The Genii Forum

Ketku wrote:

... wouldn't it been better if Gauci would have sent all the documents to Murphy...

In what way would this be significantly different from Murphy's sending all their documents to Gauci? Why should we assume that Murphy's would "do the right thing" any more than we should assume that Gauci would? A couple of the few things that we do know for sure are that Gauci was actively marketing this effect for six months before Murphy's offering appeared, and that Murphy's knew about the Gauci effect. We know essentially nothing about the origins of Murphy's version, which could well be of their own manufacture (or not; we have no evidence either way).

If Gauci sends all of his documentation to Murphy's (in the absence of a disinterested party), there is every opportunity for the latter to use this information in the construction of an alternate version of events.

Frankly, I don't understand the need to suggest an alternate solution (especially one that presupposes ethical behavior on the part of one of the two parties in dispute). Is there any reason why an independent party should not be permitted to adjudicate? Gauci has already offered to send his information to such. Why has Murphy's not agreed to do the same? Why has Mr. Murphy not even offered a public comment on the question?

There may well be logical answers to these questions, but we have yet to hear them. Even Mr. Trono is being uncharacteristically silent on the proposal.

... Doug

Doug,
It's different because the beef is not between Charles and Murphy's, it's between Charles and the manufacturer of PG.

There are two problems to be solved. One is the question of PG being manufactured, one is the question of it being sold by Murphy's. The question of its being manufactured needs to be settled/arbitrated/whatever by Charles and that manufacturer. The question of Murphy's selling it is a decision to be made by Murphy's based on an evaluation by them of the claims of both Charles and the other manufacturer. There's no need in either of those cases for Murphy's to send any information to Charles, as (let's all say it again) it's NOT Murphy's product. They are just the wholesale dealer.

--Andy

Andy claimed:

... it's NOT Murphy's product...

I'm aware that Tim Trono has claimed this, but it's not clear why his claims should be viewed as more credible than others'. No verifiable evidence has been offered to support the claim. At this point, it's just that: a claim.

Gauci's conflict is with the party that is offering this product for sale in the marketplace. That is clearly Murphy's, even if they have found someone else to manufacture it for them. And as such, only an independent arbitrator can be trusted to make an unbiased decision.

... Doug

Murphy's Magic Supplies, Inc. is a distributor of magic to shops and dealers only. Many other companies who manufacture magic products sell to whoever will buy it (jobbers, wholesale to shops and retail), which creates a situation where they are in fact competing with their resale customers. Murphy's does not do this, and has from the start put the shops first. They make less of a profit, and therefore must do higher volume to make up the difference.

While Murphy's does, in fact, produce items under their own name (tricks, books & videos), there is no indication that they produce anything without slapping their name on it. It is to their benefit to have their name on every item they produce. This is called branding and is used substantially to develop a dedicated client base. I am certain that their intention is to keep a satisfied client base by providing quality products whether or not they manufacture them. They buy products in bulk and resell them at a small markup to shops and dealers. In the process, they provide a great service by encouraging creators and providing capital (through their purchasing products) to enable many people to get their creation to the magic public.

Face the facts: they are in the business to sell magic. To do this, they have to be competitive (without being dishonest) and responsive to the magic public at large. This means that they often *have* to carry products because they are what the clients want. This often leads to carrying items that may (or may not) sell and in some instances means that they lose money in the short run, not making their investment on some items for years (if ever). This is part of doing business.

They are not the "magic police." That is not their role, they are in the business to make money by providing quality service and products at reasonable prices. In my dealings with Murphy's I have always felt that I am dealing with a business (and people) that exhibit great integrity. This includes trying to do the right thing whenever possible. They are not an evil conglomerate looking to rape the creators of magic and steal their creations without giving back.

I think some people are too quick to put nefarious intent on innocent actions.

There *is* a problem, but it is not necessarily Murphy's fault. Murphy's is not the first to be accused of selling rip-off items, they just happen to be the biggest. Unfortunately, even though they are not the producers of this item, they are stuck in the middle, and make a much bigger target to hit. Far too many of the actual crooked producers get left alone and continue to sell (particularly if people want the product).

