(Close Window)
Topic: Scam School Exposure
Message: Posted by: SolidSnake (Mar 4, 2014 05:24PM)
I noticed this being discussed a little while ago and people generally being ok with scam school.

For those that don't know, scam school is a very popular YouTube channel where various tricks are demonstrated then taught.

Now some are no more than basic bar bets. But there are others that really expose methods - especially card methods. Even when the presenter is not demonstrating some moves, he openly discusses them. Such as saying 'you can see I'm not holding br**ks or sticking my pi**ky in there'. Even more worrying magician s such as Ammar and Garcia have been on the show and exposed some of their own marketed effects.

Now this is a very popular channel not just with performers but with a lot of lay people too. It is very worrying the shear number of techniques that are discussed and exposed. Remember this is not just some teenager showing a trick with only a few hits.

This is videos with thousands of views and over half a million subs. The creater of this channel is raking it in while giving away a lot of our secrets.

Surely this is not good for working performers?
Message: Posted by: Amro (Mar 12, 2014 08:51AM)
Although I like Brian I have to say that I share your concerns. The problem is, for the sake of having a sucessful youtube-channel, he mixes "harmless effects" (e.g. physical phenomena and bar bets) with mentalism-principles (e.g. 1 ah**d).

Surely we have to remind ourselves to not exaggerate (well, I have to remind myself because this is a matter of the heart for me) but I think giving away this kind of stuff for free to lay people, who were maybe just looking for a cool bar bet is ... not ok.

As soon half the audience knows about a principle like Mag Choi*e I fear it is pretty much ruined even for the most skilful performer. It has happened before (e.g. the carrot psy-f*rce (see PS2 Banachek)).
Message: Posted by: SolidSnake (Mar 19, 2014 05:47PM)
Yep I hear you. Surprised more people do not have more thoughts on this
Message: Posted by: purpleflag (Mar 25, 2014 01:55PM)
It's nice that it might inspire a couple of folk to start in magic, but exposing for a massive audience lots of details that are used in many of the biggest tricks.
Penn & Teller & the masked magician may have 'exposed' tricks but by the next day most people will all have forgotten them. With scam school they are not just explained in a way people will forget but taught in detail so they won't forget them!


Ian
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (May 11, 2014 08:18PM)
If they are not interested beyond a moment of curiosity, they will still tend to forget.
Message: Posted by: Gill (May 29, 2014 07:32PM)
I believe it doesn't make a difference if a layperson knows of DLs or other basic moves, as he or she won't be expecting you to do this moves. With misdirection and patter comes the opportunity to perform any sleight unseen.
When I perform I usually just think that people aren't looking for sleights or br**ks. As Shawn Farquhar said in his Penguin Live lecture; 'Dont run if nobody's chasing you.' (Probably someone else's quote)


Although I'm not a huge fan of scam school I think the show kindles interest in magic among teenagers and younger magicians, thus is a valuable asset to the magic community.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (May 29, 2014 11:53PM)
I also have known Brian for years and I'm 110% against exposure of magic ... This isn't what it claims to be ... He isn't just exposing bar bets ... He's giving it all away for free ... basic workhorses like K%% Cards and the In%%%%%% D%%%%... to name a few. I think karma stops him soon ... I am not alone in this thinking. :firedevil:
Message: Posted by: Shawn Farquhar (Jun 18, 2014 01:35PM)
"As Shawn Farquhar said in his Penguin Live lecture; 'Dont run if nobody's chasing you.' (Probably someone else's quote)" in fact I believe it was Al Baker who said it first. ;-)
Message: Posted by: Trickstar (Jul 19, 2014 12:49AM)
[quote]On May 11, 2014, Steve_Mollett wrote:
If they are not interested beyond a moment of curiosity, they will still tend to forget. [/quote]

They may forget the specifics, but they still know they knew.... they are the kind fellas that pipe up and say mid-way through your routine and announce "oh I saw how to do that on youtube".. even if your performance is flawless this distracts and detracts from the effect
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 20, 2014 09:26PM)
And if you are a good performer, you brush them off as you would any other heckler.
Message: Posted by: Trickstar (Jul 21, 2014 12:11AM)
[quote]On Jul 20, 2014, Steve_Mollett wrote:
And if you are a good performer, you brush them off as you would any other heckler. [/quote]

Sure... not really the point, but okay, your opinion is that exposure is fine because we get to flex our performance muscle in an undesirable situation and come out on top, correct?

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I would prefer less hecklers rather than more, perhaps if I ever get as good as you I may agree with you, currently I do not.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Jul 22, 2014 08:14PM)
As a buggy whip manufacturer, I would prefer a world where my line of business had not been disrupted by technological changes, but we don't always get to stop the world to suit our interests. We need to adapt, and use the fact that these tricks are commonly known, not rant about how these sites shouldn't exist.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 28, 2014 06:50PM)
[quote]On Jul 21, 2014, Trickstar wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2014, Steve_Mollett wrote:
And if you are a good performer, you brush them off as you would any other heckler. [/quote]

Sure... not really the point, but okay, your opinion is that exposure is fine because we get to flex our performance muscle in an undesirable situation and come out on top, correct?

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I would prefer less hecklers rather than more, perhaps if I ever get as good as you I may agree with you, currently I do not. [/quote]

What I am saying is CHANGE HAPPENS, including the rise and fall of sites like these. As an artist, your job is to ride the winds of change, including negative change, and continue to follow you muse despite the critics, hecklers and exposers who will inevitably appear and fade.
Instead of trying to unmake or ban change, which you cannot, strive instead to be a PRO, pursuing your art in spite of change.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Jul 29, 2014 04:11PM)
Exactly. I've often seen effects that have been exposed, and I know how they work, but they are performed so well that I'm still fooled.
Message: Posted by: Trickstar (Jul 29, 2014 08:19PM)
[quote]On Jul 28, 2014, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]On Jul 21, 2014, Trickstar wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 2014, Steve_Mollett wrote:
And if you are a good performer, you brush them off as you would any other heckler. [/quote]

Sure... not really the point, but okay, your opinion is that exposure is fine because we get to flex our performance muscle in an undesirable situation and come out on top, correct?

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I would prefer less hecklers rather than more, perhaps if I ever get as good as you I may agree with you, currently I do not. [/quote]

What I am saying is CHANGE HAPPENS, including the rise and fall of sites like these. As an artist, your job is to ride the winds of change, including negative change, and continue to follow you muse despite the critics, hecklers and exposers who will inevitably appear and fade.
Instead of trying to unmake or ban change, which you cannot, strive instead to be a PRO, pursuing your art in spite of change. [/quote]

I agree with you. but that doesn't mean people can't have a little winge about it on an internet forum... Its not like it's an awesome and/or desirable thing, it is quite obviously not desirable for an artform based on secrets to have those secrets available to anyone with an internet connection. But yes you are correct we need to adapt.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Jul 30, 2014 12:11PM)
The art isn't based on secrets. If it were then there would be no practicing magicians. All of the 'secrets' are available to anyone with enough interest to spend 10 minutes researching on the internet. The art is based on skill and performance.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Jul 30, 2014 03:48PM)
Your unfortunate personal abuse aside, I believe that smart people with integrity can disagree. I think the constant whining from magicians about secrecy is hugely counter-productive, leading to the kind of image problems that are typified by the fact that when you type in "magicians are" into Google the fourth most common hit is 'annoying' (after demonic, satanic, and evil). In my experience people don't find the obsession with secrecy charming or entertaining, they find it annoying and smug.
The 'magic' of any performance is in the presentation and performance. Nobody believes that you are psychic - they know perfectly well the kind of thing you're doing - the fact that they have not yet found the youtube video exposing it (if indeed that is even true) is just a matter of time, and if your show depends on that then you're doing something wrong.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Jul 30, 2014 04:24PM)
[quote]On Jul 30, 2014, Terapin wrote:
I think the constant whining from magicians about secrecy is hugely counter-productive...
[/quote]

I am not going to take offense at that. You are entitled to your opinion. I, myself, am agreement with Slim King...

[quote]
...when you type in "magicians are" into Google the fourth most common hit is 'annoying' (after demonic, satanic, and evil). In my experience people don't find the obsession with secrecy charming or entertaining, they find it annoying and smug.
[/quote]

I found out the hard way, yesterday. I did a bit of magic for folks waiting at The Food Bank. The lady turned away, with the comment, " [i]SHOWOFF![/i]" Yep. I was annoying. First time that has happened in YEARS. Ordinarily, people find me charming. Not yesterday! :(

Doug
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Jul 30, 2014 04:44PM)
That's pretty funny.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Jul 30, 2014 05:07PM)
Just shows ta go ya...not everyone enjoys magic... :(
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Jul 30, 2014 09:30PM)
Technically it is wrong, but I have yet to meet someone who has seen an episode of scam school. I don't agree with people revealing tricks for thousands, but how many here have had someone know your trick because of watching scam school?
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Jul 31, 2014 06:56PM)
I don't understand why you would want to expose tricks. You can make money if your any good at magic, so if you expose for a living it probably means that you are not that great a magician. If you expose magic because you are not good enough too make money performing, I think anyone could see that it is pathetic. If you expose a trick it takes the ability to perform those tricks effectively from magicians. Also those who expose take the fantasy from magic. Ever since the masked magician people see magic as a puzzle instead of a enjoyable art.
Message: Posted by: kasper (Jul 31, 2014 07:01PM)
The magic community has come down to exposure. If the lay audience looks up magic on the internet they always say they come across sites and magicians trying to sell them something. If you look up magicians that are visiting your town, guess what ? It will be a lecture. If you want to see these big names in magic you will probably have to see them at a lecture.

Ive never seen a public mentalism show advertised. EVER! But they pitch lectures.

Maybe that's maybe where the market is. Think about it. You can make a lot more money selling stuff at a lecture then you probably can selling a public show. You can just keep writing and writing and writing for magicians. And they will keep buying and buying and buying! Ha I think its clever. Its the ultimate cult leaders dream!

Its kind of like when a mentalist or psychic sells "psychic development courses." Which is clever also. Ha ! love it!
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Jul 31, 2014 10:54PM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2014, Terapin wrote:
It's a little frustrating that the same issues a) I have a right to restrict other people's legal speech to protect my income, b) I have a right to decide what audiences want or enjoy keep coming up. I understand people have these opinions, but I find them to have no basis in logic.
Hate crimes are crimes (at least where I live) they are not the same at all as legal speech about card tricks. [/quote]
Ok, it is not a hate crime, but in my opinion if you respect the art of magic you will not reveal the secrets to the general public easily. It is one thing to reveal the double undercut to generate interest in magic, but some videos reveal trademark tricks of well respected magicians.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Aug 1, 2014 01:34AM)
Yes, I get that people hold that opinion. I just don't understand the logic it is based on.
For the record, I highly doubt that many magicians hold 'trademarks'.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 1, 2014 09:32AM)
Let me give a hypothetical scenario. You have something that is very valuable to you, it could have monetary value or it could be sentimental. You go and hide this somewhere, so it is not stolen, and you tell someone you know where it is. You even make your friend promise not to share the secret with anyone. The next day you find out that your friend posted the location of your item on the internet, and sure enough the item is gone. would you consider what his friend did ethical? Because that is exactly what revealing tricks on the internet is doing.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 1, 2014 11:16AM)
[quote]On Jul 31, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
...in my opinion if you respect the art of magic you will not reveal the secrets to the general public...[/quote]

Bottom line. Why is this so hard to understand? But I am not forcing you to respect it. That is YOUR choice. If you do NOT, and expose secrets, you will hear from US!

Doug
Message: Posted by: Jamie Ferguson (Aug 3, 2014 09:32AM)
Brian Brushyourwood is exposing secrets that are the result of other people's hard work. He is a leech.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Aug 4, 2014 06:19PM)
[quote]On Aug 1, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
Let me give a hypothetical scenario. You have something that is very valuable to you, it could have monetary value or it could be sentimental. You go and hide this somewhere, so it is not stolen, and you tell someone you know where it is. You even make your friend promise not to share the secret with anyone. The next day you find out that your friend posted the location of your item on the internet, and sure enough the item is gone. would you consider what his friend did ethical? Because that is exactly what revealing tricks on the internet is doing. [/quote]
Well, to be fair, that's not what's happening at all. Someone stealing an item so that I don't have it any more is not remotely the same thing as someone telling a secret.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 4, 2014 08:42PM)
[quote]On Aug 4, 2014, Terapin wrote:
[quote]On Aug 1, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
Let me give a hypothetical scenario. You have something that is very valuable to you, it could have monetary value or it could be sentimental. You go and hide this somewhere, so it is not stolen, and you tell someone you know where it is. You even make your friend promise not to share the secret with anyone. The next day you find out that your friend posted the location of your item on the internet, and sure enough the item is gone. would you consider what his friend did ethical? Because that is exactly what revealing tricks on the internet is doing. [/quote]
Well, to be fair, that's not what's happening at all. Someone stealing an item so that I don't have it any more is not remotely the same thing as someone telling a secret. [/quote]
Maybe magic secrets are not important to you, but they are very important to me. If a trick is revealed on a large scale, that means the trick will no longer amaze people; therefore the ability to effectively perform the trick has been stolen from me. Teaching a simple, and not that amazing trick to get people into magic, That is one thing, but on scam school they are in some cases teaching marketed effects.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 4, 2014 08:46PM)
I agree with you Zach, and it's completely wrong.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Aug 5, 2014 03:06PM)
[quote]On Aug 4, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
[quote]On Aug 4, 2014, Terapin wrote:
[quote]On Aug 1, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
Let me give a hypothetical scenario. You have something that is very valuable to you, it could have monetary value or it could be sentimental. You go and hide this somewhere, so it is not stolen, and you tell someone you know where it is. You even make your friend promise not to share the secret with anyone. The next day you find out that your friend posted the location of your item on the internet, and sure enough the item is gone. would you consider what his friend did ethical? Because that is exactly what revealing tricks on the internet is doing. [/quote]
Well, to be fair, that's not what's happening at all. Someone stealing an item so that I don't have it any more is not remotely the same thing as someone telling a secret. [/quote]
Maybe magic secrets are not important to you, but they are very important to me. If a trick is revealed on a large scale, that means the trick will no longer amaze people; therefore the ability to effectively perform the trick has been stolen from me. Teaching a simple, and not that amazing trick to get people into magic, That is one thing, but on scam school they are in some cases teaching marketed effects. [/quote]
Right- but I feel like the issue here is that you have built a business model that depends on everyone else in the world doing what you tell them with regard to sharing certain information. I just think that it's pretty unreasonable to expect people to behave the way that you ask them simply because if they do you can make more money.
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 5, 2014 03:28PM)
I am not a professional magician. It is not about money. In fact I have turned down money to reveal a trick to someone. I do magic because I love the art. Not everything is about money. I can't tell anyone to do anything, but for reasons previously stated to reveal someone else's intellectual property is simply unethical.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Aug 5, 2014 03:40PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2014, ZachDavenport wrote:
I am not a professional magician. It is not about money. In fact I have turned down money to reveal a trick to someone. I do magic because I love the art. Not everything is about money. I can't tell anyone to do anything, but for reasons previously stated to reveal someone else's intellectual property is simply unethical. [/quote]

When you use the word 'intellectual property' I find it quite confusing, because the term has a very specific meaning, and I don't think you are using it in the same way the rest of the world is. It seems that you are claiming property rights that are not recognized by the legal system or the population at large, which is problematic.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 5, 2014 04:01PM)
I'm sure Zach doesn't mean "intellectual property" in the legal sense. He is simply showing respect for the secrets of others who perform magic as a livelihood.

Do you see that as "problematic?"
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 5, 2014 04:09PM)
I don't mean it in the sense that it has a patent or any other legal protection, but in the sense that if someone comes up with and markets something, the idea belongs to him. It is still legal to reveal it, but it is not ethical as it is not your idea.
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Aug 5, 2014 04:52PM)
I see it as problematic when someone lays claim to 'property' intellectually or other, that there is not general agreement is 'theirs'. In a very real sense this is appropriation of a common resource (knowledge). For anyone to lay claim to something (even an idea) that is commonly owned (and that is the understanding in law and in society at large) is problematic. It is the same kind of 'theft' (although I do not see that as the correct term) that you rail against.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 5, 2014 05:15PM)
So you believe that magic secrets are a "common resource" to be distributed freely? Is that a fair characterization of your position?
Message: Posted by: Terapin (Aug 5, 2014 05:32PM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
So you believe that magic secrets are a "common resource" to be distributed freely? Is that a fair characterization of your position? [/quote]

I think that knowledge in general, that is not specially legally protected, is a common resource that no one has the right to commandeer for private benefit.
Message: Posted by: Atlas (Aug 6, 2014 06:47AM)
[quote]On Aug 5, 2014, Terapin wrote:
I think that knowledge in general, that is not specially legally protected, is a common resource that no one has the right to commandeer for private benefit. [/quote]

I'm not attacking you here Terapin - in fact, it takes tremendous courage to challenge tradition and prevailing wisdom. But I want to point out the inanity of this all.

You said that no one has the right to commandeer general knowledge for private benefit?

Let's follow your logic:

General knowledge tells me that Santa Claus does not exist.

This knowledge is not legally protected.

No one should commandeer this knowledge (as a common resource) for private benefit.

By keeping this fact a secret, parents all over the world are bringing joy to children at Christmastime.

Deceitful, self-serving, immoral monsters.

These children have a right to know that they are being misled by their parents so that the magic of their holiday can be buried forever in ignominy and shame. Then Christmas could be cancelled and all the children would be much happier.

The trouble with generalizations, stereotypes, rules, laws, and philosophy is that there will always be a circumstantial exception to the statement with a subsequent argument over what the correct outcome might be.

This has been demonstrated time and again in this thread.

Sometimes people just won't change their minds my friend. So arguing is not only a waste of time, but actually hurts the case a person is trying to make as they begin to resort to petty tit-for-tat exchanges in the heat of the moment. Rather than cogently and respectfully exchange ideas [b]with an open-minded view to making an informed decision[/b], people tend to resort to name calling, or attack one word in a sentence when one of the foundational points of their perspective has been undermined.

There is a difference between writing a persuasive paper and genuinely seeking out the truth of a position.

I happen to disagree with you, by the way, and for reasons that are based on personal experience and (without trying to minimize you or your perspective) which I doubt you could fathom without having my same background - I have no doubt that you believe your stance is the right one for you, but I also have little doubt that your perspective might change if you'd walked for ten years in my shoes, or Bob's shoes, or any other performer's shoes.

And that is another reason that all of this arguing is pointless: we are all the result of our own circumstances and experience, with varying levels of personal intelligence and from dynamic upbringings.

I don't think mankind has unanimously agreed on anything.

Best,

Atlas
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Aug 6, 2014 11:02AM)
Well said, Atlas. But the bottom line, really, is just common sense. It's hard to believe that someone would actually think it was a good idea to join a magic forum and then advocate for the exposure of magic secrets.

What could possibly go wrong?
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 6, 2014 02:12PM)
[/quote]
General knowledge tells me that Santa Claus does not exist.
[/quote]
You mean Santa was a lie! :bawl: :rotf:
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Aug 19, 2014 03:35AM)
There are so many problems with this exposure:

1. The magic was not earned by the viewer. He is mostly exposing secrets to people who have little interest in really learning the art. All he accomplishes is making it less entertaining when the mystery is gone.

2. He's not the creator, so he hasn't earned the right to expose it. I really don't think he has permission from all the creators of everything he exposes.

3. Even if he does have permission from the creator, then refer back to #1 above.

I think Brian is a low-life. More like Scum School.

KJ
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 19, 2014 06:53PM)
Someone was bragging about being on SCUM SCHOOL ... He had gotten 300,000 views .... Now that's a lot!!!! And when I looked at some of the other things Brian was exposing I saw some had more than a million hits!!!!
So this isn't just child's play anymore... He's giving away some serious stuff to millions of viewers for free .. All the while Go-Daddy is paying him to do so .. No different than Fox and The Masked Magician ... and in my opinion ..even worse. Every True Magician should shun Brian and all his sell out friends!!!
Message: Posted by: ZachDavenport (Aug 19, 2014 08:24PM)
What I don't get is that there have been some well respected magicians who have exposed there own effects on scam school. I believe both Michal Ammar and Danny Garcia have appeared on the show. What is there motivation?
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 20, 2014 10:30AM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, Slim King wrote:
...He's giving away some serious stuff to millions of viewers for free...all the while, Go-Daddy is paying him to do so...[/quote]

And there ain't a THING we can do about it. Not one thing...

Doug
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 20, 2014 11:32PM)
[quote]On Aug 20, 2014, Dougini wrote:
[quote]On Aug 19, 2014, Slim King wrote:
...He's giving away some serious stuff to millions of viewers for free...all the while, Go-Daddy is paying him to do so...[/quote]

And there ain't a THING we can do about it. Not one thing...

Doug [/quote]
Ain't that a shame....... Honestly ... I badmouthed the heck out of him here at Universal ... They haven't booked him since. Maybe it's just a coincidence.... :carrot:
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 21, 2014 12:35PM)
Hmmmm. Maybe. Yeah, you are one of the few who go out of their way to right the wrongs of this art. For that, I salute you! :)

Doug
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Aug 26, 2014 06:09AM)
Thanks you!!!! It's a rough road we tread. :confused:
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Aug 26, 2014 01:30PM)
I am so perplexed at the attitudes today. I'm Old School. And that my friends, may be a problem for me...

Doug
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Sep 3, 2014 02:13AM)
Doug,
It's not a problem. It's called a virtue.
KJ
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 6, 2014 02:01AM)
[quote]On Aug 26, 2014, Dougini wrote:
I am so perplexed at the attitudes today. I'm Old School. And that my friends, may be a problem for me...

Doug [/quote]
Not for me ... You have ETHICS!!!!
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Sep 7, 2014 01:44PM)
LOL! Well, ethics can CAUSE some problems with those who disagree with the value of said ethics. I sleep at night! :)

Doug
Message: Posted by: TheBigDC (Sep 15, 2014 10:21PM)
Before I begin, please understand I DO NOT favor the exsposure of secrets and/or sharing of magic without paying for it unless authorized by the creator.

I said this in a different post but I will echo some of it here as well.... Harry Houdini is considered by millions to be the greatest magician/showman of all time. He loved and craved the biggest chalenges he could come up with and then defeat them, challenges that were considered IMPOSSIBLE to do, the HARDER and MORE IMPOSSIBLE THE BETTER is what he believed and said. If Harry Houdini was still alive today and in good health, because of all the claims made that YouTube and other sites like it exspose magic and hurt it, I believe he could and would expose every effect and illusion he would do on YouTube FIRST, and THEN STILL PACK the major arenas 100% COMPLETELY FULL for EVERY APPEARANCE and SYILL GROW his career, NOT because of his past successes or he because he revealed the secrets, but because HE WAS A TRUE SHOWMAN FIRST AND FOREMOST and because he loved to defeat IMPOSSIBLE chalenges and PROVE NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU ARE DETERMINED ENOUGH, and what greater impossible challenge then it would be to exspose all your secrets for the world to see FIRST on YouTube and then go out and completely pack every arena you perform them in knowing fair well everyone already knows how it is done first before you perform it AND STILL BLOW AWAY THE AUDIENCE and STILL PROFIT 10 TIMES AS MUCH AS BEFORE! And in today's modern age, I HONESTLY beleive Houdini would do just that, JUST TO PROVE he IS/WAS the greatest SHOWMAN OF ALL TIME. Houdini knew how to ENTERTAIN and that is something ALL MOST ALL MAGICIANS have forgot about. For MOST magicians it is all about keeping the secret SECRET and/or growing their wallets fat, but for a TRUE SHOWMAN a TRUE ENTERTAINER like Houdini was, it is all about the audience and pleasing them FIRST. Please YOUR AUDIENCE FIRST and NOT YOUR EGO or YOUR WALLET and your audience will remain and even grow and your wallet will get much fatter much quicker then ever before. I believe Houdini would prove that beyond ANY shadow of a doubt.

With all that being said, I think Scam School is a great resource for LEARNING magic not exsposing its secrets.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 21, 2014 01:21PM)
Houdini would never have exposed magic secrets. If Houdini knew that Brian was exposing such standard practices as THE KEY CARD he would have thrashed him in public!!!!
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Sep 21, 2014 06:45PM)
Actually, Houdini DID expose some magical secrets. Check out his books and magazine articles, not to mention his anti-medium demos.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 22, 2014 06:30PM)
Yes- Houdini regularly publicly exposed the methods of those he considered to be his rivals.
Message: Posted by: tomsk192 (Sep 23, 2014 09:45PM)
We are missing the point here. Forget Houdini, who was a renowned performer, let's focus on Brushwood, who is...? Wait? He just looks like some pr*ck who gets on to bad television occasionally by being smarmy.

He's nobody. Nobody. And those who access his channel? Not worth the steam off my p*ss.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Sep 26, 2014 10:20PM)
I'm glad we're all so superior.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 16, 2014 09:28PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes- Houdini regularly publicly exposed the methods of those he considered to be his rivals. [/quote]
Prove it!!! Regularly means he did it a lot .. I'd like a list of how many secrets he exposed. Got one?
Is it a list longer than Brian Brushwoods exposures?
How big is Houdini's list of exposures of magic tricks..the ones used by his fellow rival magicians? :ridinghorse:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 17, 2014 01:20AM)
What's to prove? He regularly exposed people he considered to be competitors, particularly in the field of escapes. (You can read all about it in any of the major biographies.) And you know very well that he was very much like Randi when it came to exposing those he considered to be fraudulent mediums and psychics.

I thought you didn't approve of that type of thing.

But if you want to play magic history with me- go ahead.

And if you want a list, you can start here. It's followed by MANY references. These are imitators who he either threatened with legal action or actually exposed:

http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Houdini_imitators
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 17, 2014 09:08PM)
Love the list ... ..and I'm glad there are no exposures in it!!! ;)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 17, 2014 09:36PM)
No, there are no exposures in the list. But the article (as well as all the major biographies) makes it clear that Houdini did, in fact, engage in exposure of his rivals.

And surely you remember the number he did on Mina Cranston (Margery)? And it appears that he also planted false evidence to discredit her.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Nov 28, 2014 04:09PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
No, there are no exposures in the list. But the article (as well as all the major biographies) makes it clear that Houdini did, in fact, engage in exposure of his rivals.

And surely you remember the number he did on Mina Cranston (Margery)? And it appears that he also planted false evidence to discredit her. [/quote]
No .. I don't go back that far... sorry....
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 29, 2014 04:50PM)
Nor do I, Dave. I just read the history and the biographies before spouting off uninformed opinions as facts.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Nov 29, 2014 07:00PM)
Houdini exposed magic secrets? Nope. He wrote a book called the right way to do wrong and this was about gambling. He also wrote up false methods of his escape techniques but I don't consider that exposing. Most (if not all) the books that Houdini wrote - some one else ghost wrote them.

Most of the Houdini biographies are not that good. As they don't tell the real Houdini story. If you want to buy into the BS that has been written about Houdini. Feel free.

By the way I talked to Jack and Anne Gwynne about Houdini time and time again. My dad also met and talked with Mrs. Houdini. Who was upset at the junk that was written about him after his death by magicians.

She did not mention that bad Houdini movie that involved Dunninger as the advisor.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 29, 2014 09:50PM)
Houdini routinely exposed the methods of his competitors.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Nov 29, 2014 09:55PM)
Nope.

Have you met anyone that knew Houdini?

I Have Jack and Anne Gwynne. Dorney Dornfield.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Nov 30, 2014 09:12PM)
Whatever...
http://sustainablejill.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Ostrich-with-head-in-sand-illustration.jpg

I guess the third part of Houdini's full-evening show was a myth--he really didn't perform it.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 3, 2014 04:00PM)
Well, once we've all agreed that we need to bell the cat, what's next?

Maybe we should form a society of ethical magicians, and not let anyone in that we consider an exposer? Maybe we can all take an oath or something, and get all the agents and bookers to only hire members of our group...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 3, 2014 05:44PM)
[quote]On Nov 29, 2014, bishthemagish wrote:
Nope.

Have you met anyone that knew Houdini?

I Have Jack and Anne Gwynne. Dorney Dornfield. [/quote]

Yes. I know/knew several who new Houdini well, including Walter Gibson and Dai Vernon.

You cavalierly dismiss the biographical material that supports what I wrote, simply by stating you know people who knew Houdini? You might have just asked them if Houdini exposed his competitors? I'm sure they would have told you.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 3, 2014 06:29PM)
Http://www.geniimagazine.com/magicpedia/Houdini_imitators

In 1904 Houdini exposed Carl Mysto's coffin escape and then performed his own.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 4, 2014 12:34AM)
Well, you could have all magic books and effects sold only through membership organisations, such as IBM or Magic Circle etc. Only registered members in good standing get advertised to and can purchase; only registered members in good standing can sell. Anyone caught exposing or any other unethical practices gets booted from organisation - can neither sell nor buy until, if, re-instated. All organisations would share their membership lists with each other.

Or, magic creators and magic sellers could require proof of membership before selling.

Ain't gonna happen, but it's possible.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 4, 2014 12:45AM)
No, it isn't possible. It has been tried for 100 years.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 4, 2014 05:13AM)
Fair enough (in practical terms, not strictly). It's not the idea that's impossible, though, it's the people. If magic creators and clubs wanted to they could be stricter about such a thing. But it's not as profitable.

Or, magic creators could only sell in a highly selective fashion, ie to those they trusted not to expose. Same problem, though. Not enough income.

If such a policy did exist, would it be supported?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 4, 2014 11:23AM)
I wouldn't want it. I don't want a board of amateurs judging my work and telling me what is acceptable magic performance.

Let's have a painter's guild! Now, only works that are approved by other painters will be allowed!

Just keep moving forward.

Make art.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 4, 2014 01:57PM)
I've got to agree with Pop.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 4, 2014 02:40PM)
Why are amateurs judging anything of meaning in this process? Join the organisation via some form of assessment (as already exists like the magic circle), agree to some sort of ethical conduct that includes non-exposure, if you expose then you are kicked out the organisation - your ability to buy/sell is removed. I fail to see how judging even comes into it. And if having amateurs in organisations bothers you make the entry requirements, or judge requirements, include professionality. Easy. Doctors, teacher, lawyers can do it ...

And what about the second separate tack: So neither of you would be willing to only sell your creations to a more select audience if it meant better control of exposure? I don't believe that.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Dec 4, 2014 03:07PM)
I don't understand why a Magician would sell any of their work, unless they are very poor at performance. Most that do, aren't, so that puzzles me.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 4, 2014 03:11PM)
Silvercup- If they didn't you probably wouldn't be a magician today.

If Henry Hay, Harlan Tarbell, Ted Annemann and Corinda hadn't sold their work I'd probably be a bartender or a taxi driver.

But "selling" is a far cry from gratuitous YouTube exposure.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 4, 2014 07:53PM)
I've sold almost all the routines I have created. I don't think it has ever hurt me or the art.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 5, 2014 12:52AM)
Indeed, you may well be right. But I don't think this discussion needs to revolve around personal anecdote - that gets emotionally messy. And, obviously, I could simply ask how one could possibly ascertain to what degree an action had or had not damaged the art - it's something unmeasurable.

However, I think it's fair for me to point out the obvious increase in exposure risk between indiscriminate selling and selective selling. If people are genuinely excised by exposure, and if it is agreed that exposers don't care about their conduct and can't be convinced to change it, then the only remaining control lies with magic creators and sellers.

If you can't stop the exposers then one may have to stop the access to secrets.

But I think that many sellers and creators would stand to lose a fair whack of income, not to mention the hassle of changing the current business model, if they were more selective - thus I don't think they'll do it. This is a people problem, not an idea problem.

Obviously, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. People want the increased sales that comes from easy access, marketing and advertising, unrestricted sales etc. But they also, obviously, don't want their stuff exposed. Well, it appears one cannot have both because people are idiots. If the idiots won't stop being idiots, maybe the creators and sellers have to take a step up the ethical ladder to a higher level.

Or maybe we should just ignore exposure completely, since maybe no one cares all that much anyway.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 5, 2014 03:03AM)
It's a bell the cat problem.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 5, 2014 03:34AM)
Maybe not. I agree it is impossible to totally solve the problem, but no one is suggesting such a thing be done. However, I am suggesting the situation can be made better by a course of deliberate action.

Do we throw up our hands because we can't stop theft in society?
Or do we improve the situation by better locks, better policing and neighbourhood watch schemes?

Or is it the case that it would be too painful to sell to much fewer people? I can understand that. But that is different to saying that this is a theoretically unsolvable issue.

Sellers and creators sell to a much more restrictive target market. I don't see that as even difficult, let alone impossible.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Dec 5, 2014 03:34AM)
Exposure = secret given away for free = devaluing the art

Selling a secret = demonstrates the secret has some value and is not worthless = variable but symbolically shows it has worth (other things besides $ can be there but there must be something to indicate value)

Selling a secret to anyone with X amount of money = nowadays, expect it to be pirated

Selling a secret to anyone who passes some screening or other for x amount of money = nowadays, expect it to be pirated

Sharing a secret with a trusted colleague in the art = camaraderie and collaboration -> assuming the secret was the first person's to share

Sharing a secret of some other performer without their permission with a trusted colleague of the art -> now we enter something in the murk

Sharing a secret on the MC in 50+ posts sections = unclear - in theory helping magicians but seen sometimes this has been a rip-off without credit zone

Trading physical secrets = 2 magicians decide to swap something for something else = a book for a wallet, a b screen for a e-pad etc. = original seller gets zip except from initial sale... hmmm

Selling a second hand anything physical = considered ok by the MC = yet the original creator gets nothing = and depending on the object, the seller and the buyer both get the secret(s) = i.e. knowledge of the inner workings of an effect that can now be replicated or techniques in th head e.g. from a book or lets say you had a box or wallet = you sell it off as you make your own (not to sell to others but just to customize) = interesting

Trading ebooks = most people here would say that is wrong.... but the trading the physical is ok....fascinating

Selling an ebook second hand = most people say that is wrong

Sharing the key aspects to a performance vs a method = equal to me at least for all the above = in fact, a video not doing overt exposure but just some poorly performed effect can end up being exposure

Spin off thoughts = to share ideas in a magazine etc. perhaps its to help share with the community to raise the wealth of knowledge, inspire each other, collaborate and synergize - for others its just to say "look at me" - etc.

Maybe its a myth but I believe many professionals (working) share with a select inner circle of colleagues they trust and that is that.

As some have mentioned, most of us would be woefully stunted in our growth or not get into the field if it were not that some pros decided to share via selling their secrets with the original intent it was of the mystical arts brethren (mentalists too ya)


Exposure of classic effects that have been around in the common for ages is still wrong IF YOU HONOUR the art of magic/mystery/mentalism = just because it might be 1000 of years old does not give a person the ownership of the secret to give to the PUBLIC. Now, if you are not part of the art and are just a skeptic etc. I assume they are not interested in entertainment = they just hate not knowing things, feel loss of control whenever they find out there is a secret etc. and it bugs them and they will start posting exposures anywhere = or they do it as well to show others how smart they are etc. That isn't right from our perspective - from theirs its "I must warn humanity against all things I don't like - like not being told everything I want to know" - these people have, do and will exist - I deal with them when I perform all the time - and there are techniques to take care of them anyway.... but they will try to expose unless your style can turn them to the "entertainment for enjoyment" side

As for the youtube channel = if its open for the entire public = ouch - if a person was able to monetize it and was only sharing secrets that were "creative commons" or their own = seems ok according to the above framework...

I don't think we can ignore exposure - but also, I don't think exposure will be eradicated but rather increase thanks to social media and 21st century cyber land.... so we must adapt for that reality but not endorsing it as "ok" but rather really consider if we should be sharing secrets in ways that having yet accepted the potential of techno pirates, twitter land and so on.... and realize that selling today with a click of a Buy it Now releases work to others in ways much different 50 years ago - where people went into brick and mortar shops and there was a ritual even then for gaining access to secrets.

Ah, its 4 in the morning here my dog was barking - had to let him out and so was bored and started typing - he is back so I'm going to bed. Hence here is a shared post of a sleepy fellow, full of text and fuzzy - likely signifying nothing (or will be ignored anyway :))

My dog says, now that he has returned form his dead of night sojourn, he will not reveal what he was doing out there beyond the obvious - he told me if I really want to know, next time, get out of my pyjamas, put on some clothes and go for a walk with him. He decided to go out at 4 so no one could see him do his arcane business. He said what I think he did is just an assumption as it was dark outside - but he will not tell me even though I offered him some kibbel.

He did this all through non verbal communication if you are wondering.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 5, 2014 11:09AM)
Exposure happens when magic is popular. As magic wanes again in popularity, the exposure and interest in exposure will pass.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 5, 2014 02:08PM)
That's an interesting point. I guess time will tell. But shouldn't we want interest in magic to continue ... Might it best to think of ways to balance popularity with limiting exposure rather than waiting for people to get bored with magic?
Message: Posted by: Bill Thompson (Dec 5, 2014 02:41PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2014, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Why are amateurs judging anything of meaning in this process? Join the organisation via some form of assessment (as already exists like the magic circle), agree to some sort of ethical conduct that includes non-exposure, if you expose then you are kicked out the organisation - your ability to buy/sell is removed. [/quote]

I know you realize that this wouldn't work, but I will take the bait...

This would never work, first of all anyone can write a book about magic, how to perform it, and fill it full of tricks and publish it. They don't have to be in the supersecret magic club to do that and the supersecret magic club can't stop them. second of all people would trade tricks and effects one another whenever and whereever they want to, the supersecret magic club be ***ed. And that's just a fact.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 5, 2014 03:24PM)
Besides it isn't necessary and wouldn't be helpful. Quit trying to change other's behavior. It is a lost cause. If there are enough honest people who pay fairly and share the right way everyone will be okay. Just be a decent guy and appreciate and pay what things are worth, and if there are enough people like that, we'll mostly be okay in spite of takers and exposers.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 5, 2014 07:00PM)
Misterbill:
Of course. If magic creators won't take on board more responsibility for being selective about who they sell to then that's that. But IF magic creators wanted to, then they could sell their products much more selectively. and if magic societies wanted to, they could boot people for exposure. But I guess people don't really want to control exposure quite as much as they want things to remain the same. Fair enough.

Pop:
Sure, I don't think it's the end of the world, and personally it doesn't bother me that much. But if people complain about x, and y could be done about x, then it seems sensible to either do y or stop complaining about x. I'd prefer less x, and am willing to do y. I can only maintain my own standards, what others do is up to them. But I am also free to voice my opinion. But it seems it's a lost cause ... And I suspect there are more motives at play than a desire to control exposure. Fair enough.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 5, 2014 11:01PM)
The ancient fable of the Cat and the Mice applies. The fable concerns a group of mice who debate plans to nullify the threat of a marauding cat. One of them proposes placing a bell around its neck, so that they are warned of its approach. The plan is applauded by the others, until one mouse asks who will volunteer to place the bell on the cat. All of them make excuses. The story is used to teach the wisdom of evaluating a plan not only on how desirable the outcome would be, but also on how it can be executed. It provides a moral lesson about the fundamental difference between ideas and their feasibility, and how this affects the value of a given plan.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 6, 2014 03:50AM)
Indeed. I cannot do anything if those who complain don't want to do what is required to help alleviate exposure. But I can choose to do so myself, and I can choose to try and persuade the mice to do what is necessary.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 6, 2014 07:51AM)
Nice list Dr. Spektor to think about. But this:

[quote]Trading ebooks = most people here would say that is wrong.... but the trading the physical is ok....fascinating [/quote]

follows a pretty well delineated rule: re-selling an item so that the original buyer no longer has use of the item--okay; re-selling so that the original buyer still has use of the item--not okay. So books and original DVDs may be resold; ebooks and copies of DVD may not be resold. Selling an original DVD and not destroying a back-up? Not right, but I can't say I haven't been guilty of that.
Message: Posted by: Bill Thompson (Dec 7, 2014 09:38AM)
[quote]On Dec 6, 2014, Pop Haydn wrote:
The ancient fable of the Cat and the Mice applies. The fable concerns a group of mice who debate plans to nullify the threat of a marauding cat. One of them proposes placing a bell around its neck, so that they are warned of its approach. The plan is applauded by the others, until one mouse asks who will volunteer to place the bell on the cat. All of them make excuses. The story is used to teach the wisdom of evaluating a plan not only on how desirable the outcome would be, but also on how it can be executed. It provides a moral lesson about the fundamental difference between ideas and their feasibility, and how this affects the value of a given plan. [/quote]

In this particular instance, the way I see it, Even if the cat were to be belled, that doesn't stop another cat from coming along and taking its place. You can't bell them all.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 7, 2014 11:23AM)
But a few nullified cats are better than no nullified cats, though. Can't solve crime, but can reduce it.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 7, 2014 12:33PM)
Terrible Wizard, I think you keep missing the point. A plan that is unworkable is no plan at all. It is a waste of time in proposal, and a waste of time in consideration. The mice got nowhere, and no cat ever got belled. No mouse was willing to take the insane risk, so it would never be done. They were just blowing smoke up each other's butts. A plan that will not work is worse than no plan. You can't reduce the cat threat at all. No cat will ever be belled.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2014 06:02AM)
Oh, I understand that. It's simply that I disagree about the workability of a magic creator being more restrictive over who they sell to. Even the most complex of my proposals, the one involving magic societies, I think is possible. But far more so the simple thing of individual creators being selective in their own dealings.

Also, something I think you've missed, is my concern and wonder about those who complain about x, but don't do much to deal with x.

I'm open to other suggestions as how to deal with the problem.

I'm not prepared to just throw my hands up in despair.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 8, 2014 01:09PM)
Any plan that requires you to get other people to change their behavior, against their own interest is going to fail. It is stupid. Unless you can clearly show them that the change is of value to them directly, it will never happen.

But don't despair. This really isn't a problem that needs to be solved.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2014 03:13PM)
All plans to change ethical behaviour involve persuading or co-ercing them to do something against their own interests. But oddly, crime rates and charity giving rates can easily be reduced or increased, and so not fail, through persuasion and co-ercion. This is why either appealing to either 'the good of art' or personal ethics is required for getting individual magic creators to be more selective in their sales, or why using the co-ercion of the magic societies ability to expel members for exposure, are necessary for the reduction of exposure.

Both require only some (preferably most) to participate for a positive effect.

Of course, you also highlight the real issue here: for many magic creators selective selling will hurt income, and if the problem is not one they feel needs to be solved, then they won't be willing to reduce their income for no good reason. Ie, they don't care about exposure (it's a non problem to them) and non-selective sales are best for their bank accounts.

If it is assumed that most magic creators and publishers think like that, then you are right - the problem has become insoluble. Not because there isn't a workable method, but because the necessary people see nothing wrong with exposure, and/or because those people aren't willing to suffer a degree of financial loss simply because it is the 'right' thing to do (for others, for the art, or whatever).

So, I guess that you're right. The people who could affect exposure don't think exposure is actually a problem worth solving, especially if it costs them money. Since I defer to your much greater expertise and experience in this area, I think you've convinced me that it's not worth bothering about. No one really cares (except perhaps on Internet forums!). Exposure? Who cares?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2014 04:29PM)
Why do so many want to close the door only once they themselves are in the room?

Consider if you were on the outside here of your equation. One for whom secrets were not available. Does this change your positron?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 8, 2014 05:20PM)
Exposure is an inevitable product of the popularity of magic. Once the era's great illusions have become well-known, and therefore a cliche, people are interested in the solution. The method becomes more commercial than the performance. As magic becomes less popular and more rare, exposure will not be of much interest to anyone.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2014 05:33PM)
Absolutely and with tech moving forward at the rate it is this seems worse. But even Blackstone had to deal with it.

As you said it is a byproduct of popularity of the medium.

The key is to be more than just the sum of our secrets.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 8, 2014 05:39PM)
When magic ceases to be popular with the young, they will cease posting videos. When it comes back in popularity, those old videos will look unhip, silly, and in bad resolution. No one but the resolute will study them. The good secrets and performances will be buried by the bad. You will need a guide to find the pony in this huge pile of internet video.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 8, 2014 05:55PM)
TerribleWizard- I fail to see how SELLING books and effects is the same as indiscriminately exposing other people's effects for free on the Internet or other media. The former requires an investment and at least a moderately serious interest. The latter does not.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2014 09:43AM)
Danny:
All my thoughts take into account being the other side. It doesn't change my position. I think I would benefit, as would the majority, if there was a stricter code amongst magi. If the situation I envisage existed then I would have had to learn entry-level magic from the range of currently existing publicly available sources, proved my sincerity to a magic society, signed an agreement not to expose, and be willing if I was caught exposing secrets to have my membership revoked (and thus lose access to many sources). I am ok with that.

Pop:
That may well be true - time will tell. However, I feel that even passing exposure tends to lessen the richness of the magic experience of the spectator, and can lead to issues which trouble the performer - especially the beginning or less competent performer, or the one who works amongst a more hostile environment.

Mastermindreader:
I am not, nor have not, argued that selling is equivalent to exposure. Only that INDISCRIMINATE selling, especially through the mass marketing opportunities made available by the internet and globalisation - especially without any form of checks - does nothing to reduce exposure. And that if people want to curb exposure then magic creators can take the initiative to do just that by restricting their sales.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2014 10:05AM)
Why do you think you get to set standards for everyone?

Time is better spent with worry about our own behavior.

Like I said maybe you never make it into the room in the first place.

Also if exposure worries you so much then there us the option of creating your own material and not selling it. Then exposure does not vex you so.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Dec 9, 2014 12:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 4, 2014, Pop Haydn wrote:
I've sold almost all the routines I have created. [/quote]

If I may ask the question, why?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2014 01:05PM)
Dannydoyle:

I don't. I'm not. What's wrong with discussion and persuasion, especially if one believe a certain course of action would bring benefits to people? Note, I'm simply picking up on the issue of people complaining then not doing anything about it. Some complain and do nothing, others do nothing but don't complain. I think a better way is doing something. Why so angry and accusatory?
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 9, 2014 01:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, silvercup wrote:
[quote]On Dec 4, 2014, Pop Haydn wrote:
I've sold almost all the routines I have created. [/quote]

If I may ask the question, why? [/quote]

Because I think they are a valuable addition to magic. They solve a lot of problems with classic presentations and express what I believe to be important ideas in magic. I want other magicians to be able to take these and run with them. Most of them I have been doing since the 1960's. I have performed most of them for many years before I released them, so I had plenty of time to polish and put my stamp on them.

The Linking Ring routine and the Mongolian Pop Knot were developed during my street performing days in the Sixties and early Seventies. The Teleportation Device was invented in 1981, and I didn't release it until 1994.

I released them because I don't want the work and discoveries I have made to be lost. I want other performers to be able to copy or take from them.

Hopefully, my wife will be able to continue to have an income if something were to happen to me by selling my videos and books.

The income from the sales has been helpful as a sort of small but steady income as opposed to the feast or famine of performing. Lecturing and selling is a small part of my income, but important.

Besides, I love seeing my routines being done by other performers. I enjoy watching them like a writer might enjoy seeing his play being performed.

Why would I not want to share? I don't believe that the number of guys doing my routines has ever taken a dime out of my pocket, and has brought in quite a few of them.

Besides all that, in this industry publishing is the only way to protect your material, and let people know whose it really is...
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Dec 9, 2014 02:12PM)
Thanks for the answer Pop!
I've allways thought not much $ would be made from sales due to copying and whatnot and the bulk of the reasoning would be one of "get my material out there", "see my work done by others", "proper crediting" etc.
I don't have much understanding of the want for recognition either but do understand that it is a motivating force for others.

Why would you not want to share? I'm pretty sure you are selling, not sharing, or sharing at a price at least. That you don't freely distribute your work indicates that money does play a part, or would simply putting it out there without a price feel like/constitute exposure to you?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2014 02:48PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Dannydoyle:

I don't. I'm not. What's wrong with discussion and persuasion, especially if one believe a certain course of action would bring benefits to people? Note, I'm simply picking up on the issue of people complaining then not doing anything about it. Some complain and do nothing, others do nothing but don't complain. I think a better way is doing something. Why so angry and accusatory? [/quote]


Why so quick to accuse others of anger?

Why is the idea of creating your own work so daunting you feel the need to protect anger on me?

Seriously you can control your own actions and should not judge others. Indiscriminate selling is a judgment. Why so quick to judge others and put a solution to a non existent problem?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2014 03:33PM)
Danny:

Because I wanted to tell you off for being accusatory.

I'm not angry. You are now just playing a game of reversing what I say. There is no projection at work here.

I am not capable of creating my own magic work. That doesn't bother me.

This is not a non existent problem, at least the evidence on this forum suggests many are excised by the issue of exposure. You are now just throwing out random statements as a form of rebuttal.

I'm not being quick to judge others, you just don't like disagreement it seems. Stop being childish. Or not. Either way it's irrelevant.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2014 10:35PM)
I was not angry in the least. You projected that.

You seem to be the one acting childish and stomping your feet when things do not go your way.

So if you are not capable of creating your own magic what gives you the right to decide what those who are capable of doing so end up doing with their creations? You should be happy secrets trickle down to you at all.

If a creator wants to give away all his stuff for free on you tube that is their prerogative. Not creating you should get no vote.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 10, 2014 02:39AM)
I disagree. So we have impasse.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2014 08:30AM)
There is nothing to disagree about. Creators can do what they like with their creations. You have no moral or legal position to control what they do with them.

Where do you get the idea that just because you think there is this brotherhood that requires others to act in a way that you deem correct?

Lets look at other art forms. Music for example. If a writer wants to write music for free do you find it permissible?

Or a chef creates recipe that is simple and amazing that everyone in the restaurant business can benefit from. It's he wrong to release his creation for free on the internet to anyone who will want to read it thus depriving the other brother chefs of using it and making money? Is it his obligation to make sure other chefs can do this or is he allowed to follow his own path and it is their obligation to follow their own? Should the other chefs complain and try to persuade others?

Oh and if he wants to this chef can indiscriminately sell also. Why is this wrong and if not why is magic somehow different?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 10, 2014 03:11PM)
Still disagree. Still impasse. I'm not sure there's much point engaging with each other on this issue any more - I think we have exhausted our points. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Dec 10, 2014 04:20PM)
Wow. You think that someone who creates something of value should [b]NOT[/b] have the right to realize that value as he sees fit?

Amazing.
Message: Posted by: AaronSterling (Dec 10, 2014 05:25PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2014, Pop Haydn wrote:
The income from the sales has been helpful as a sort of small but steady income as opposed to the feast or famine of performing. Lecturing and selling is a small part of my income, but important.
[/quote]
I think this is a point that a lot of people who work "real" jobs have a hard time getting their heads around. There's something to be said for a regular, guaranteed paycheck, even if it's small compared to what someone might be used to. If you're only paid when you have a gig, you never know if yesterday was your last performance and you'll never work again. It can be really stressful, especially if you or a loved one gets sick and you think you "need to" cancel on a client. Maybe you shouldn't cancel, no matter what, because maybe that client will never call you again.

So performers diversify, into lectures, sales, consulting, motivational speaking. This is even if they're good. If Ammar appeared on Scam School, it must have been because of a business decision, where he thought the benefits outweighed the negatives.

I see the solution to the YouTube exposure problem as: perform so you are entertaining even if the audience has an inkling of how it's done. Personality-directed act, instead of secret-directed act.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 11, 2014 12:10AM)
Here is my problem ... If you invent a real cool effect... Sell it to a bunch of your friends and family for a healthy sum to keep it out of the hands of pirates and other exposers ... Then ... after getting all that cash, you sell out to Youtubers for free... Making everyone's investment worthless ... That's just not ethical! :firedevil:
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2014 12:35AM)
0pus: could you please quote the post where I discussed 'rights'? I think you'll find, if you read through my posts on this thread, that my simple argument has always been:

If exposure is a problem (IMHO it is), then a way to reduce it is for magic creators to be more selective who they sell to.

That is all.

Why such an idea seems to arouse such animosity and condescension I have no idea.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 11, 2014 02:47AM)
How should I select my customers, Terrible Wizard?

Do you have a group that I can trust to sell to? How is this "trust" established? The cheats and thieves are always the first to join such groups. How do you keep them out?

Say, I need to sell 300 units at $20 each in order to double my money--my cost for producing and editing and distributing a video. How do I find 300 people who want my routine, and fit your criteria for being a "selected" group?

How do I keep someone from that group from marketing a knockoff "improved" copy of the routine or black marketing my video?

If I only sell to a limited group, say 10 people, how much would I have to charge to double my $3000 investment?

Why should I not just price my video out of the market, so only the richest and most successful magicians have access to it?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Dec 11, 2014 03:03AM)
I'm sure glad that Harlan Tarbell, Henry Hay and Ted Annemann didn't limit access of their material to a "special group."

I might have had to get a real job.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2014 03:49AM)
Pop:

Possible suggestions off the top of my head (if the principle of selective sales is agreed upon we can move into discussing pragmatics, otherwise it's moot):

a) don't sell to known exposers
b) sell only to those with current membership in magic societies which enforce a no-exposing ethic

"How do I keep someone from that group from marketing a knockoff "improved" copy of the routine or black marketing my video?"
You don't. But they then lose membership and can't buy anyone's magical stuff again.

"If I only sell to a limited group, say 10 people, how much would I have to charge to double my $3000 investment?"
If a magical creation doesn't have a viable market it's better not to sell it than to unselectively sell it (IMHO), but I see no reason why such a highly limited market as 10 would exist for a decent product. How many members do all the magic societies have combined?

"Why should I not just price my video out of the market, so only the richest and most successful magicians have access to it?"
Because I don't think that deals with exposure as effectively as the suggestions above (indeed, it might accidentally increase it as it would have massively increased desirability along with massively decreased availability), and disproportionately negatively impacts poor but ethical magi.

mastermindreader:
There would be (and already are) enough materials in the public arena for any starting magi to be able to join a magic society and agree to not expose secrets. There would have been nothing that would have held you back from accessing those resources once within the society. Selling to a more selective audience wouldn't have altered your career one bit.
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Dec 11, 2014 07:13AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2014, Terrible Wizard wrote:
0pus: could you please quote the post where I discussed 'rights'? [/quote]

To answer that question, I offer the following:

[quote]On Dec 10, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Creators can do what they like with their creations. [/quote]
As an immediate rejoinder,
[quote]On Dec 10, 2014, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Still disagree. [/quote]
My comment was
[quote]On Dec 10, 2014, 0pus wrote:
Wow. You think that someone who creates something of value should [b]NOT[/b] have the right to realize that value as he sees fit? [/quote]
Your categorical rejection of /disagreement with Dannydoyle's posts led to my conclusion.


Also, you later proposed, as a criterion for potential sellers, that creators might only sell to members of "magic societies which enforce a no-exposing ethic." I was wondering whether you know of any magic societies actively enforcing their policies of non-exposure.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2014 07:30AM)
So, I never used the term 'rights' then? Because that would change the context of the discussion somewhat, as the word' rights' comes with a whole baggage of legal and ethical theory. So I agree with you that I never said 'rights', nor said anything that entered into that arena. I try to be very careful with my words. Not that I'm perfect, of course, but I make the effort to be precise - and I avoided 'rights' language.

Regarding magic societies that enforce ... Nope. Don't know anything about any of them. Seems an irrelevance to a hypothetical discussion on what we would like to see put in place given that such a thing could easily exist, and such an enforcement is trivially accomplished.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2014 07:34AM)
Let me also add that there appears only two alternatives here:

a) exposure isn't an issue, forget about it - carry on as we are.
b) do something about it.

If anyone has a plan for b) better than selective selling please let's hear it. I'm not wedded to the specific mode of solving the problem, I'm just in favour of addressing it in a serious manner. Or you can try and convince me that a) is best, as Pop has done - and he may well be correct. But I'd like more argumentation first before I change my mind.
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Dec 11, 2014 08:37AM)
I agree with Pop.

On your b) alternative, the "bell the cat" posts indicate that the various "somethings" you have proposed are ill-considered, unworkable and call for costly restrictions on the seller's ability to do what he sees fit with his own invention.

The upshot is that alternative b) is tantamount to telling a magic inventor not to sell at all.

A case in point is the Fitch Kohler Holdout. It is only sold at a high price and subject to a formal License and Confidentiality Trade Secret Agreement. They claim that such has been 100% effective, and that the design and training materials have remained as one of the last great magic secrets.

The result for them has been as Pop suggested -- limited sales at a very high price. I assume that Fitch and Kohler are happy with that result. They were free to make that choice. But that choice cannot and should not be imposed on the inventor of the next Color Monte, which would likely require high volume/low price to succeed economically.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2014 09:57AM)
If you believe that to be true (I remain unconvinced, but you're welcome to provide support for your statement 'is tantamount to telling a magic inventor not to sell at all'), then that is fair enough. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, though I'd still like to see your reasoning as I still think that IF belonging to a magic society WAS the only legitimate way to access new magic material THEN selling to members only WOULD be a more than large enough pool of sales (thus high volume/low price CAN be accomplished selectively).

However, if you are not prepared to sign off on the only apparent alternative - 'a) exposure isn't an issue, forget about it - carry on as we are' - then I would like to see what other solutions you suggest.
Message: Posted by: Bill Thompson (Dec 11, 2014 10:02AM)
Selective selling? I am reminded of a Reiss magic kits and books I had as a young kid... they all included somewhere on the packaging or on the covers the following phase: "Purchaser Agrees Not to Disclose Secrets Contained Within." Which I thought was cool... to get this item you were under some sort of contract not to tell how the tricks were done! Looking back on it now, it was patently ridiculous.

(heh... Upon looking at the box for the "Hat Full of Magic," the box art features photos of a little boy performing with the props from the box and the fine print at the bottom notes "Little boy not included" ...)

I don't think that limiting anyones access to marketed tricks, books, and methods will stop the youtube videos and any other exposers from exposing. Making the material that much harder to get will only increase the exposure, because now you are making a big deal about how hard it is to find and/or how super secret it is. Back in the 30's Camel cigarette packs exposed the secrets of many of the popular stage illusions of that time. An exposer if determined enough will get the secret and expose it, even spending his own money to get it and give it away fro free... and with magic methods, there really is nothing to prevent them from doing so. There is no actual law that prevents it. Argue all you want about copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, whatever... go ahead, try to sue the exposer and see where that gets you.

The only real way to keep a method secret is to never reveal to anyone how it is done, ever... EVER! And even that doesn't work if someone clever enough works out how you did it! The next best way to keep a method a secret is to write it in a book... A book! Never release it to video... EVER. No one reads anymore, if they ever did!

All this discussion is merely a pointless mind exercise.

So you get all the sellers to agree to only sell to a certain approved clientelle (impossible but for the sake of arugument lets suppose you pull it off...) and you get the existing world wide "offical" magic clubs (Magic Circle, IBM, SAM, et. al.) to be the ones making the lists of approved clientelle for the "offical magic sellers" to sell to (again impossible, but lets suppose this one happens too...) What then?

Here is what I have trying to get accross here... it won't matter... a blackmarket will emerge and "hedge" magicians that don't give a crap about the "official magic clubs" will trade on it. These so called "hedge" magicians will most likely end up being as good if not better than their stuffy "officially approved" bretheren in the magic clubs buying the so called "real magic" from the so called "approved dealers." Uh oh some of the blackmarket unapproved effects are popular and/or better than the ones sold at the "offical dealers" now some of the magicians on the "offical approved list" are sneaking around buys stuff from the blackmarket too (and selling and trading on it). but if they get caught they get kicked out of the club and scratched off the list! So what? they not only have what they have already bought and access to the blackmarket, which also includes stuff from the "offical market" too. After a while none of it will matter except in someone's imagination And all the while exposers will be and will continue to expose, anyway.

So just do what you feel is right when buying magic. Do what you think is correct with the secrets you have been entrusted with. And quit b!tching about the exposers! There isn't anything that can or will be done about them.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2014 10:03AM)
Why the desire to restrict the behavior of others? Where do you get that power? Until that is answered ALL of the points made by Terrible Wizard are moot.
Message: Posted by: Bill Thompson (Dec 11, 2014 10:24AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why the desire to restrict the behavior of others?[/quote]
It is just the way of humans in there desire to create order, I guess.
[quote] Where do you get that power?[/quote]
History tells that that those who have tried in the past have just seized the power by force!

These really aren't answers to the questions but I gave it a shot, Danny :)


[quote] Until that is answered ALL of the points made by Terrible Wizard are moot. [/quote]

His points are moot anyway. Tyrants eventually fall, people rebel when held down too far or too long.

Look I am not saying that I like that our secrets are exposed all the time, but I can admit there really isn't anything constructive we can do about it. And even if there actually were a way, there would be terrible unintended consequences.

So Wizard I guess I pick option A. But not for your reasoning.

edited to add: Terrible wizard seems to be at this point merely arguing for sake of argument. Also I believe (Wizard please correct me if I am wrong) he isn't advocating actually having these things come about (selective selling, etc.), he just wishes that the people doing all the loudest b!tching about exposure would just realise there really isn't anything that can done about it so just quit b!tching about it. I also think though he is trying to make people admit defeat by choosing answer A.

Choosing answer A isn't admitting defeat, it is just realising the way life /is/.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2014 10:47AM)
I suggest buying a donkey and finding a windmill.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2014 11:48AM)
Actually, I genuinely wanted to see a constructive discussion as to what could/should be done about reducing exposure, though I also wanted to see if people who complained about exposure were willing to do something about it (even if that something hurt their own bank accounts, or if it meant thinking creatively about potential solutions).

Do people really think that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to reduce exposure?

I guess I have to admit defeat: there is no solution if the mentality is already settled and people have already given up, and, to be frank, hardly anyone seems to want to think seriously and constructively about potential solutions. I really didn't expect it to be this hard on here of all places.

Anyway, good discussion, but I know when I'm beaten. I won't talk about exposure again here.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2014 11:53AM)
Why not think creatively about magic so exposure does not touch you?
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Dec 11, 2014 12:13PM)
What can be done about exposure can also be done for World peace.
You, individually, do your part. By not exposing.
That's all you can do.
Message: Posted by: Bill Thompson (Dec 11, 2014 12:38PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2014, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Actually, I genuinely wanted to see a constructive discussion as to what could/should be done about reducing exposure,...[/quote]
I don't think there really is anything that can be done that would be constructive or helpful.
[quote]though I also wanted to see if people who complained about exposure were willing to do something about it (even if that something hurt their own bank accounts, or if it meant thinking creatively about potential solutions).[/quote]

"Belling the cat" as Pop has said... The biggest complainers are just a bunch of mice arguing about what to do about that cat that keeps eating them... any solutions they come up with won't be implemented because that would require one of /them/ to actually go /do/ what they come up with.

[quote]Do people really think that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to reduce exposure?[/quote]

Not exactly... what I am saying is that each person has their own choice to make. For me it is to try to buy from ethical sellers, not buy knock-offs knowingly, not try to rip other people off, and not to expose the secrets I have been entrusted with. If we all were to do that, then the risk from the exposers wouldn't be an issue. (yeah, they would still be there, but it just wouldn't be an issue for us).

[quote]I guess I have to admit defeat: there is no solution if the mentality is already settled and people have already given up, and, to be frank, hardly anyone seems to want to think seriously and constructively about potential solutions. I really didn't expect it to be this hard on here of all places.[/quote]
No you have it wrong again. We haven't /given up/, our solution is just different from your view of what a solution is.

Also you might want to read the "Tao of Pooh" sometime.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Dec 11, 2014 12:47PM)
Another problem is that professionals and amateurs have by and large different needs, values and objectives. Perhaps professionals would want a different solution than the amateurs.

The majority of any magical organization will be amateurs. If you have a purely professional organization, the amateurs would be shut out.

Why on earth would I want to belong to an organization, the majority of whom are amateurs, that might have weird ideas about exposure that completely hamstring an artist?

For example, many magicians are opposed to the Vernon Cups and Balls "exposure" of the vanish. Could I be thrown out of the "guild" for doing a cups and balls routine like Penn and Teller?

Why would I want to put my art as a professional under the control of amateurs with completely different values and objectives than my own?

Can you imagine Van Gogh joining a Painter's Guild and being told how much paint he can use in a work?

It is for the artist to decide what sort of rules he will work under, not some board of dilettantes.

I love amateur magicians and amateur "organized magic," but it is a totally different beast than the work that I do for a living and as an artist.

I think giving any artistic control to a group is a recipe for reactionary stifling of art.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Dec 11, 2014 07:36PM)
Well said, Pop!
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Dec 12, 2014 09:09AM)
If I recall correctly, Tommy Wonder, in the [i]Books of Wonder[/i], wrote that he thought amateurs were in a position to do absolutely stunning magic that a professional could not do -- the amateur could devote an amount of time and expense to a "set up" of an effect that a professional could not introduce into his professional repertoire because it could not be replicated economically and expeditiously, performance after performance.

Obviously, Tommy Wonder recognized how totally different the amateur was from the professional.
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Dec 12, 2014 11:41AM)
Pop Haydn = The Voice Of Reason! That makes perfect sense! Pros/amateurs/hobbyists/collectors all have different goals! Pop said:

[quote]...It is for the artist to decide what sort of rules he will work under, not some board of dilettantes.[/quote]

Bingo!

Doug
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Dec 30, 2014 01:01AM)
Scam School sucks.... :spinningcoin:
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Dec 30, 2014 10:27AM)
I totally agree! In my opinion, Brian B is a bottom-feeder for this! But, I'm not even an [i]amateur[/i] any more. Exposure ruined my love for performing! Half a dozen times my performance has been ruined by people who think it's funny to punk a guy by turning on the 60", and showing YouTube! So yeah, I quit.

I'm a hobbyist now. A collector of fine effects. I don't lose anything by doing that. They do!

Doug
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Dec 31, 2014 07:54PM)
Quitter! ;)
Message: Posted by: Dougini (Jan 3, 2015 01:04PM)
Ya know, for the right people...I can be coerced. I keep a small kit ready for just that. It's a different world...

Doug
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jan 3, 2015 06:10PM)
:)
Message: Posted by: TheMightyRicardo (Jan 4, 2015 06:27PM)
Annoying though it often is, exposure will increase the surprise in "sucker tricks" where the audience "figures out" the method. I think we will see more of these. It is also is good for creators of new tricks and creators of new methods for old tricks.

Richard
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 5, 2015 12:29AM)
[quote]On Jan 4, 2015, TheMightyRicardo wrote:
Annoying though it often is, exposure will increase the surprise in "sucker tricks" where the audience "figures out" the method. I think we will see more of these. It is also is good for creators of new tricks and creators of new methods for old tricks.

Richard [/quote]

So, to be clear, are you saying that exposure like this is, overall, a good thing?
Message: Posted by: TheMightyRicardo (Jan 5, 2015 08:57AM)
Hi Mastermindreader,
No, I find exposure very annoying, although I am not above watching Scam School or some kid on Youtube exposing a recently-bought trick. But if we can't protect secrets, I am looking for a way to undermine exposure and I think the "Sucker Trick" is the way to go.
Think of the Die Box. You lead people to think they know how it is done, then you spring the surprise ending. I've seen "sucker tricks" done well on stage.
Sometimes you know an alternate way to perform the same trick that leaves the knowing ones in the dust.
What do you think?
Also this is gold for those brilliant creators of new methods (or redo old forgotten methods).

Richard
Message: Posted by: TheMightyRicardo (Jan 6, 2015 06:20PM)
Another thought on exposure - it is not just a modern problem.
I read a book about the life of Houdini a few years ago. Houdini put a vast amount of time and effort into exposing psychics and mediums as frauds. A very clever medium, "Marjery" stumped Houdini for a while, but he kept on with obsessive tenacity until he thought he could discover and expose her methods.
I imagine Marjery would consider our problems with exposure minor by comparison.

Richard
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jan 7, 2015 10:42PM)
And it's been alleged that Houdini actually planted false evidence in Margery's spirit cabinet in order to discredit her when he was unable to actually figure out her methods.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Feb 16, 2015 02:36PM)
[quote]On Jan 7, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
And it's been alleged that Houdini actually planted false evidence in Margery's spirit cabinet in order to discredit her when he was unable to actually figure out her methods. [/quote]
I agree Bob.... That's why the entire Houdini thing is so interesting .. He apologized for doing this in the seance!!!!
Message: Posted by: Tukaram (Apr 21, 2015 01:21AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2014, Terrible Wizard wrote:
...Do people really think that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to reduce exposure?...[/quote]

The only thing you can do is create your own effects and sell them to no one! Sucks - but that is life.


I have learned a majority of my card tricks from some YouTube teachers. Is it really that different than going to the library and reading a book about it? When I was a kid I had no money to pay for books so I went to the library and read them for free - now we have YouTube. But I have also spent a small fortune on DVD's so I do support the real artists too.

But in the world of the internets... for good or bad, exposure is now a fact of life.
Message: Posted by: CRash5150 (Jun 7, 2015 10:31PM)
We see magic different then laymen. Yes, magic is being exposed. But, I think most sleights should not be detected in the first place. I pretty much know when I see a DL, but laymen don't or shouldn't.
Message: Posted by: Albert_Sjoberg (Nov 28, 2015 09:58AM)
I found this thread very interesting.
I understand the objections raised by Slim King and others. At the same time I think Pop Haydn's pragmatic approach is the best approach to the perceived problem.
But therein lies the crux of this entire thread. I do believe the problem is only perceived and not real.

The layperson that stumbles upon a video revelation on youtube may very well find themselves viewing a video of funny cats a short time later. The trick quickly disappears in the noise. It is not possible for any one person to view all the videos that are uploaded to youtube in a lifetime, so unless a layperson is dedicated to seeking out a particular sleight or effect, the chances of stumbling upon an effect I am about to perform is pretty slim. Every single one of you know how much practice it takes to correctly perform a routine. The layperson clicking through youtube videos simply lacks what is required to ever perform a trick. If the layperson is interested enough, they will begin to search, practice and seek out a mentor or organisation and the ranks of performing magicians will swell.

When it comes to putting stuff upon a big screen while you are performing, that is truly bad taste, but certainly not insurmountable. There is so much advice available on dealing with hecklers. There are sucker routines and different endings that can be substituted in so many routines. It simply means that we are performing for a more informed and sophisticated audience. I love Fred Kaps' performances. I am intimately familiar with the workings of his performance. I still enjoy watching him perform on video, and now even Youtube. I defy anyone to watch a Ricky Jay video, say '52 Assistants' and say which sleight he used. You may know, you may have bought the routines, but his work is flawless. So even knowing exactly what and how he did it, does not in any way detract from the entertainment value of his work. It certainly does not affect his earning potential.

The world has over seven billion people. so even if a video has 70 million views, it will only have been viewed by one percent of the world. Over 300 million people in the USA, so 3 million views, assuming they are all from the US still means barely one percent of the US population have seen one sleight of trick in your routine. That is hardly a cause for concern. Not all those views on youtube are from the country you live in.

Honestly, how many of you actually believe that the audience you perform for thinks magic is real. Your audience is aware that it is not real, but is willing to let you trick, baffle and confuse them. Even knowing that magic is not real, they are amazed by the production of a dove, and the location of a selected card or the number of swords shoved into a basket without stabbing the attractive assistant.

Is scam school Right or Wrong. Neither, they simply are. What it means that some of their videos have received millions of views is that even in the twenty first century there are millions upon millions people that are interested in magic and they may end up paying for a ticket to see you perform or purchasing one of your effects from a retailer. Perhaps a video will encourage someone else to become a magician. The more magicians there are, the more potential customers the retail magic outlets have and the more people that may one day buy your products. I see very little downside.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 29, 2015 02:21PM)
Many a professional magician started their career in the library. How is that not "exposure"?

Define the word. Seriously define it so we know what is being discussed. What level should you be before you can read a secret in a book? Terrible Wizard are you a professional? If not then why are YOU entitled to know anything beyond the Ball and Vase?

I just think it is funny when people want to close and lock the doors once they are in the room.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Nov 30, 2015 06:14PM)
By exposing Robert Neale's RPS routine on Scam School he made more money than Robert Neale did selling it in his book. It's shameful. I paid for the book... About $30. Now Brian gives the secret away for free while collecting a small fortune from Youtube and Go-Daddy!!!! Brian told Robert he was going to share it with his "students" and Robert said OK.... Robert had no idea it would be........

TWO AND A HALF MILLION VIEWS.......

Not only is it exposure .. It's theft!!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 1, 2015 12:35AM)
Alright it's been awhile since I took notes on a subject before speaking but here we go. I feel that exposure is wrong. I am in the business of astonishment. My job is to show people something impossible. Not a trick or puzzle. Now I don't think my audience thinks what I'm doing is real but they can suspend belief like in other forms of theater. Someone on here said they can still enjoy a performance even when they know it's secret. I can to. But this isn't true for most audiences. If they know the secret it becomes just a trick. Look at our fellow magi. I visited Gatlinburg TN and hit up all the local shops. Each one I went into would say that they didn't have anything good and I wouldn't be fooled. This was a perfessionals mindset let alone a lay person. Now I'm a lover of magic and don't try to figure a trick out when I watch it, I simply lI've the magick. But most magi do. It's hard to suspend belief when you know.

This exposure doesn't just effect the one percent either. I perform for people and each time someone sees a trick and pulls out their phone others will begin to watch and they will even pull others in. This destroys that moment of astonishment that I am trying to create for everyone around that person. It's not just people surfing the Internet at home. On a perfessional level that weakens my performance and may not get me rebooked. I'm not simply presenting skill like a juggler.

As for the difference between the Internet and going to the library there is a huge difference. One actually takes effort. Reading takes effort. Going the the library takes effort. Pulling up a five minute video on your phone doesn't. I would love to know how many magi actually were inspire for Magick by the internet.
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 5, 2015 12:52AM)
Oh, hello. Brian Brushwood here, happy to answer your questions, gentlemen. What did I miss up until now?

I've got a slower couple of days, so Ask Me Anything.

*hugs*

Brian
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 8, 2015 01:43PM)
You could start by addressing some of the concerns raised on this thread and show how your channel does more good than harm. I would like to know your philosophy on magic. It seems like you just perform to trick or fool people and to seem skilled. You don't perform for astonishment
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 9, 2015 12:24AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse wrote:
You could start by addressing some of the concerns raised on this thread and show how your channel does more good than harm. I would like to know your philosophy on magic.[/quote]

Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwQJXgQaHiM
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 9, 2015 04:00AM)
That starts to address part of my question but read just a little way back on my comment about the difference between the library and youtube. YouTube may have instruction but it has a lot more stupid crap than instruction. don't degrade the information contained in a library to youtube. Also there isn't any real serious attempt from the people that visit your cite to learn magic. Most of them just want to learn the secret. One of the ways my students learn how a trick is done and then ruin it for my other students is through your channel. Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with your teaching. You present magic as only a trick or a bet. Have you read any of the great essays on magic? However I did like your part about magic piracy. Please feel free to read this entire thread. Take notes and reply to others concerns. Not just mine.
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 9, 2015 04:04AM)
Again I don't see how you are creating more good than harm. Unless you could show us what percent of people that visit your channel actually try to learn magic. If you could show me how it's making a real difference in the magic community it may change my mind, if not others. Also again, not trying to beat a dead horse, do something on the philosophy of presentation.
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 9, 2015 08:25AM)
[quote]Which brings me to the biggest problem I have with your teaching. You present magic as only a trick or a bet.[/quote]

I think you're confusing the conceit of the show for its point. Yes, we act as though the goal is always to win a free beer, but that's just the MacGuffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin). My true goal is and always has been to get people learning good magic. Along this journey, we learn about storytelling, the ethics of magic, proper plot construction, improvisation, the value of practice...all of the lessons I suspect you'd hold dear.

I can understand if you'd think the presentation feels slimy (I mean, it's meant to... I'm trying to appeal to 21-year-olds hitting up the bar), but I think if you dig beneath the surface, you'll discover a lot of extremely valuable lessons to any magic neophyte.

Did you happen to read this letter from Teller I posted? http://www.scamstuff.com/pages/the-best-letter-i-ever-received This is pretty much the lesson I'm trying to put out to young magicians. Often in the form of silly videos like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWsXI-XJRuA
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 9, 2015 09:05AM)
While that is a great inspirational video you still only brush the top of my question. Your presentation felt exactly how you present it and I feel it degrades the wonder of magic to a mere intellectual puzzle. Please answer the rest of my post and others. Show us your making a difference and not just money.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2015 10:20AM)
What is wrong with making money?
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 9, 2015 12:11PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse wrote:
While that is a great inspirational video you still only brush the top of my question. Your presentation felt exactly how you present it and I feel it degrades the wonder of magic to a mere intellectual puzzle. Please answer the rest of my post and others. Show us your making a difference and not just money. [/quote]

I'm not sure how to answer this... did you ask a question?
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 9, 2015 01:26PM)
That was more of a statement. I'm saying go back over all of our posts and answer our questions. However it's not like you have to do that it is simply up to you. I was just the first to bite and you haven't answered all the questions in my posts. Why ask more yet.

There's nothing wrong with making money Danny it's all about how you do it. A lot of it has to do with intent to me.
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 9, 2015 04:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2015, Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse wrote:
That was more of a statement. I'm saying go back over all of our posts and answer our questions. However it's not like you have to do that it is simply up to you. I was just the first to bite and you haven't answered all the questions in my posts. Why ask more yet.

There's nothing wrong with making money Danny it's all about how you do it. A lot of it has to do with intent to me. [/quote]

I don't think I have the bandwidth to crawl through all those past posts you mentioned, but if you have any questions I'm happy to answer them to the best of my ability.

Brian
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 9, 2015 11:44PM)
Just the ones I've presented on this page already. Why not take the time if you truly care what others think and take notes and answer their concerns. If not why even bother on here at all.
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 10, 2015 06:19AM)
[quote]Why not take the time if you truly care what others think and take notes and answer their concerns.[/quote]

Because then I'd only be cherry-picking questions from a back catalog, and I don't think it would give us a productive dialogue to assemble a straw man from spare parts. I'd much, much rather just chat directly.

I do gather from your previous post that "exposure is wrong," but what does that mean? Are private instructions, books, VHS tapes, DVDs, and downloadable video files exposure? What about Free Trick Fridays on murphysmagic.com? I'd love to get a clear sense on what you perceive to be the difference between "teaching" and "exposure."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2015 07:48AM)
Hmmmm not wanting to cherry pick and piece together a staw man? You are new aren't ya?

I like the stance.
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 10, 2015 01:32PM)
Private leasons, books, dvds and the such wouldn't be exposure. They actually take time and effort on the part of the learner to obtain and use. This is something a person truly interested in learning would do. YouTube is a flight of fancy for most people that holds much more short entertainment than true value. I have seen to many times my student use it to expose my tricks to my other students just to seem smart or special and gain attentiom. This destroys it for them. You say you do this to create magicians s but how many of the people that view your channel actually ever try the magic. But I also have a problem with how you present magic. Your presentation is what people will copy and the lay audience hates look at me magicians. What books have you read on magic philosophy?
Message: Posted by: Overworked (Dec 10, 2015 03:33PM)
"Private leasons, books, dvds and the such wouldn't be exposure." Why isn't it exposure? Is there any criteria for determining who can purchase a DVD? Of course not. Here is what is not exposure: don't tell anyone. I'm pretty sure Ricky Jay feels exactly that way, which is why we don't see Ricky Jay writing any books or doing any DVD's for magicians. Magicians have been making money selling and exposing secrets for a hundred years. Once you make a book, dvd, or other medium available where you explain magic secrets, and make it publicly, it is by definition exposure. The old days you would learn from someone one on one.


"You say you do this to create magicians s but how many of the people that view your channel actually ever try the magic. "

Boy, you could say that about the majority of magic book buyers.

"But I also have a problem with how you present magic. Your presentation is what people will copy and the lay audience hates look at me magicians. What books have you read on magic philosophy?"

You are entitled your opinion, but I don't think you've demonstrated any expertise that would make you an expert on magic presentation, or to criticize someone elses approach.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2015 05:07PM)
So are those who complain professionals, amateur hoping to turn pro or hobby guys?
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 10, 2015 07:41PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse wrote:
Private leasons, books, dvds and the such wouldn't be exposure. They actually take time and effort on the part of the learner to obtain and use.[/quote]

It sounds like we both agree here (luckily, so does the IBM and SAM): As long as prospective students are investing time and effort, they're outwardly proving they want to join our brotherhood.

We appear to disagree on whether learning from YouTube videos counts in this regard, and I'm curious to hear more. Why wouldn't watching a ton of magic tutorials count? (Heck, just watching all of just Scam School alone would require two full 40-hour work weeks, which seems like a substantial investment to me.)

There's no doubt (to me) that there are real, talented magicians out there who won't ever set foot in a library (according to the emails I get, often for the simple reason that they don't have access to one). YouTube is their only practical option. Seems like they deserve a place at the magic table.

On the other hand, I absolutely acknowledge that there will definitely be people who watch YouTube videos and choose not to attempt some tricks, but I don't think that's anything new: We already had people who read Hugard and Braue and think "Rubbish. I'll never do these tricks."

I suspect there's a place for those magic academics at the table, too. I remember those guys at my local magic clubs: they bought every set of lecture notes, and I never once saw them perform a trick. I'd wager magic is better off for their decades of study, even though they don't ever perform.
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 10, 2015 11:44PM)
I think you have a valid endevor and the stidents that pit in that kind of time are truly interested. However, I would bet money that more than 90 percent of the people that use your channel will never try a magic trick for anyone. That is why I consider it exposure. Only because the mass majority are using only to learn a secret. As for my credentials as to my ability to speak on magic philosophy. I can only say that I have read all the great books like the Books of Wonder, the Ortiz series and others like Ascanio. I look at how magic is presented only from the way I have read it and presented it. I don't know what you would call me. I have been practicing four years hard and a little my whole life. I have used magic in my waiting tables and for my students at schiol. I'm not sure what that is classified as. However, I would agree my opinion means very little in the grand scheme of things. It is simply how I feel. I would like to know how the authors I have mentioned feel personally.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2015 07:39AM)
Well what if someone decides you are an armature not entitled to secrets and teaching you is exposure? It is a valid opinion. Keeping secrets from those who are not working professionals is a valid classification. I am not saying I agree with it but to stop exposure one way to do so would be only working pros having secrets. Since you love magic so much would you accept this solution? Beget for the art and all.
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 12, 2015 12:14PM)
I would never give up magic. I put in an hour a day of practice and read on my art. I show it love and dedication.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 12, 2015 12:23PM)
So perhaps the time has come to stop the judgment of others.

Even if it was best for the art you would not give it up. Pretty selfish of you.
Message: Posted by: Kyoki_Sanitys_Eclipse (Dec 13, 2015 02:59AM)
Say what you want but there's no way that would be better for the art. Also I have judged no one. Only given my opinion. However I have tired of this topic. I've learned that having discussion is impossible on here. Therefore I will simply give my opinion and move on.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2015 09:09AM)
Yea discussion is only fun when it is others behavior that is questioned.
Message: Posted by: ScamSchoolBrian (Dec 14, 2015 09:21AM)
[quote]I think you have a valid endevor and the stidents that pit in that kind of time are truly interested. However, I would bet money that more than 90 percent of the people that use your channel will never try a magic trick for anyone.[/quote]

(apologies for letting this sit a while. Got a bit busy there)

I think this is the tricky area: once either of us start making up numbers, there's really not a logical debate to be had.

If we wanted to know if YouTube magic education is a net positive or negative for the art, we'd need comparable percentages of people who have read magic books or got magic kits, yet never pursued magic. FWIW, my gut says those percentages are pretty much the same.

If there is a higher percentage of youtube dabblers, I'd suggest that their ability to forget what they learned is higher, too (I can't count the number of times I've found myself halfway through a YouTube video before realizing that I'd already seen it before).

-Brian
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 14, 2015 11:00AM)
It is something that history will tell.

His making up numbers to back up a positron certainly does not help.
Message: Posted by: Cubbie451 (Dec 19, 2015 07:07PM)
It sound like the "90%" number says more about Kyoki's personal beliefs than whats happening in reality. I get that "exposure" is bad. By exposure I mean a malicious telling of a trick or secret to discount the time and effort of another person. Like turning on the TV to show the trick you are doing is evidence that that persons mother raised them poorly. You can always ask that person to do the said trick on the spot to show that it does in fact take hours and hours to make look easy. However IMO Brian is attempting to do the same thing as Tarbell. Tarbell wanted to make as many master magicians as he could because he loved the art. So he started a school, more of a subscription plan, to make that happen. Yes Mr. Brushwood is making money, yes hes showing how to do tricks but is he doing it in a manner that is malicious? I really don't think so. If you look at the music industry you can see it has evolved much faster than magic. But its doing so because there are many many many more people playing/making music. If magic had that amount of people inventing and re imagining it where would we be? So if you want magic to become stagnate by all means restrict the flow of "ideas" and make it hard for someone to find the information. That way the next Houdini, Penn & Teller and Copperfield will be discouraged by the elitists who have the knowledge but don't want to give it out.
Message: Posted by: Cubbie451 (Dec 20, 2015 12:11AM)
And on another note the reason I knew what a Raven was was because of YouTube. I would never have known what to look for or how to ask for what I wanted, I tried but always ran into people saying its good slight of hand or to try harder at palming. Most of the time said to me with an air of snobbery. The people at Max's Magic shop in ABQ NM has been awesome in helping me find what it is Im looking for but other magicians I have talked to seem to be threatened by questions about what it is they do. Its an interesting look for me into part of the magic community.
Message: Posted by: ATL (Dec 22, 2015 06:51PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2015, ScamSchoolBrian wrote:
We appear to disagree on whether learning from YouTube videos counts in this regard, and I'm curious to hear more. Why wouldn't watching a ton of magic tutorials count? (Heck, just watching all of just Scam School alone would require two full 40-hour work weeks, which seems like a substantial investment to me.)

There's no doubt (to me) that there are real, talented magicians out there who won't ever set foot in a library (according to the emails I get, often for the simple reason that they don't have access to one). YouTube is their only practical option. Seems like they deserve a place at the magic table.[/quote]

I'd just like to mention to you that your show while not main(being 52 Kards) or first(Disturb Reality) for me, was one of the reasons I got interested in magic. I'm one of those people who haven't ever read a magic book. While being very new(8 or so months into this), I'm performing a routine first time in February at my local magic circle. I'm sure books work for some people, but for me I just can't understand why wouldn't A) Actual person teaching the sleight/move B) Video of person teaching the sleight be better. I don't care how good pictures those books have, but for someone like me who learns best by seeing and copying I can't imagine picture's over video. To mention one, I learned charlie cut from your video, thanks Brian!

Also I think world is changing. In the local magic circle here in Australia, almost all of the members under 25 were already very familiar with some of those youtube channels I mentioned and for about half of them those were one of major reasons why they do magic today. For me I'm pretty sure without 52 Kards channel I wouldn't be doing magic today.

Something I read earlier this topic was that someone said they don't understand why magicians sell they're tricks. If I were to invent a trick I don't understand why wouldn't you do that. For me it seems very clear that with any form of passion the idea is to do what you can and then help younger people the better way you got it so they can learn it faster and easier so they can add to it.

I just wonder how people who has problems with even someone selling magic tricks feel with second deal demonstrations, plastic cups and balls, one handed pass(where the set up can be that you actually explain what the pass is) etc.

About scam school videos those clearly are tutorials instead of blatant exposures. Exposure at least how I see it would be someone rolling tape of someone else performing and then just pointing out where moves happen and what's the gimmick etc. That's very different from teaching it step by step, after your own performance of it. That's tutorial and very different thing. Also what I've seen from scam school they aren't exactly revealing FISM acts there, even though that's what I almost thought reading some of these posts.

I don't see any negative from it. Even public learning some basic concepts, that just means magicians need to adapt a bit. Also I don't think great routine is lessened by spectators knowing how it's done. Good routine's might, but great one's don't. I always try to make my routines so that those are entertaining to one's that know how it's done. I mean how couldn't I? I'm the one who has to watch it most times when practicing it, so it has to be something I enjoy watching even when knowing how I do it.

Anyways that's just my take on it. I'm all for sharing, I see a problem if someone shares effect without permission that's also being sold by creator. But doing tutorials on basic sleight of hand, that's what I think is just adapting to today's world. Most younger magicians prefer to learn from video instead pictures and text. If someone here have different opinion that's theirs to have, but I still will teach how trick is done if person genuinely interested comes to me after seeing performance.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Jul 23, 2017 01:38PM)
What an awful idea!

Put magic secrets in a book?

There will be no control over who reads it! No control over into whose hands the secrets will fall...
Message: Posted by: Ray Pierce (Jul 26, 2017 12:24AM)
Beautifully stated Pop. My job is to take those who know every effect I do and make them question their knowledge.
Message: Posted by: writeall (Aug 28, 2017 10:56PM)
Sometimes I watch comedians on YouTube and then, later, tell some of the jokes to my friends.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Aug 29, 2017 08:13PM)
There are a few places in this place we call the Internet where you can show a picture of someone, and through that and perhaps the background they can give you all the details of that person, their families, phone numbers, addresses, employers... etc.
In some cases credit card information.

I know we want this all to be a secret... but change happens!
The whining you hear from people expecting secrecy is absurd.

"Logical conclusion"
Message: Posted by: paul180 (Sep 14, 2017 09:44AM)
Wow have times changed. Must be a millennial thing? I remember when exposure by the masked magician, had the community up in arms. I think the pressure was so bad that Leonard Montano aka "Valentino" got out of the business?

It's true that some explanations of magic must exist to entice the young and or uninitiated to seek proper training. However, in today's world of instant gratification, the guarding of true concepts, would still be wise. Mentalism in some ways even more so. When a kid without experience, presents mentalism as a trick it hurts the art. However I one has the chops at any age to pull it off then I say go for it. I think maybe that we mentalist are more guarded because off how much of our craft there is" Surely we can agree that magic is much more plentiful in secrets, than mentalism? The exposure of one technique could put some mentalist our of business. Cassidy comes to mind, given his most acclaimed work to the lay was bi**ets.

Anyway I've always liked Brian and while I think drinking with him would be a trick in and of itself, I'm not enamored with the matalism exposure.

One more thing, DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT LONG HAIR YOU FREAK. Some of us are trying to eat ;)