Thanks for Sharing?
-
- Posts: 788
- Joined: March 13th, 2008, 9:20 am
- Location: Palatine, Illinois
- Contact:
Thanks for Sharing?
New "The Disclaimer" blog post from Curtis Kam. Some interesting thoughts and questions.
https://ko-fi.com/post/Thanks-for-Sharing-W7W3IHT4E
https://ko-fi.com/post/Thanks-for-Sharing-W7W3IHT4E
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
There is actually a major fuss going on now about crediting. All hell breaking loose in the most amusing way. Not that I am the type to spread gossip of course.
-
- Posts: 788
- Joined: March 13th, 2008, 9:20 am
- Location: Palatine, Illinois
- Contact:
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Coincidence or...?
-
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
If I'm reading this article correctly, then I couldn't disagree more with this.
Crediting has nothing to do with who shared an idea with the public.
It has to do with being able to trace the pedigree of an idea. It has to do with the historical record; it's a bread crumb for further research.
With regard to monetary compensation--that's always negotiable. It may be fair or unfair. But it has nothing to do with crediting.
Crediting has nothing to do with who shared an idea with the public.
It has to do with being able to trace the pedigree of an idea. It has to do with the historical record; it's a bread crumb for further research.
With regard to monetary compensation--that's always negotiable. It may be fair or unfair. But it has nothing to do with crediting.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Here, let me share the method behind the Zig Zag. I win!
-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Who is the public referred to in the post?
Magic is by definition meant to be unique. To that end, when the viewing public see the same magicians do the same things it makes us less unique and turns us into a commodity - which is always then a race to the bottom.
To that end, it’s to a magicians interest to insure others in their field remain unaware of their work as we are a community that is only too happy to steal the labors of others, devaluing and demystifying our art for the sake of one’s personal jollies.
Too often we see magicians happy to take the fruits of another’s labors and claim this as their own. This is in part because in magic we have two audiences - real people who consume magic as entertainment and magicians who consume magic (let’s face it) mostly also as entertainment.
So which public are we referring to/privileging in the post - the magician who is out in the real world bringing wonder to real people with their original works they intend to protect for the sake of their audience’s magical experience, or the ‘creator’ who is always on the prowl looking for the latest secret to package and sell to their followers of clones who’s pocket book is thicker than their artistic visions?
Personally I have more respect and think the performing magician deserves the credit - for they are doing work that makes magic more magical, more unique, more mysterious.
The others are at best furniture makers - admittedly some chippendale, others knock off ikea’s. They are salespeople who sell dreams of greatness that will never be delivered. Their magical mass marketing transforms us from potential picasso’s into paint by numbers patrons.
For that they deserve credit. But who is willing to condemn the popular sellers of secrets and purveyors of sameness,?
The magician who comes up with an idea and shared it with one real person has done more for magic than the pitchman who takes someone else’s idea and sells it to a thousand wannabe copyists.
Magic is by definition meant to be unique. To that end, when the viewing public see the same magicians do the same things it makes us less unique and turns us into a commodity - which is always then a race to the bottom.
To that end, it’s to a magicians interest to insure others in their field remain unaware of their work as we are a community that is only too happy to steal the labors of others, devaluing and demystifying our art for the sake of one’s personal jollies.
Too often we see magicians happy to take the fruits of another’s labors and claim this as their own. This is in part because in magic we have two audiences - real people who consume magic as entertainment and magicians who consume magic (let’s face it) mostly also as entertainment.
So which public are we referring to/privileging in the post - the magician who is out in the real world bringing wonder to real people with their original works they intend to protect for the sake of their audience’s magical experience, or the ‘creator’ who is always on the prowl looking for the latest secret to package and sell to their followers of clones who’s pocket book is thicker than their artistic visions?
Personally I have more respect and think the performing magician deserves the credit - for they are doing work that makes magic more magical, more unique, more mysterious.
The others are at best furniture makers - admittedly some chippendale, others knock off ikea’s. They are salespeople who sell dreams of greatness that will never be delivered. Their magical mass marketing transforms us from potential picasso’s into paint by numbers patrons.
For that they deserve credit. But who is willing to condemn the popular sellers of secrets and purveyors of sameness,?
The magician who comes up with an idea and shared it with one real person has done more for magic than the pitchman who takes someone else’s idea and sells it to a thousand wannabe copyists.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Couldn't disagree more with the premise.
-
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Oh, I see. This is the Weber/Petty thing. Well the one good thing to come out of 32 pages of mudslinging is that the age cards with receipts seems to go back further than both of them...to at least Scott Dressberg (maybe a reference to Scott Grossberg?) in the 90s. One more bread crumb.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
-
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Magic Cafe, Latest and Greatest...