Before any more stones get thrown, I want all of you to go look in your magic drawers and libraries and make sure that you don't own any of the rip-off products and have no xeroxes of manuscripts or duplicates of magic videos before you start posting again. Everyone needs to take a deep breath, walk away for a few days and analyze your own reason for throwing stones. If you are indeed without sin, cast away, but be sure you are throwing at the right target, and remember that it is not only the producers of rip-offs, but also the buyers of same that are to blame.

Happy Labor Day!

ajp

Great post aj. You said it right.
Gibby

Anyone who knows me at all knows that I stand firmly behind ethical and legal behavior by magicians. I am convinced that it denigrates all parties to sling mud at each other ad nauseum over questions of ownership. This particular debate is one that is echoed in many places and has been since the publication of magic material began.

This issue and many others just like it make a clear case for using a tool that is available for any author. When anyone finishes writing a piece or even a set of instructions for a magic trick, the piece is copyrighted legally from the moment it is finished. That coverage is described in links that are found here:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
The copyright is automatic but weak. Read on.

Anyone who has a performing arts item, which clearly covers magic, should avail themselves of a relatively new process to register their item and establish a legally binding date of provenance for their piece.
http://www.copyright.gov/register/performing.html
This makes a very strong Copyright for your item.

For a mere $30.00, the Library of Congress of the United States will lend the power of a registered Copyright (note the capitalization of this word) to your piece and establish the exact time and date you registered an item.

This course of action, if taken by everyone who has something unique to offer the performing art of magic, will prevent these kinds of unproveable accusations from flying about needlessly.

Want to keep everyone else from performing your bits? Register them. Want to keep everyone else from publishing your work? Register it. If you make money from those items, the cost of registering is deductable and invaluable.

Best Regards,
Ray

Ray,
You cannot copyright an idea, and you cannot copyright a magic trick. The only thing you can copyright is your written or videotaped instructions, however your copyright protection only extends to your exact words or images. Someone can rewrite the instructions and, as long as the language is substantially different, they won't be violating your copyright.
End of story.

Richard,

I'm referring to establishing a date of provenance here and not assuming that an idea can be copyrighted.

The question seems to be that there are two people both claiming to have invented something first. How can they prove it? If they had registered a copyright formally, it would be quite easy. Party A has a date of xx/xx/xx and Party B has a date of yy/yy/yy making things very clear for anyone interested.

As you said, an idea can't be copyrighted but when you commit the idea to paper, it becomes a copyrighted piece with a date of copyright which can be proven by publication or formal copyright.

If I publish an article in Genii, it is copyrighted from the day I finished it and formalized one more step by being in a dated publication. For complete protection, I should also file the proper paperwork with the Copyright Office.

There are no copyright police out there. Enforcement of a copyright is up to the holder. This is not the angle I was approaching when I wrote my reply above. The date of provenance is important to whoever claims the earliest invention.

There's not going to be an end of story anytime soon, Richard. Read the new laws on the sites I gave in my last message and tell me if an idea is still outside of the copyright arena.

Best Regards,
Ray

The Copyright discussion, while interesting, is not particularly relevant to the problem at hand. One of the parties has already provided some easily verifiable dates, and has expressed a willingness to provide additional documentation of provenance to a neutral party. The second party, however, has been silent on the dispute for the better part of this week (while they continue to fill their distribution pipeline, I suspect). This after refusing to provide any such documentation, insisting that they be granted the right to decide the issue.

... Doug

Doug,

The copyright issue is more than just interesting. As I said in my first post on this matter, if both sides had filed, there would be a date that is clearly established and verifiable.

The documents exchanged unilaterally so far may prove that a piece of paper has a date on it but unless the date is somehow verifiable as in notorized, filed or registered, it is nothing more than a date on a memo or letter.

