visit Steve's site, he offers: " If you just came here to find out how David Blaine levitated off the sidewalk . . Or how Copperfield vanished the Statue of Liberty . . CLICK HERE! "

Then you go to the SECRETS REVEALED page where it says:

"Do you want to know how David Blaine levitated off of the sidewalk on television? Or what about how he bit a piece off of a coin and blew it back on? Did you ever wonder how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear? Or about his other amazing illusions? Also seen on TV and revealed on this site.. The Amazing Arm Twister. Is Blaine double jointed? Of course not! Find out what really happened. Cigarette through the Quarter This trick is very popular with magician's. Now you can learn their secret. The Moon Cards, How does Copperfield find our card through a television screen? You won't believe it! All of these secrets and much, much more are finallly revealed! A magician won't tell you these secrets.. But we will! These are the secrets you really wanted to know. The ones even the Masked Magician was afraid to reveal!
The magician's are steaming mad about this site. But we don't care! If you want to know the secrets, we're going to tell you.. everything!"

"Magicheck and the Magic Secrets Network is a system that was developed to restrict casual or accidental exposure of magic secrets from the general internet audience. As a Magicheck member, you will receive unlimited access to every site in the Magic Secrets Network."

You then agree to THE MAGICIANS CODE and send Mr Fearson $29.95 and all the secrets are yours!

Mr Fearson explains, "TV's greatest magic secrets revealed is NOT my site. The webmaster is a member of the Magic Secrets Network, which I own and I have a redirect link to that site." So Steve, it looks like they are breaking your MAGICIANS CODE, and the code states that "we reserve the right to cancel your membership if it is found that you have purposefully violated any part of the code. Participating webmasters must also follow our guidelines in order to remain members." Prove that you respect THE CODE Mr Fearson, throw this site out of your webring. Hmmmm? Still waiting....

MISSING THE POINT
Mr Fearson repeatedly slings shots at those trying to get to the bottom of this matter with comments like:

"Jim has passed judgment. I'm sure it feels good to pass judgment but to me it matters no more than if you had passed gas."

"Andy, you are just mad because you think I didn't respond to your requests for copies of my giveaways with your affiliate link in them."

"Same thing happened to me with Tom Stone. He asked for help with his site and once I finished helping and he knew I was fairly easy to talk to, he decided it might be fun to fight with me online. Whatever trips your trigger little guy."

"The truth is never good enough for the folks on the genii board."

"Your wife "worked in copyright"? Like a copyright attorney? or a copyright coffee fetcher? Copyright expert I suppose."

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

Well Mr Fearson, that's exactly what this discussion is about, people trading secrets. I assume you are referring to yourself as one of the "little kids"?

RESPONSIBILITY
Mr Fearson is not responsible to the magic community: "If I am guilty of false advertising, that is for my customers to decide."

"So I've lost the respect of a few strangers."

"I believe I get picked on only because I'm visible. Because I work hard." Just like David Blaine is visible, and gets exploited by those looking to make a quick buck.

He also says: "Criticizing the work of another is easy. Especially when you don't bother to investigate the facts and choose to ignore them when they are finally presented to you." and then he ignores the facts.

And, my favourite: ""There are true injustices going on in the world people.. and in magic. Get off your butts and go find them if you really want to help somebody." That's exactly what we're doing Steve!

Are these two Steves the same person? "PS.. I'm not Steve Pellegrino. You're making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!! Is this a joke?"

Well, you have magicheck, magicsucks, and so many other website names, all of which support your "real" website at downloadmagic, why not create an imaginery friend to support you too?

STATUE OF LIBERTY (?!)
Mr Fearson tells me, regarding my version of Anders trick, "I do know your method. Someone told me the details today." Then goes on to argue:

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

Did you agree to a code Steve, when you found out my method for the can resealing? Just because you're happy to obtain a secret without paying for it (my method) doesn't mean everyone else it. Do you think that if I know how Copperfield did the Statue of Liberty trick, then that makes it okay for you to know my method for the can trick, and to sell 'Repop' as Blaine's trick?

Speaking of Liberty, do you really think that just because someone agrees to your MAGICIANS CODE and sends you $29.95 you have the right to tell them how it's done?

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

Steve, why is this so important to you? What point are you trying to prove? That magicians talk among themselves and try to figure out how tricks are done? Or that some spiteful magician is out there in cyberspace peddling his theory to how it was done for $29.95?

And he concludes: "I still don't believe you don't know how David vanished the statue."

You really want my $29.95 don't you Steve.

3 - IN CONCLUSION
Both Steve's seem grateful for the "free publicity" and couldn't care less about whether they ethically have the right to do what they are doing.

STEVE P: "I must thank Tom Stone for posting the link to my auction on this forum because I have had almost 500 hits."

STEVE P: "Thank you Genii Forum members for keeping this going. This was much better than paying for ad space in a magazine."

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

Bottom line, we can all sit back and do nothing, and agree with Steve that it really has nothing to do with us. Or we can do what his MAGICIANS CODE tells us and "discourage advertisements for "knock-offs", effects or illusions for which the seller does not have the right to publish". We can look after the interests of our friends and not just ourselves.

We cannot sit back and say, "Well I know they're doing the wrong thing, but it doesn't affect me... because one day it might!" You'll be wanting our help then. So take Steve Fearson's advice: ""There are true injustices going on in the world people.. and in magic. Get off your butts and go find them if you really want to help somebody."

Fearson
Posts: 17
Joined: March 29th, 2009, 11:19 am

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

Postby Fearson » May 31st, 2002, 4:55 pm

LOL!!

I'll have some of whatever it is that Tim's taking.

I know I said you get the last word Tim.. but really.. You kill me

:D


Return to “General”