Conjuring Arts Book Club

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1380
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Tom Stone » October 13th, 2016, 10:58 am

Mahdi Gilbert wrote:But you people have no interest other than lying, smearing, and slandering people. You insult me for no reason telling me that I'm naive and knowingly doing something unethical and illegal.

It's not my fault you can't afford your own legal fees. If I had the money just floating around I would cover all your legal fees and broadcast the trial live so that everyone could actually become informed. But you have no interest in actually informing people.

It is always difficult to be objective in conflicts that involve friends, and everyone have friends.
When both Anders Moden's "Healed & Sealed" and Stefan Schützer's "Self-folding Bill" was nicked by the same guy, and he was pointed out here, there were several of the guy's friends who were offended over it, and posted similar sentiments; don't talk about it here, take it to court, it is slander... et cetera. Eventually, the guy stopped, amended the situation and apologized to Anders and Stefan... But his formerly very vocal friends were very silent then.
When a UK dealer released Earl Presto Johnson's ball routine under another person's name, there were also plenty of people, friends of that dealer, who were equally offended as you, Madhi. Also talk about lies, smears and slander. Five days later, things were fixed, everything good - and the formerly vocal friends were suddenly very quiet.
Magic Makers is one of the very few who seem completely impervious to peer pressure, but otherwise, this is how conflicts usually are dealt with.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1169
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby lybrary » October 13th, 2016, 11:05 am

Roger M. wrote:I'm disappointed that Chris has once again been permitted to derail an otherwise interesting thread.

For the record, I did not bring up the copyright issue in this thread. I think Tom Stone was the first to raise the issue.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1380
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Tom Stone » October 13th, 2016, 11:24 am

lybrary wrote:I think Tom Stone was the first to raise the issue.

I was just surprised to find 13 Steps to Mentalism among public domain books, since Corinda died quite recently, so I asked.

User avatar
lybrary
Posts: 1169
Joined: March 31st, 2013, 4:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby lybrary » October 13th, 2016, 11:35 am

Yes, indeed. And then Mark answered that it started out with CARC infringing Corinda, and then I mentioned that CARC infringes my rights for many years, and that they infringed Davenport's rights for years, and then Richard told us that they also infringe his rights. I wonder how many more infringements we need to hear about before the pattern becomes clear to everybody.
Lybrary.com Magic & Gambling
preserving magic one book at a time

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 13th, 2016, 12:27 pm

Roger M. wrote:
lybrary wrote: The cost of a typical copyright lawsuit is $250k-$500k and can easily reach a million dollar and more.



But if you're absolutely confident that you're 100% correct in your accusations here in the forum, you've nothing to lose, and will recover all funds invested in prosecuting your case?

... unless you already know that you're not 100% correct in your accusations?


There IS something to lose. Money. Time. Peace of Mind. Who the hell has that kind of money to spend up front on lawyers? And as I have stated already even if you win how the hell are you going to collect, not only the compensation for the wickedness done to you but also the legal costs of the case. I was just reading yesterday about the famous holocaust case where David Irving the historian and well known holocaust apologist sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel. Oh, she won the case all right after months (perhaps even years) of hassle expense and stress but it was an empty victory because she never managed to get the costs. Her legal bill was around 2 million pounds (or perhaps it was dollars). She decided not to pursue Irving for costs probably because he didn't have 2 million quid in the first place.

There is no guarantee that you will recover any money and I am not sure that in the US you necessarily get your costs awarded anyway. That is a British thing and may not apply in the Excited States anyway. The only people that benefit from going to court are the lawyers.

I am quite aghast at Roger's seemingly lack of knowledge of the law. Either he is bluffing or he has led a sheltered life. I still remember decades ago Ron MacMillan suing someone for something or other. After a whole bunch of stress, hassle and expense he finally won the case. But that of course means nothing whatsoever. It just means that you are officially owed the money but you knew that anyway. You may be under the mistaken belief that all you have to do is sit back and wait for the court to get the money for you. Wrong. You have to start all over again hiring lawyers to actually get the money if the person you sued refuses to give it to you despite the judgement.