My point was to use the system of formal copyright to enhance or enable the creation of dates of provenance. That makes it completely relevant to this issue by virtue of the possibility that this was not done. Had it been done, this thread might be 3 messages long at maximum.

First Message: I've been ripped off.

Second Message: Not so, here's my Copyright. Show me yours.

Third Message: Ok, sorry. Yours beats mine. OR Sorry, mine beats yours.

Best Regards,
Ray

What's going to happen if the person who created the effect in question whips out proof, and I mean real proof, that they created it 1st?

Hypothetical at this point, but how interesting will it be to watch that conversation?

I think Ray's got a great idea. Create it, Copyright it, and you're time stamped for anything that may happen.

Except that the copyright would have no legal bearing on a dispute of theft of the idea of the effect itself. It would only have bearing in a court of law on a dispute over whether the exact presentation or the exact written instructions had been duplicated.

Andy,

Exactly. Precisely. Without question. Yes. Indeed. Perfectly analyzed.

Well, I can't say you're correct in too many more ways.

Best Always,
Ray

Ray...

We're not really disagreeing on anything; I'm just pointing out that in this case a scenario has arisen that your suggested dialog does not address.

Party A: You've ripped me off.

Party B: No, you've ripped us off.

Party A: Here's clear, incontrovertible proof that I was actively marketing this product at time "x".

Party B: (no response... but busy shipping product as quickly as they can while we discuss the problem)

So now what?

... Doug

Doug,

I guess you truly are missing what I am saying.

I have no ultimate solution nor does anyone else at this point. I was addressing the legitimate use of a formal copyright to take one and only one factor from the equation.

The date from a formally filed copyrighted document is irrefutable. It beats ANY date typed or written into a logbook, journal, letterhead and etc. All of those can and have been forged by disreputable people in the past.

Once the date has been established, it takes most of the stuffings out of this kind of debate. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more.

I'd also suggest that a court would be able to decide who owns what effect and would be far more clearly influenced by a document with a date certified by the copyright office than almost any other evidence presented.

If you ask me one more time what to do, I will make a decision and hold you and all parties to that decision. Just like Judge Judy does.

Be warned! ;)

Best Regards,
Ray

Did we ever find out who created Perfect Guess?

Ray...

I think I clearly understand what you are saying.

I even agree with it, as I previously posted.

I'm merely observing that it only applies to situations where both parties are either willing, or are compelled, to submit their claims to independent adjudication.

... Doug

The Hubble telescope can see into space about five million light years.
The electron microscope can enlarge an object more than three million times.
If you combined the power of these two machines, they might (but only "might") be powerful enough to detect any interest I have in this nonsensical debate over who did what first.

I don't perform either of the tricks mentioned and have no intention of ever performing or buying either one.

(After all, the effect boils down to a choice of one out of two! Hell, you could GUESS correctly half the time!)

But what DOES interest me is that there have been more than 90 posts on this topic. There probably isn't a member of this board who isn't familiar with the effect by now.

So all that has really happened is that this minor, little trick has received three e-pages of FREE ADVERTISING.

C'mon, folks; we aren't curing cancer or ending world hunger here! Get a life!

cheers,
Peter Marucci
showtimecol@aol.com

Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
- Howard Hathaway Aiken, physicist and computer pioneer
Gibby

The guy who created "Perfect Guess" is an Italian guy, but I can't divulge his name.
This matter has been settled and Murphy's Magic will be making some announcement shortly.
Charles Gaucci has reduced the price of "Eye to Eye" to $20. There is a second version that he sells that is $30. I'm sure he'll elaborate on the differences as soon as possible (at the moment he's on his way to Los Angeles for some lectures).

For those of you interested in the work of Charles Gauci, which features a number of clever and original ideas, here is a schedule for his current lecture tour. Charles is definitely worth seeing if you have an opportunity; though he works primarily as a corporate/society mentalist (in Australia and the French Riviera), he features a variety of material at his lectures, some of which is available in no other way.

As with any performing schedule, it's always wise to verify with the venue before traveling long distances.