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Found it.
I think all this boils down to two camps in magic: those who see Magic as something unique that should be shared with audiences of real people and those who see it as a commodity meant to be shared with other magicians.
I think all this boils down to two camps in magic: those who see Magic as something unique that should be shared with audiences of real people and those who see it as a commodity meant to be shared with other magicians.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Brad Henderson wrote:Found it.
I think all this boils down to two camps in magic: those who see Magic as something unique that should be shared with audiences of real people and those who see it as a commodity meant to be shared with other magicians.
In this case the membership distinction between the "two camps" is as clear as mud.
-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
To clarify - the camps I speak of are defined by the defenses given by the various fans. There are those who condemn Weber and Trono for having tried to protect their ideas via limited distribution and even take umbrage with the idea of there being any authority to credits based on limited distribution. Of course, their arguments fall apart when one considers the history of magicians trying to lay claim to their ideas by this and similar techniques. They seem perplexed and even offended that someone would want to even restrict access to work. They don’t seem to understand that way of thinking. Instead they suggest that the propose of creating is to share with other magicians so they can use it. They of course are thinking about their own pleasure and access to secrets and not the end result of commodifying magic by encouraging a sameness among practitioners. I contend this is because most of them don’t perform, they buy magic toys to play with. To them a magic lecture is a magic show at the end of which there is a bonus act where one gets to peek behind the curtain. Clever methods explained by a well liked personality are just as if not more valuable to them than considering the implications for an audience of choosing popular material that everyone is doing on tik tok. These are the same people who for years would grouse on the cafe that it was unfair for creators to price books or products at price points they couldn’t afford. They are the same people who think having someone else’s trick explained to them is magicians helping magicians but should something they perform get tipped somewhere are, ironically, the first to go apoplectic.
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
- erdnasephile
- Posts: 4766
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Brad Henderson wrote:Where are these 32 pages ?
For those that don't want to slog through 32 pages, I think this is a pretty fair summary of the situation thus far: https://www.thejerx.com/blog/2023/2/5/h ... ty-v-weber
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
I know the world of business is not the same as the world of magic but I have been reading a book by Felix Dennis who became a billionaire. He was quite a character and he wrote the best business book I have ever read. His take on matters like this would be anathema to the world of magic but it amuses me nevertheless. He states quite accurately that just because you get a great idea means very little. It is the EXECUTION of that idea that is the important thing if you wish to make money. He advises that you "steal, or more politely emulate" the ideas of others if you wish to profit. He writes "If you never have a great idea in your life. but become skilled in executing the ideas of others
you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams". They do not have to be your own ideas---execution is all"
There. I am just trying to advise those of you who have not led sheltered lives and have elastic consciences. I am sure you will all be suitably grateful.
you can succeed beyond your wildest dreams". They do not have to be your own ideas---execution is all"
There. I am just trying to advise those of you who have not led sheltered lives and have elastic consciences. I am sure you will all be suitably grateful.
-
- Posts: 104
- Joined: April 21st, 2008, 1:49 pm
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
The two camps are these:
1) The general population who believe that magic is a fungible commodity, and
2) Those who believe that MAGIC is a rare and sacred thing that deserves to be treated with respect and reverence.
It is not possible for the two to meet, and those who argue about "grey areas" simply do not feel the same thing in their hearts and souls that type 2 people do.
1) The general population who believe that magic is a fungible commodity, and
2) Those who believe that MAGIC is a rare and sacred thing that deserves to be treated with respect and reverence.
It is not possible for the two to meet, and those who argue about "grey areas" simply do not feel the same thing in their hearts and souls that type 2 people do.
-
- Posts: 1370
- Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Brooklyn NY
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Those two camps may be some of the viewpoints in the Weber/Petty dispute, but I think it's more fundamental than that.
I think it's a semantic problem as well. I'll further insist that "credit" is different from "who owns the rights to make money from this thing?" The Weber/Petty dispute is about the latter. It has nothing to do with credit, especially given the existence of previous incarnations of the plot/method. The question of credit is an academic historical question; the other is a business dispute.
If Ed Marlo had written a letter to someone in the 50s about a pinky placement in a card sleight, if he were the first to suggest it, he gets the credit. Even if it's not public. Even if there's no letter but whispered it in his sleep to his wife one night, the credit is his. Even and especially if the letter receiver claimed it instead as her invention.
But who owns the business rights is another animal entirely. It's not the same as credit. Sometimes the two overlap, but very often not. It's contested because any art or invention has to depend on previous work, and it's a judgment call as to when something becomes original enough to declare that the business rights are now bestowed upon a new product manufacturer. And that judgement call is some blend of the public market, the relative power of the parties involved, and the prevailing ethos of the manufacturing communities involved.