Anyway Ron went through the hassle all over again and finally after months and months of all this bailiffs went to the man's home. Naturally he had up and disappeared like any sensible scoundrel would. At that point Ron gave up and I distinctly remember him saying, "What the hell did I go through all that hassle for. Going to court is a complete waste of time"

Anyway Mahdi is very upset. I will try to persuade him to return.

Roger M.
Posts: 1510
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Roger M. » October 13th, 2016, 12:50 pm

I'm not sure your oversimplifications and assumptions really help the conversation along Mark.

Regardless, it seems there's nothing more to say on this particular subject, in this particular thread.

If I were Mahdi, I'd likely reject any invitation to return, based on the way he was treated in this thread, and the things that were allowed to be said about him and his involvement with CARC.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 13th, 2016, 1:11 pm

With regard to the "assumptions" until I hear convincing evidence to the contrary my first and rather obvious assumption is that from all the evidence I have seen is that Chris has the rights to his material, Davenports have the right to their material and Richard has the rights to the Genii material. So far I cannot see any reason to doubt this assumption so until I hear something else to the contrary I regret I will have to go with that assumption.

The second assumption is that CARC have this on their website and are using this material. I base this assumption on the fact that the material does seem to be there. Again I have no reason to doubt this assumption.

The third assumption is that Chris, Davenports and Richard don't want the material to be there. I have reason to believe that assumption is correct mainly because Chris and Richard said it was the case and I believe they may well have some educated opinion on the matter.

The fourth assumption is that CARC don't want to give in on this matter and my fifth assumption is that they are rather daft not to as it will be bad for business.

I do not believe I am oversimplifying the law and I believe my take on it is accurate. There may be some lawyers on this site who may have a different view of things but they haven't said as much and i suspect they probably agree with me.

Oh and Mahdi keeps telling me to tell Richard to delete his account. I don't know why he can't tell him himself but the message has now been conveyed. I hope Richard ignores it and waits for CARC's noble defender to calm down a trifle.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 13th, 2016, 1:13 pm

Roger M. wrote:I'm not sure your oversimplifications and assumptions really help the conversation along Mark.

Regardless, it seems there's nothing more to say on this particular subject, in this particular thread.

If I were Mahdi, I'd likely reject any invitation to return, based on the way he was treated in this thread, and the things that were allowed to be said about him and his involvement with CARC.


I don't think anyone said anything rude about Mahdi himself. Not really anyway.

User avatar
Mahdi Gilbert
Posts: 122
Joined: May 5th, 2016, 10:06 am
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Mahdi Gilbert » October 14th, 2016, 11:23 am

Please delete my account.

It's pretty clear that I'm not wanted here.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 14th, 2016, 12:44 pm

Of course you are wanted here! Hands up anyone who doesn't want Mahdi?

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 14th, 2016, 12:45 pm

Oh, we didn't need the tomato man to bring the thread back to the top after all!

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 14th, 2016, 12:49 pm

Mahdi, cut and paste your original post and start another thread. I for one will promise to keep clear of it and I expect my fellow naysayers will too.

Daniel Bain
Posts: 52
Joined: June 18th, 2008, 1:26 am

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Daniel Bain » October 14th, 2016, 7:58 pm

Mahdi,

I for one appreciated your original post and ignored all the noise that came after.

If you don't post here, would be great if you do let us know a good place to keep up on your efforts and stay informed (beyond subscribing to the Conjuring Arts mailing list).

All the sniping here does not diminish the great work you, Bill Kalush, and others are doing. The Conjuring Arts Research Center is an incredible contribution to the art of magic.

Incidentally, the last issue of Gibeciere (including supplement) was absolutely brilliant!