... Doug

----------------------------------------------------------
September
4 -- IBM Ring 188 (Melbourne, Florida)
10 -- IBM Ring 175 (Tampa Bay, Florida)
11 -- IBM Ring 150 (Ft Lauderdale, Florida)
13-15 -- Spotlight Convention (Split Rock Resort, Lake Harmony, Pennsylvania)
16 -- IBM Ring 9 (Atlanta, Georgia)
17 -- IBM Ring 112 (Chattanooga, Tennessee)
18 -- IBM Ring 58 (Knoxville, Tennessee)
19 -- IBM Ring 37 (Nashville, Tennessee)
23 -- IBM Ring 103 (Norfolk, Virginia)
25 -- IBM Ring 180 (Richmond, Virginia)
29 -- IBM Ring 222 (Roanoke, Virginia)
30 -- IBM Ring 320 (Staunton, Virginia)

October
1 -- IBM Ring 179 (Baltimore, Maryland)
2 -- IBM Ring 94 ( Hagerstown, Maryland)
3 -- IBM Ring 74 (Syracuse, New York)
7 -- IBM Ring 12 ( Buffalo, New York)
8 -- IBM Ring 79 (Binghamton, New York)
9 -- Magical Arts Center (Hastings On Hudson, New York)
10 -- IBM Ring 113 (Lyndhurst, New Jersey)

17-20 -- Club Magico Convention (Venice, Italy)
25-27 -- Zauberkongress (Zurich, Switzerland)
31-3 -- AFAP Convention (Nancy, France)

November
11 -- arrives home in Melbourne

I am so sorry that I missed Charles lecture here in the SF Bay Area last June. My loss

When John Blaze mentioned that Daytona Magic was manufacturing a rip-off of my Wunderbar and calling it Wonderful Bar, Richard Kaufman dismissed it by stating "This is an epidemic in the world of magic. The vast majority of dealers do it." He then listed Glorpy, Kornwinder Car, Mental Epic and The Professors Nightmare as examples of other often copied tricks. It seems there is a double standard here. The stealing of my creations is not as important as someone copying Mr.Gauci's trick. When I mentioned that Murphy's was knowingly selling copies of my Washout and Funkey, Richard suggested that I settle it privately with Tim Trono. I certainly was not afforded the space Charles Gauci was given. This double standard would be amusing if it didn't cost me thousands of dollars.
Best wishes,
Steve

I didn't mean to be dismissive of ANYONE else's tricks being swiped. It's far easier get something done when a trick is new. It's easy to prove there's no other source. When an idea is older, and it has been on the market for many years, it's more difficult to prove one's point.
When I spoke with Mark Murphy about "Eye to Eye," I DID address the matter of Steve's items (though I didn't recall the name of the items). I would suggest, Steve, that you contact Murphy again by phone on their 800 number (so it's their dime) and ask Mark Murphy exactly what sort of proof he would require in order to buy the items directly from you rather than the copies. I would suggest doing the same thing with ANY of the jobbers and distributors out there. Feel free to post the results of your efforts here on the Forum AFTER the matter has been concluded and a result reached.

Richard wrote:

The guy who created "Perfect Guess" is an Italian guy...

Well, Italian name, but based in the Miami, Florida area, I believe (unless it's just a coincidence of unusual names).

... Doug

Miami eh? Perhaps Charles will be shortly discussing the problem with him, eye-to-eye, so to speak.....opie

Does the old (poor man's) mail it to yourself via registered mail still hold up as a legtimate copywrite? I remember a college professor told us we should do that, as the government will recognize it's own legal stamping, and date as...legitimate. I know I would videotape a new invention of mine, and do the above. Important that you never open the package.

A "poor mans copywrite" takes effect as soon as you finish your written word, and mark it thusly. The envelope gambit might be adequate for recording the date.

A better option to officially record an invention date (only), is to write up a "statement of invention" and have the letter notarized. Notaries can be found in the phone book.