So in the interest of clarity into the future, I propose that we call the historical question "credit," and the business question "rights," as in rights to manufacture. I think discussions will be more productive that way.
One may have the "rights" to a creation, but not all--or even some--of the "credit." In the Weber case, it seems to me he has very little claim to a new plot, method, or combination thereof, and thus has neither credit nor rights as far as I can tell.
I think it's a semantic problem as well. I'll further insist that "credit" is different from "who owns the rights to make money from this thing?" The Weber/Petty dispute is about the latter. It has nothing to do with credit, especially given the existence of previous incarnations of the plot/method. The question of credit is an academic historical question; the other is a business dispute.
If Ed Marlo had written a letter to someone in the 50s about a pinky placement in a card sleight, if he were the first to suggest it, he gets the credit. Even if it's not public. Even if there's no letter but whispered it in his sleep to his wife one night, the credit is his. Even and especially if the letter receiver claimed it instead as her invention.
But who owns the business rights is another animal entirely. It's not the same as credit. Sometimes the two overlap, but very often not. It's contested because any art or invention has to depend on previous work, and it's a judgment call as to when something becomes original enough to declare that the business rights are now bestowed upon a new product manufacturer. And that judgement call is some blend of the public market, the relative power of the parties involved, and the prevailing ethos of the manufacturing communities involved.
So in the interest of clarity into the future, I propose that we call the historical question "credit," and the business question "rights," as in rights to manufacture. I think discussions will be more productive that way.
One may have the "rights" to a creation, but not all--or even some--of the "credit." In the Weber case, it seems to me he has very little claim to a new plot, method, or combination thereof, and thus has neither credit nor rights as far as I can tell.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity.
-
- Posts: 583
- Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Waikiki
- Contact:
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Jack, it seems to me that your disagreement with my blog post is entirely this “semantic problem” you’ve now discovered.
I was discussing one of the basic principles that enable “property” rights to arise from intellectual property. I was using the term “credit” to refer to the way one attributes those property rights, which is pretty much the way the term “credit” is used in most public discussions of this sort, at least, in my experience.
As I said in the brief post, people are certainly free to use the published record as a starting point, and then delve further to decide to who should be recognized as “the first”, if they wish. There are many words to describe this. “Attribution”, “Recognition”, “Authorship”, etc.
I agree with your distinction between “business rights” and “authorship”. However, I do believe that current popular useage favors using “credit’ to refer to the “business” side. There are numerous alternative terms for the “authorship” side.
And in answer to Brad’s question about “credit from whom?” I think it’s fair to say that one is one can only expect credit from the population one has shared the idea with. So if you reveal your ideas only to a group of five friends, you can expect those five people to give you credit. But why would anyone else?
And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I would think that publishing your idea in a book that’s available to the public, even if most will not purchase it, even if it’s very expensive, would constitute “sharing with the general public”.
I do believe that creators should be rewarded for their efforts, and also that if they want to keep their secrets to themselves, they are free to do so. However, it is unworkable to say that they can refuse to share their ideas, but then when someone else has the same idea, to act as if the original idea had been shared, when it wasn’t.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was discussing one of the basic principles that enable “property” rights to arise from intellectual property. I was using the term “credit” to refer to the way one attributes those property rights, which is pretty much the way the term “credit” is used in most public discussions of this sort, at least, in my experience.
As I said in the brief post, people are certainly free to use the published record as a starting point, and then delve further to decide to who should be recognized as “the first”, if they wish. There are many words to describe this. “Attribution”, “Recognition”, “Authorship”, etc.
I agree with your distinction between “business rights” and “authorship”. However, I do believe that current popular useage favors using “credit’ to refer to the “business” side. There are numerous alternative terms for the “authorship” side.
And in answer to Brad’s question about “credit from whom?” I think it’s fair to say that one is one can only expect credit from the population one has shared the idea with. So if you reveal your ideas only to a group of five friends, you can expect those five people to give you credit. But why would anyone else?
And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I would think that publishing your idea in a book that’s available to the public, even if most will not purchase it, even if it’s very expensive, would constitute “sharing with the general public”.
I do believe that creators should be rewarded for their efforts, and also that if they want to keep their secrets to themselves, they are free to do so. However, it is unworkable to say that they can refuse to share their ideas, but then when someone else has the same idea, to act as if the original idea had been shared, when it wasn’t.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 4550
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: austin, tx
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Curtis. Thanks for your reply.
If someone is the first to come up with something, should it matter how many people are aware of it (assuming it can be established they did come up with it first)?