Thanks!
Daniel Bain

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25674
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Richard Kaufman » October 14th, 2016, 8:23 pm

Mahdi, you have misinterpreted pretty much everything that is written here as pertaining to you and your book club. That is not the case at all. You are welcome here. We all have great respect for you.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Ted M
Posts: 1073
Joined: January 24th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dani DaOrtiz
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Ted M » October 14th, 2016, 8:32 pm

The burden to start a new thread about the Conjuring Arts Book Club should not be on Mahdi.

He already did that.

This was that thread.

His post was fully about the topic in the subject line, the Conjuring Arts Book Club.

Other people added 90+ way-off-topic posts to Mahdi's thread, lit it on fire and drove it over the cliff.

Mahdi doesn't owe you the courtesy of a new thread.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 14th, 2016, 9:44 pm

Oh, bloody hell ! The tomato man is here again! No wonder his neighbours keep stealing his tomatoes...............................

Roger M.
Posts: 1510
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Roger M. » October 14th, 2016, 11:15 pm

Put bluntly, this was a moderation issue, not an issue that has anything to do with Mahdi.

Mahdi didn't "misunderstand" anything at all, this thread is proof of that.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 15th, 2016, 4:00 am

I am pleased that Mahdi has supporters. It means he doesn't have to desert us after all.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25674
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Richard Kaufman » October 15th, 2016, 1:03 pm

It's not a moderation issue, but a moral issue. And that's my decision.

All of you who are wringing your hands over the direction which this thread has taken have not had your material appear on Ask Alexander despite numerous requests, including those through legal channels, to have it removed.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

JHostler
Posts: 556
Joined: September 27th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby JHostler » October 15th, 2016, 5:23 pm

Roger M. wrote:
observer wrote:
Roger M. wrote:
This falls into the same category as the common belief that it's "OK" for a teacher to read books out loud to their students, which of course - from a legal standpoint - it's not.


Where on earth did you get that idea?


Ummm, a bit of research.
There are many iterations of the basic premise - please let me know if I can answer any more questions.

Here are a few links to those assorted iterations noted above (there are hundreds more if you wish to seek them out):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/d ... aloud-your

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090 ... 3724.shtml

https://www.quora.com/If-you-read-a-boo ... -copyright

http://technollama.blogspot.ca/2009/02/ ... right.html

https://www.theedublogger.com/2012/02/0 ... e-commons/

http://boingboing.net/2009/02/11/author ... extto.html

http://www.uua.org/worship/copyright

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... ction.html


Roger - NONE of your cited sources validate the notion that it's illegal for a teacher to read books to his or her students. Not one.
"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 15th, 2016, 8:34 pm

I think Richard is in a more powerful position than he thinks. Instead of him wasting money on lawyers sending CARC letters it may be possible to manipulate things the other way round! Let Bill Kalush spend money on the lawyers instead!

I have known all my life that the person being sued is always in a better position doing the sueing! I learned that in a restaurant many decades ago sitting with a bunch of wicked grafters. One of them was laughing about letters from lawyers saying, "I have had more writs than the rest of you have had hot dinners" He knew the one doing the suing was having all the hassle and the one being sued was the one with the advantage.

I would give Bill a deadline date to remove the material in question. If he does not comply you write a lovely article all about the affair in Genii magazine itself. Naturally you get it okayed by lawyers but it doesn't really matter if you don't. Poor Bill will now have the hassle of spending money on lawyers to sue you instead of the other way round! The boot will be on the other foot which will be far more advantageous to you since the truth is always a good defence. You would no doubt counter sue for breach of copyright but if that is too expensive it won't matter since the judge would be most disapproving of Bill's wickedness and well he knows it so he won't sue anyway. He will know full well that it will be a waste of time in the same way he knows it is a waste of time you sending him legal letters.

At the very least a wonderful nasty write up might just get the poor chap a little agitated and that can only be a good thing.

Oh, just a suggestion from my very wicked mind. No doubt I have far too much time on my hands!!!!

Roger M.
Posts: 1510
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Roger M. » October 15th, 2016, 8:45 pm

JHostler wrote:
Roger M. wrote:
observer wrote:
Where on earth did you get that idea?


Ummm, a bit of research.
There are many iterations of the basic premise - please let me know if I can answer any more questions.

Here are a few links to those assorted iterations noted above (there are hundreds more if you wish to seek them out):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/d ... aloud-your

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090 ... 3724.shtml

https://www.quora.com/If-you-read-a-boo ... -copyright

http://technollama.blogspot.ca/2009/02/ ... right.html

https://www.theedublogger.com/2012/02/0 ... e-commons/

http://boingboing.net/2009/02/11/author ... extto.html

http://www.uua.org/worship/copyright

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/n ... ction.html


Roger - NONE of your cited sources validate the notion that it's illegal for a teacher to read books to his or her students. Not one.


Uhhh, they weren't supposed to.

You completely misunderstand the purpose of the references.

The reference was simply speaking to the fact that the concept is out there, not that I supported it, or that it had been in any way established in law.
That's why I identified it as simply an existing "premise", not a factual telling of "how it is".

Further, the reference was relevant to the comments about the legality or illegality of more than one person having access to a single copyrighted piece of work - at exactly the same time.

Perhaps most importantly, Richard has made clear his position, and as he's our host, I will respectfully refrain from commenting further on this particular issue.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25674
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Richard Kaufman » October 16th, 2016, 12:01 am

Thank you for the legal advice, Mark, but you are not an attorney, nor do you play one in a TV show.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 16th, 2016, 5:58 am

Richard Kaufman wrote:Thank you for the legal advice, Mark, but you are not an attorney, nor do you play one in a TV show.


That is true but I am a very wicked person and that is more or less the same thing.

User avatar
magicam
Posts: 871
Joined: January 28th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby magicam » October 16th, 2016, 5:59 am

Mahdi’s passion and dedication are evident and most admirable, and his frustration about the direction this thread has taken is understandable. But as others have observed, that’s the nature of the beast on internet chat boards. On the positive side (and although it may be cold consolation to Mahdi), posts promoting CARC are allowed on this board despite RK’s misgivings about that organization. From what I’ve read of this thread, I haven’t perceived anyone attacking Mahdi’s character or attributing criticisms of CARC to him personally.

If I’ve correctly understood one of Mahdi’s points, then he believes that a person’s failure to sue means that he has no legal case. I don’t expect my word to convince Mahdi or anyone else, but that “maxim” is absolutely false. Any litigator or trial attorney motivated by her client’s best interests will advise that a lawsuit should be the very last resort to resolving disputes. Why? Because lawsuits are expensive, stressful for clients, usually nasty and ruthless, and their outcomes – no matter how strong or seemingly “slam-dunk” its claims – are very rarely 100% certain, especially when juries are involved. Another factor is that it’s illogical to spend $100K on lawyers if your damages “only” amount to, say, $20K.

Mahdi apparently believes that CARC’s actions must be legal simply because Chris Wasshuber hasn’t sued CARC. So with respect to Chris’ posts that CARC are “thieves and crooks” (and Bill Kalush is a “crook”), Mahdi himself would apparently conclude, and wish us to conclude, without reservation that CARC and Bill must be crooks simply because they haven’t sued Chris for libel. In both cases, hopefully upon reflection the fallaciousness of such logic is apparent to all reasonable minds.

In such a small community as magic, the matter of copyright infringement is probably less about money and more about ethics and courtesy.

observer
Posts: 342
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 5:32 am
Favorite Magician: Harry Kellar - Charlie Miller - Paul Rosini - Jay Marshall
Location: Chicago

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby observer » October 16th, 2016, 2:22 pm

Roger M. wrote:
JHostler wrote:
Roger M. wrote:
Ummm, a bit of research.
There are many iterations of the basic premise - please let me know if I can answer any more questions.
Here are a few links on.html


Roger - NONE of your cited sources validate the notion that it's illegal for a teacher to read books to his or her students. Not one.


Uhhh, they weren't supposed to.
You completely misunderstand the purpose of the references.

The reference was simply speaking to the fact that the concept is out there, not that I supported it, or that it had been in any way established in law.
That's why I identified it as simply an existing "premise", not a factual telling of "how it is".
.


"This falls into the same category as the common belief that it's 'OK' for a teacher to read books out loud to their students, which of course - from a legal standpoint - it's not."

The quoted sentence - emphasis added for clarity - does not simply say "that the concept is out there." It does not "identify it as an existing premise." It gives the impression - it is clearly written with the intention of giving the impression - that there is an established principle in law. It absolutely does represent itself as "a factual telling of 'how it is'".

Roger M.
Posts: 1510
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Roger M. » October 16th, 2016, 5:45 pm

observer wrote:
Roger M. wrote:
JHostler wrote:
Roger - NONE of your cited sources validate the notion that it's illegal for a teacher to read books to his or her students. Not one.


Uhhh, they weren't supposed to.
You completely misunderstand the purpose of the references.

The reference was simply speaking to the fact that the concept is out there, not that I supported it, or that it had been in any way established in law.
That's why I identified it as simply an existing "premise", not a factual telling of "how it is".
.


"This falls into the same category as the common belief that it's 'OK' for a teacher to read books out loud to their students, which of course - from a legal standpoint - it's not."

The quoted sentence - emphasis added for clarity - does not simply say "that the concept is out there." It does not "identify it as an existing premise." It gives the impression - it is clearly written with the intention of giving the impression - that there is an established principle in law. It absolutely does represent itself as "a factual telling of 'how it is'".



Perhaps most importantly, Richard has made clear his position, and as he's our host, I will respectfully refrain from commenting further on this particular issue.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 16th, 2016, 7:41 pm

I think Roger is trying to comment without commenting that he is no longer commenting. In other words he is trying to say "no comment" without actually commenting. I think that must be difficult for him but I will try not to comment on the matter. But on the other hand I think I just did. Comment that is.

observer
Posts: 342
Joined: August 31st, 2014, 5:32 am
Favorite Magician: Harry Kellar - Charlie Miller - Paul Rosini - Jay Marshall
Location: Chicago

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby observer » October 16th, 2016, 7:46 pm

performer wrote:I think Roger is trying to comment without commenting that he is no longer commenting. In other words he is trying to say "no comment" without actually commenting. I think that must be difficult for him but I will try not to comment on the matter. But on the other hand I think I just did. Comment that is.


Exactly!


Bill Mullins
Posts: 5439
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Bill Mullins » October 16th, 2016, 8:46 pm

performer wrote:No comment!


Yeah, right.

performer
Posts: 3509
Joined: August 7th, 2015, 10:35 pm

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby performer » October 16th, 2016, 10:24 pm

Indeed. I always am.

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 6921
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Dustin Stinett » October 17th, 2016, 12:09 am

This thread is done. I should have prevented this free-for-all from happening, but frankly I have family issues that far outweigh babysitting this forum. As I look through this thread, I cannot find a single expert in copyright law (as is the case in so many threads on this forum). This is particularly true since, considering of the vagaries of the internet, much of it has yet to be settled. Perhaps you should contact your government representatives to express your opinion on how best to protect property shared over the sewer of information and disinformation called the internet. Trust me when I tell you that they are not reading it here.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25674
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Conjuring Arts Book Club

Postby Richard Kaufman » October 17th, 2016, 12:22 am

Really, I found a lot of legitimate information in this thread.
Yes, there was plenty of blather, but also a lot of truth.
And Mahdi needed some educating ... and he got it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine


Return to “General”