Does the old (poor man's) mail it to yourself via registered mail still hold up as a legtimate copywrite? I remember a college professor told us we should do that, as the government will recognize it's own legal stamping, and date as...legitimate. I know I would videotape a new invention of mine, and do the above. Important that you never open the package.

Nope, that's misinformation, it never had legal standing, and never will, except in rare cases (and to have any chance of standing up, it has to be notarized).

What's to prevent me from getting a job at a publisher, sending myself an empty envelope today, and two years from now taking somebody's new manuscript, recopying it with my name on it, and sealing it in my envelope dated 2002? Then I can go and claim that I wrote it two years earlier and he stole it from me.

The ONLY way you legally have the right in the US to pursue a copyright infringement in court is by registering your copyright through the appropriate channels. It's not terribly hard, nor is it terribly expensive, so if you think it's of worth, do it (plus it's kinda neat to know a copy of your work is in the Library of Congress :o ) That all said, if you don't have the money to put up front to sue somebody for infringment, and if you're in a market like ours where you aren't likely to collect much in the way of a settlement, it may not be worth it.

And again, effects can't be copyrighted; sometimes they can be patented, but never copyrighted. That is only for specific performances, written pieces, recordings, etc., not the actual mechanics or handling of the effect itself.

Of course, the usual, "I'm not a lawyer, so none of this is to be construed in any way, shape, or form as legal advice; please consult a lawyer for advice before acting on my comments," disclaimer applies.

--Andy

The saddest part of this whole quagmire (aside from the theft of effects/ideas) is the fact that unless you have piles of money to mount a lawsuit - or mount a defense for one - the legal system is of no use at all. We're all back to square one, which is relying on the integrity of others. --Mitch

Actually, even if you do have the money, more often than not it's still of no use, since most of what we create falls under neither copyright nor patent law. :o1

A small correction to Charles lecture schedule. The lecture on Septemer 10th is at IBM Ring 42 (also SAM assembly 82- both combined to form the Tampa Bay Magic Club) which now meets at the Largo Cultural Center in Largo Florida.

Mr. Charles Gauci,
I have meet you on two occasions and you seemed to be very interesting individual, Friendly and quit bright. As I read all of these three pages of accusations and upsets it seems to me that you yourself are a true magician in all sense of the word a true illusionist . For as what you seem to be you really are not. Yelling and going off the deep end is not the answer here. Murphy's for one is not your enemy here. The truth is that they are in business to make money and supply the masses with the products they need and want. Yes their is an issue of ethics here but not the ones at Murphy's. Should it not be the persons or person that allegedly stole your idea or effect. If this person or persons claimed to be the creators they are the ones lacking ethics. I have had a business relationship with Murphy's for two years now and from what I have seen they have rewritten the book on good business and excellent service; which for us in this field for any extent of time can say that it was lacking and is lacking in some places. In any case, don't you think that by talking thing out in a civilized manner people are more apt to listen to the problem as opposed to yelling and carrying on like a toothless dog. Toothless because to much bark but really not bite. Nothing to bite on because the reality is that in magic, effects are often duplicated, copied and made with inferior materials by ethical and unethical people alike. In magic unfortunately this issue happens very often, (very few effects are COPY WRITTEN) you should know that, and the way to change things is through people like Murphy's Magic who do care about these issues and their business. I know you don't believe that but haven't they already removed this item "Perfect Guess"?. Do you really think that your bullying and out of control behavior helped in this matter? Direct your anger in the right direction, to the people who rip off the ideas and present them as original ones. The strange thing is that in the real business world this would be usual and daily happening. Who can make it cheaper and better? After market or original? Imported or Domestic ? Who will outbid the lowest bidder to get the job ? This is how the world operates and has operated for a long, long time. But magic, has it it's own set of rules ? I guess it does and I'm Okay with that, because we are in reality a very small spec of dust of the many groups/organazations of the world and should stick together.The magic community is very small in relation and what happens today is known quickly across the states and from magi to magi . Stop and think who am I really angry at and why? A very large group of magi from the many I have spoken to throughout the years rather by quality that lasts and works through uses not cheaper and junk that fails and breaks. I ask you this final question for I am confused. I ask you Mr. Charles Gauci Where did you steal, I mean come up with this so called original idea for eye to eye ??? I would like you to state for the record that this is yours and you are the sole originator of the idea and that it has not been done before you. Magic has been around for a long time and far to many time tricks that are long forgotten become new to us. Could this be the case ? Food for thought.
Live magically and without expectations,
magicman :confused:

As the above is the first post from the tellingly anonymous "magicman357", perhaps he or she should be forgiven for an abysmal lack of understanding of the issue under discusion here.

For the record, as of today, Murphy's continues to advertise "Perfect Guess", and continues to remain publicly silent on this matter (as has been the case since the abrupt cessation of their postings following Charles Gauci's public request for third party adjudication).

... Doug

Magicman:

Please break your posts into shorter paragraphs.

Steve H

Doug,
Although I am not in this forum to get confrontational and debate with those people who express their thoughts based on mislead facts and imaginary truths, Doug I must ask you are you clear on what you state.

Although Murphy?s web page as of early last night still had ?Perfect Guess? you could not call in an order for it because they were not selling ?Perfect Guess?. As of today they do not have this item advertised. Doug before making a statement ? For the record? did you bother calling in to place an order for such item to find out if what you state holds any truth?
As far as not understanding the issue in discussion here which by the way with all of the side tracking that has gone through the last 3 pages it?s a miracle that anyone is still on the right track.

I am very clear, too clear on the matter at hand. It is a shame that we (people) have not come to understand that everything could be resolved by talking and discussing it out. Not yelling, threatening and demanding things with the expectation of a quick fix.

I hope that this teaches all of us magicians and creators alike something besides whom
can yell the loudest or instigate the most.
Wishful thinking.
Magically,
Magicman

:rolleyes:

magicman357 wrote:

... I am not in this forum to get confrontational

A strange claim from someone who, on his or her first posting, wrote "I ask you Mr. Charles Gauci Where did you steal..."!

Doug I must ask you are you clear on what you state.

Perfectly. I don't post in haste, and I'm extremely careful about the veracity of what I write.

Doug before making a statement ? For the record? did you bother calling in to place an order for such item to find out if what you state holds any truth?

Of course not; I have no interest in ordering rip-offs.

I did, however, check at the time of my posting to determine whether or not Murphy's were still advertising the product (which is what I stated), and they were. I notice that in the subsequent 13 hours they have (finally!) removed the ad, though I also note that we still have not heard a word about this from Mr. Murphy. I expect he's just hoping that this will all quietly fade away... unfortunately, the financial damage has already been done. I hope that Mr. Gauci will at least enjoy his moral victory in the face of the shoddy treatment he has received.

And thanks again to Genii for permitting this discussion to be aired. Despite magicman357's claims to the contrary, I think it's been reasonably civil on the part of most participants.

... Doug

Hello magicman357
why 357?
why not 398 or 245
357 was my number
This is a rip of
change your number and tell us your real name
Why do you hide?

Maxim

quote(I am very clear, too clear on the matter at hand. It is a shame that we (people) have not come to understand that everything could be resolved by talking and discussing it out. Not yelling, threatening and demanding things with the expectation of a quick fix).

I saw nothing of yelling and threatening,is this more smoke and mirrors?
Gibby

I have asked Magicman357 to explain his provocative statement that insinuates that Charles Gauci is not the inventor of "Eye to Eye." Let's see what he says.
Just so we're all on the same page regarding the rest of the events:
1)Murphy's has stopped selling "Perfect Guess."
2)The Jerry Somderdin rip-off has also been discontinued by MagicSmith.
3)The third item "Whispering Dragon" or whatever it's called appears to be an authorized variation, marketed with permission.
So, at the moment, things appear to be resolved. No one has come forward with any evidence that someone came up with this aural methodology for this ancient effect before Gauci.
Any other questions?