If someone registers a script with a clearing house and someone later creates the same script, even if no one other than the clerk at the clearing house and the creator saw the first submission, does that change the fact that someone else did it first?
Credit should go to them for being first - regardless of who else or how many may or may not have seen it
Of course, we shouldn’t fault people for being unaware of an obscure predecessor. But once established should that credit be theirs?
If someone is the first to come up with something, should it matter how many people are aware of it (assuming it can be established they did come up with it first)?
If someone registers a script with a clearing house and someone later creates the same script, even if no one other than the clerk at the clearing house and the creator saw the first submission, does that change the fact that someone else did it first?
Credit should go to them for being first - regardless of who else or how many may or may not have seen it
Of course, we shouldn’t fault people for being unaware of an obscure predecessor. But once established should that credit be theirs?
Brad Henderson magician in Austin Texas
-
- Posts: 583
- Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Waikiki
- Contact:
Re: Thanks for Sharing?
Brad,
As in many things, the answer to your question depends on why you’re asking the question.
If all you’re interested in knowing is “who came up with the idea first?” Then of course, nothing else matters. First is first, and first is all that matters in that particular game. It’s the only rule of “First Club”.
However, if you are trying to answer a different question, the answer will be different. For instance, if you’re asking, “who should we acknowledge as the person who has the right to control how the idea is used?” That’s different. In that case, you’re asking us, the population of interested people, to take some action, or at least, to make a decision, and when you do that, it’s fair and reasonable for us to ask “what are the consequences of our actions/decisions?”
Let’s say we want to encourage people with good ideas to share them with us. That seems fair to us, since we have little else to offer the creative person. You share with us an idea that (we admit) we didn’t have, and we’ll only use it as you see fit. But you do have to share the idea, because otherwise there’s no exchange and nothing to talk about. You’ve got a secret in your head. Fine, we can’t credit you with it, because we don’t know what that is.
Certainly, we want to encourage people with good ideas to keep having good ideas. And for some creators, that means working in secret and only sharing amongst friends. That’s fine, you do you. But if you want the public to do something about it when someone else stumbles across the same idea, you can’t come crying to us.
Also, if you have a Great Idea and tell no one, then when someone else has the same idea years later, you know: 1) they didn’t get it from you; and 2) maybe the idea wasn’t as unique as you thought.
To use Jack’s preferred phraseology, I see nothing wrong with society giving “control” to the first to publish, and “credit” to the first in time. They’re not mutually exclusive. (But, as I said, I’d prefer to swap those terms around.)
A comment on your hypothetical central repository of ideas: if that existed, then at least anyone could know when he has done his due diligence before claiming an idea.
On further comment on that: Denis Behr has repeatedly insisted that his Conjuring Archive database NOT be considered the final authority on such things. It is meant to be a starting point for such inquiries, rather than the end.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
As in many things, the answer to your question depends on why you’re asking the question.
If all you’re interested in knowing is “who came up with the idea first?” Then of course, nothing else matters. First is first, and first is all that matters in that particular game. It’s the only rule of “First Club”.
However, if you are trying to answer a different question, the answer will be different. For instance, if you’re asking, “who should we acknowledge as the person who has the right to control how the idea is used?” That’s different. In that case, you’re asking us, the population of interested people, to take some action, or at least, to make a decision, and when you do that, it’s fair and reasonable for us to ask “what are the consequences of our actions/decisions?”
Let’s say we want to encourage people with good ideas to share them with us. That seems fair to us, since we have little else to offer the creative person. You share with us an idea that (we admit) we didn’t have, and we’ll only use it as you see fit. But you do have to share the idea, because otherwise there’s no exchange and nothing to talk about. You’ve got a secret in your head. Fine, we can’t credit you with it, because we don’t know what that is.
Certainly, we want to encourage people with good ideas to keep having good ideas. And for some creators, that means working in secret and only sharing amongst friends. That’s fine, you do you. But if you want the public to do something about it when someone else stumbles across the same idea, you can’t come crying to us.
Also, if you have a Great Idea and tell no one, then when someone else has the same idea years later, you know: 1) they didn’t get it from you; and 2) maybe the idea wasn’t as unique as you thought.
To use Jack’s preferred phraseology, I see nothing wrong with society giving “control” to the first to publish, and “credit” to the first in time. They’re not mutually exclusive. (But, as I said, I’d prefer to swap those terms around.)
A comment on your hypothetical central repository of ideas: if that existed, then at least anyone could know when he has done his due diligence before claiming an idea.
On further comment on that: Denis Behr has repeatedly insisted that his Conjuring Archive database NOT be considered the final authority on such things. It is meant to be a starting point for such inquiries, rather than the end.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk