I’m on a break, so I’ll dash off a brief response to some of the issues raised, and if this thread is still active when I’m back from my business trip, more to follow.

TOM WROTE: “I disagree that copyright is a way to pursue protection of one's material. Therein could lie part of our problem. Copyright only protects the physical description and such. That is why I said patent. Copyright is powerless to protect the secretive essence of a magic trick, the moves, the method, etc.”

You’re right to a point. Read my articles, you will see that I’ve said as much regarding the inability of copyright to protect methodology. What you may be missing is that copyright CAN and DOES protect “choreographic and pantomime works.” You can’t protect a dance step, like a pirouette, but you can protect the choreography to a pas de deux. Although there is no case law on the books that I can find (and I’ve looked) I would argue that at some point a magician’s routine becomes the subject of a choreographic copyright, as long as there is more than one way to achieve its underlying effects (so as to avoid copyright’s dreaded “merger doctrine” – again more on that in my articles.)

So bottom line, I believe that some magician’s routines ARE copyrightable.

MR.WAYNE – (so many Thomas’s in this thread). Thanks for the support, but I do cop to that one line being a sarcastic characterization of Tom’s argument. That being said, that was how his argument sounded to me.

And as to where MR. CUTTS said you shouldn’t teach a trick that you read in a magazine, he wrote:

“When you teach someone a trick you learned from a magazine, as opposed to directing them to the title and issue which they can purchase, you are denying the magazine the right to their profits from the sale of the magazine containing the information that someone is looking for.” … “What gives you the ethical right to give away their product?”

What else do you mean?


Best,

You are confusing legality with guilt or innocence. Laws are NOT opinions: they are facts. You can look them up and read exactly what they say. Now, whether or not a person is guilty of breaking a law is a question of opinion. Even in war, there are circumstances under which killing is illegal, and people have been found guilty of murder during wartime. Even self-defense is an interpretation of the law: if you kill someone in self-defense, you may still be charged with breaking the law, and have to let a jury decide whether the circumstances warranted your response. As to whether or not OJ is guilty or innocent, that is completely beside the point: the jury made a decision about whether or not OJ killed, not about whether killing is legal or illegal.



Just for the record, I am a writer: I make my living from intellectual property, and I can assure you that my daughter has a proper appreciation of the value of it, since it provides for her. As for your concerns over my actions, let me put your mind to rest: when my daughter sees my collection of books, tapes, and DVDs, she knows what I value and what I consider to be important or ethical.

I understand the use of rhetorical devices to make a point, but if you're seriously suggesting that I am morally obligated to buy two copies of AOA to teach my daughter an effect, then you are seriously undermining your own position. As it happens, I agree with you that it's important to support the creators of magic, but as I have mentioned previously, that's simply our opinion. But inane arguments do nothing to persuade others who may have a different opinion to come around to our way of thinking. Someone who thinks that there is no harm in sharing and copying effects is likely to look at what you've written, dismiss you as a fanatic and extremist, and continue to indulge in his questionable behavior. That, I assume, is the opposite of what you would like to happen.



You are correct, this is my opinion. However, I then went further and justified it by explaining why I felt that way, i.e. that the magician received compensation for it, and nothing anyone does after the trick is published is going to affect him either positively or negatively. If someone has evidence that this is not the case, I'm willing to hear arguments, and if they are persuasive enough, I might even change my opinion. But this is what I think now.

Although you and I basically agree that it's important to support the creators and disseminators of magic, I think that common sense is important too. Making blanket statements that every possible circumstance of sharing is wrong is only going to alienate the very people we are trying to sway to our side, i.e. those who copy and share proprietary material. People are naturally leery of zealots and extremists, so it's important not to present yourself that way.

Tom the simple answer to your question is because I choose to. My reality is created solely by my perceptions. My perception is that once I purchase something I own it therefore I can choose to do with it whatever I wish, including giving it away. In my mind not only have I purchsed the effect I have purchased the instructions to that effect. I can choose to share that information with whoever I deem fit because I own it.

Legally I cannot make a copy of the magazine but I can pass it on to a friend or I can teach my friend something that I think he may like. What is the difference to you how he gets the information? Is it your stipulation that they be required to read the information in the printed form for themselves? Do you feel that I'm cheating Richard Kaufman or Stan Allen out of $3.00? If the latter is your belief then I think that is a weak argument. Money is not the issue here the art is and if I want to advance the art by sharing something I bought, read and processed then I should be able to do it without someone telling me I'm acting un-ethically.

The ethics are personal ones in this situation Tom. Making a blanket statement saying "Sharing magic is un-ethical" does not show a complete grasp of the issue (IMO).

Let's look at a different but similiar example. What if I bought a Kohler three fly set. I played with it and decided it isn't for me. A few weeks go by and I'm sessioning with some friends one of them mentions that he is interested in the effect. I am feeling generous and I give him my set. Is that unethical? What If I bought a set of lecture notes. I read it I decide I don't want them so I give it to a friend. Note I do not copy it I just give it to him. How does that fit into your belief about ethics? Should I make him buy it? Why?

Considering that this is the Internet (by its nature a medium of anonymity), any answer I might give could be true or otherwise. Working from the premise that the only truths worth knowing are those that we discover for ourselves, with a little research you should probably be able to answer this question to your own satisfaction yourself.

Cloneman,

Thank you for displaying the complexity of the issue by adding to the discussion that some actual routines might be copyrightable, and indeed are if the proper vehicle is used. I am well aware of theatrical copyright and its use in magic. I'm not convinced that it is legally applicable to the act of teaching and none of that is really the crux of what is at the root of my issue.

To summarize: some magic tricks may be copyrighted, some may not. All of which might beg the question, "By what ethical right does one teach the material which is the intellectual property of another man and the commercial vehicle of yet another?" Which still has gone unanswered by those who believe they have the right to do so. While the act is legally different than making copies of the magazine and distributing them, I find it ethically the same as making copies and distributing them.

Other than that I fear that your understandably short attention time frames at this juncture are causing you to confuse the words "teach" and "perform". If you reread this thread from the beginning you will find I am not at this time arguing anything to do with the transference of the right to perform to those who own the magazine. You have well argued the as of yet uncontested right of the owners of the magazine to perform the tricks within, but as such your points on copyright are not yet pertinent to the issue of then going and teaching the same material within to others who do not have the magazine and as such have not entered into any implied or implicit agreement with the creator or publisher.

I am debating about the ethical right to teach. Copyright may be applicable to performing but again, I am not convinced it is legally applicable to the act of teaching. I would, however, love to find out that it is or can be.

I patiently await your answers to the my previously posted questions.

Phaedrus,

I have no confusion between "laws", "The Law", or guilt and innocence. I disagree with you that laws are facts or truths. One can look up opinions and read exactly what they say, this does not make them fact, only recorded opinion. Laws are the rules of a given society at a given time. As such they are just words and opinions. Without the mechanism of The Law to enforce them, these words are meaningless outside of theoretical conversation and political bandstanding. It is in their only service to humanity, their implementation, that they have any real meaning. In this very implementation laws are constantly, effectively rewritten. But this is somewhat off the topic as we are discussing ethics here.

I am still patiently awaiting the answer to my question. Is the difference between teaching one's daughter vs. teaching a friend a matter of age?... of relationship?... of birthright?... or...?

I believe in the credo "actions speak louder than words". While the size of your book, tape, and DVD collection might imply one thing; to me, your action implies yet another. If your daughter knows that people buying your work puts food on her plate, did she ask you if having been given the information contained within a book instead of purchasing the book would cause the author's family, and the publisher's family, and the employee's of the publisher's families to not have food on their plate? A very simplistic model of the equation I admit. Small and meaningless you say? What if we multiply it by 500 or 1000 times for all the people around the world who own the book? And I bet this is true of more than one book, right? Just an example of how an "innocent" little bending of the ethic is really quite more than it looks.

That is why I find it would be undermining my ability to credibly say we need support the creators, authors, and publishers all the while doing something different behind closed doors. That is my ethic, my opinion. I am not forcing my ethic on anyone. I am stating it, debating it, and explaining where it differs from the ethics and actions of others. Though I see little from others in the way of ethic mentioned here to support their actions also mentioned here. I have asked for and would like to see more... at least more than "because I can".

By the way, stating one's reasoning for their beliefs does not justify the belief. It only gives one the chance to discuss their reasoning. You believe that an author can not be hurt by anything that happens to his trick after it is published in a magazine. Lets say, hypothetically, that someone publishes a false shuffle in a magazine. It is well received but the reality of printed media just doesn't make learning it easy. The author decides to produce a DVD to teach his shuffle. After all, several who own the magazine have said they would support it by buying the DVD but more importantly, there are thousands out there who didn't buy the magazine and don't know how to do this shuffle that everyone is excited and talking about. There is pent up demand.

While production is underway people who bought the magazine decide to "teach" the shuffle to people who didn't buy the magazine. Then that taught person shares it to someone else, and so on and so on. Heck it even ends up in some guy's lecture because he has no idea where it came from. By the time the DVD comes out people who have never had any connection, implied or implicit, with the author have been taught his shuffle to the degree that there is no longer interest in the once touted DVD project by the time it is released. There is one way the creator could be hurt by the actions of teaching without asking.

As to your final point, it is not my intention to change anyone's opinion. It is nice that every time this type of topic crops up one or two people PM me to say the light has gone on for them and they are changing their ways to be more supportive of those creative minds which enrich the field of magic with their ideas. My only intention here is to point out, to those who believe that once they learn something they can do with it as they please, that there are those who believe such actions are wrong and such actions are disgracing the art. Every time this issue arises those on the side of the creators grow in strength and number not because I changed their mind but because they did. I stand only as one of many beacons, albeit one of the louder ones.

If you must label me, be my guest. Those labels say more about you than they do about me.



14,

What is the difference how someone gets the information? Well, to the people who produce the materials that teach these things you dispense for free because you choose to, it means that you are denying them their right to a sale of their product. If you believe money is not the issue, then you should never sell anything and you should never get paid to perform your art. For that matter you should never buy anything. You should just take it because it is for the betterment of the art.

Have I crossed your line of reason yet?

I absolutely believe you are cheating the publisher out of their due return on their investment. As mentioned above the issue isn't your friend's $5. It is also the $5 of your friend's friend, and your friend's friend's friend. It is also the issue of the hundreds of others out there who start this chain because "It's only $5".

On a purely artistic level these actions devalue the artifice. History shows us that with few exceptions by the time something like this makes the rounds it has lost any connection to its creator. After being shown from one person to the next it becomes just some shuffle a guy showed me at a convention. The pedigree is lost which in turn devalues that move and the person who created it which is bad for the art.

I agree, a blanket statement saying "Sharing magic is unethical" does not show a complete grasp of the issue. Are you trying to imply I said that? You entered into a discussion about ethics. One best not do such things lest they be prepared to be told their ethics are out of whack for exactly the reason that ethics are personal.

You want to give away your U3F, go ahead. You want to give away your magazine that contains the trick, go ahead. If your friend buys the gimmicks for U3F which are not manufactured for Bob Kohler and then you decide to teach him Kohler's routine, well, Bob might have an issue with that.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is. I merely brought it up to illustrate that this isn't a question of black and white, right and wrong, even though you seem to believe that it is. According to your logic, I should steer my daughter away from my magic collection, because she didn't actually pay for any of the material there, and therefore has no right to peruse it. Perhaps this makes sense to you, but to me it's a ludicrous suggestion, and points out how extreme positions can actually alienate people. If we were to extend your argument, I shouldn't let her watch TV either, since she didn't pay for the set or the cable service. If a friend wants to borrow my car, I shouldn't let him, because if he wants to get from point A to point B, he should *** well support the automotive industry.

Before you protest that we are talking about magic here, let me ask: why should magic be any different than any other intellectual property? If I own any other book, a novel for instance, I can lend the book to anyone I want, and I doubt seriously that anyone would argue that I am violating some obscure code of ethics. I can invite a friend over to watch a DVD; would you argue that I am overstepping any ethical bounds by letting him experience the film without having paid for it? If I can lend or sell any other kind of book, why should a book of magic be any different?

You can't have it both ways: if magic material is published, it should be treated as any other form of intellectual property. The problem is that because the value of magic to magicians lies in the secret, i.e. knowledge, there are those who want to argue that the secret is somehow under some special sort of protection. It is not: as I explained before, you can't copyright ideas, only the expression of those ideas. If I lend my AOA book to a friend, I haven't done anything unethical, any more than if I lend him my copy of the latest Steven King book. On the other hand, if I photocopy pages out of the book and give them to him, then I have done something wrong, and even illegal.

The fact that most of us wouldn't cavalierly lend out our magic resources is a choice that we have collectively made, and reflects our belief that it's important to support the innovators in our field. However, to then extend what is nothing more than a courtesy to the level of an absolute ethical law is simply self-righteous bigotry. There is absolutely no law, legal or ethical, that says that lending books is wrong, regardless of the kind of book it might be.



She knows that not everyone who reads my work has paid for it. Some borrow it, some read it at the library, and some sell it after they are done with it. That's the way the real world works, and as far as I can tell no one is complaining about it.



Once you publish something, it's out there. I have to question the ethics of someone who first offers something, then tries to make money off it later. If there is no interest in the DVD, it's the fault of the author for publishing it in the first place. That's why it's important for the authors of intellectual property to think long and hard about where they choose to publish their material. If I sell a story to one magazine, I can't then turn around and try to sell it to another for more money. I would think the ethics of this would be self-evident.



Really? Then why do you even bother to share your opinion with anyone? Is this just an exercise in vanity, in which you merely want to spout your beliefs without anyone responding to them? As I said before, I am absolutely in agreement about the importance of supporting the creators and producers of magic. However, when someone publicly questions both my morals and my parenting skills merely because I have the audacity to teach my daughter a trick from a book that I paid for, then I think it's fair to question that person's grasp on reality. If you consider that "labeling," then I guess that says more about you than about me.

Tom
I have been published in magazines a number of times. I never got paid. I did it for ego and for the simple pleasure of sharing something. Maybe I have sold more lectures, notes and DVD's because of it but getting paid was not in my thinking when I submitted any of my effects. The only people your argument protects is the publisher. Without me and other performers like me they don't even have a magazine. I say this without being egotistical if no one wanted to share their material there would be no "Tricks" section. Let's face it many people buy the mags for the effects.

I get paid to perform. I do not charge every person individually that comes to a party or Trade show that I am at. I charge one person (or company). I don't perform magic in theaters so I cannot comment on the aspect of selling tickets.

I bought Kohler's routine (it was supposed to be a limited thing but I digress) I have since shared the routine with others that bought the gimmick from the original manufacturer with no instructions. I bought it, I own it. I can sell it share it or destroy it. Short of copying the instructions and selling the copies I can do with it what I want. It's mine.

I bought Hollingworth's 'Reformation' video. I have allowed others to view it at my home. I did have it transferred to DVD and have since let others borrow it along with my copy of his book so they could learn the routine. I bought it. I own it and short of copying it and selling the copies I can do with it what I want. I own it.

You are correct you did not say specifically "Sharing magic is unethical". that statement summed up my perception of your argument. If that is not your position what is?

Re: I bought Kohler's routine (it was supposed to be a limited thing but I digress). I have since shared the routine with others that bought the gimmick from the original manufacturer with no instructions. I bought it, I own it. I can sell it share it or destroy it. Short of copying the instructions and selling the copies I can do with it what I want. It's mine

If you are writing about u3fly, as the ultimate source of what makes that routine and most of the ideas it contains, I find the statement above ... questionable and uncomfortable.

If only out of respect for ME, I encourage you to take a more considered position on the matter. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason does not make your actions other than wrong.

Kohler sold his effect and I bought it.
I am not here to argue whether or not you are the originator of what we know as 3fly. I'm not here to discuss whether anyone has the right to perform/ teach or publish any form of what you believe to be your creation. Your name has been inextricablly linked to the effect from the beginning. I am sorry you chose not to publish the routine however that is an issue you must deal with.

I am solely arguing that once I purchase an effect from someone it is mine whole and part.

Magic is an economy of SECRETS. That you even know of the thing is a consequence of a betrayal of secrets. One could interpret your offering copies of the thing as disrespectful to Kohler. I did not publish at the time because I wanted the thing to stay secret. The routine was a way to acid test some ideas, sleights and strategies. If you knew of my feelings on the matter, your propigating the material could also be interpreted as disrespectful to me.

Much as I don't like to take this side of the argument in this case, I don't approve of your doing something that may involve breaking copyright and diluting the value of a product.

I have never violated copyright protections while sharing. The knowledge that was passed was from book to reader. The only factor removed from the equation has been the passing of money.

I am not being disrespectful to you. If I were to be disrespectful it would be to Mr. Kohler solely. That is not the point of this discussion.

Again, I find people who have no clear understanding of the issues at hand trying to defend a point of view based on ignorance. Several people in this thread have referred to "copyright" as though magic tricks are somehow protected by it. As I mentioned previously, I make my living through intellectual property, so I understand what it is and how it works.

As I have already explained, copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. This is called the idea-expression divide. For example, if I write a book about a new way to organize books in a library, a reader can freely use that method without being sued and can describe it to others; it is only the particular way in which I described that process that is protected by copyright. I might try to get a patent for the method, but that is a different matter, and is subject to a completely different set of laws. Compilations of facts or data may be copyrighted if the facts are selected and arranged in an original manner, though protection will only apply to wholesale copying of that selection and arrangement and not to the facts themselves.

That means that the description of a trick or effect are protected under copyright, but not the ideas contained therein, or what magicians would call the secret. If I buy a book on magic, I can freely use and even share the information therein with whomever I want. You may not like it, but that is the law.

So, there is nothing illegal about sharing tricks and methods. This is a fact. If you don't like the fact that people share, that is your opinion, nothing more. The people who share obviously have a different opinion, one that is supported by case law and the legal system. The question then becomes, what ethical right do you have to call people unethical simply because they have a different opinion than you?

If people don't believe that sharing is wrong, they are going to continue to do it until they have some reason to change their opinion. If YOU believe that sharing is wrong, then you have an obligation to convince people not to do it. Unfortunately, most people don't respond well to arguments such as, "It's wrong because I say it is," or by calling them thieves, unethical, etc.

I find it odd that I should be the one pointing this out, because as I said, I believe in supporting the creators and distributors of magic. However, that is a personal decision based on my own ethics and beliefs, and I'm not smug and self-righteous enough to believe that everyone who believes differently is morally wrong. My original point in this thread was that there is a huge difference between saying, "Sharing is always wrong, and those who do it are thieves!", and saying, "Sharing is acceptable in certain circumstances." One seems to be the position of zealots, and the other seems a reasonable position in light of how complex the real world can sometimes be. The first position leaves no room for debate or discussion, while the second opens the door to rational arguments about what circumstances are acceptable.

As I said before, communication is the key here, but communication can only happen in an environment of respect for opposing viewpoints. It can also only take place when the people involved have an understanding of the issues involved, for example, understanding what copyright is and is not. But fingerpointing and namecalling do nothing to help us understand the issue better, and that's a shame.

It sounds as if you and I are writing along similar lines! I would add to your excellent copyright analysis that, as I mentioned above, you can also get a copyright in choreography and pantomime– an original arrangement of dance steps or expressive movement. While there is no case law on point (that I can find) I believe certain magic routines might be protected under choreographic copyright (as long as they avoid the merger doctrine, etc.). Some of David Roth’s routines – the portable hole, the rainbow – come to mind.

Of course, while the choreography might be protectable under copyright, the underlying ideas, processes, methods, secrets, would not be. To protect these, as you point out, you must turn to patent law and trade secret law.

Phaedrus,

Communication is great but really I don't see much coming from you, the one who is, through insinuation, pointing fingers about it. The best answer you can muster to my questions to you is "I don't know".

All I am pointing out is that you see nothing wrong with sharing copyrighted magic, apparently unconditionally, with one person, but with a different person you have an issue or, at the least, hesitation. Why this is you have no idea, and that tells me there is likely an unresolved conflict in your belief. That in turn could be the indication of another belief which really needs more introspection. I realize that copyright does not protect the secret to a trick. What it does do I believe ethically is declare an intent (to anyone who like yourself would be so gracious as to respect the author's ethical (not legal) right to his material) to maintain some control over his ideas and the income generated from them. This is something that you acknowledge when you hesitate to loan out magic. The question is "Why?" when you have no hesitation for another person to do the same thing. The foundation of your actions appear to not be well thought out, especially when I read your response to the question is "I don't know why."

Which is the crux of my point. What most people call their ethics are nothing more than their habits. Things done just because that is the way they do them. Then they look for some greyness of right and wrong to attempt to validate their actions. But most give it too little thought.

It is absolutely a question of black and white. The only greyness should be that everyone's black and white line is drawn in a different place. When I see people presenting, and perhaps espousing, their ethic I am inclined to want to know on what foundation that ethic is standing. "I don't know." tells me much about a foundation.

I never said your daughter, or anyone, should not be allowed to peruse your magic collection. I did expect you had a good reason for her to be able to do so. I am saddened you do not, or at least have not yet shared that reason.

As to the rest of your rant, I am entertained by your hyperbole. You do raise one very valid point. Magic is different, or I should say the instruction of magic is different. It is not entertainment, it is instruction, it is the passing on of secrets. You are correct that there is no legal protection for ideas, ie secrets. It is for this very reason that magic tricks are most often sold with a no returns clause. And I contest it is for this very reason that ethics exist to provide protection above and beyond the law, albeit mostly voluntary, to the ideas of others. A magic book is not like a novel or a DVD. It is more like a cook book, and yes I believe that if one is going to cook something from a recipe from a book, one should own the book. It is the right thing to do to reward the author and publisher for their work in bringing this information to us.

You are either confusing "laws" and "ethics", or you are saying your ethic does not reach beyond the law. I would be interested to know which.

For the record you are completely within your right to sell the same story to different magazines as long as they know about it. Please tell me what self evident ethics you believe contradict this. I thought journals and newspapers picked up articles and stories from each other all the time. Isn't there a news service which provides stories nationally for exactly this purpose?


14,

I agree with you, without submissions of tricks there is no magazine. Tricks are what magazines run on. They are not the "extra freebies". They are precisely the life blood. This discussion started as a question about sharing the tricks in magazines. The one most affected by this act is the publisher as noted above. It is his vehicle of commerce which one circumvents when one shares a trick with someone who does not own the magazine.

Is it proper for a magic club to host a lecturer and then only buy one set of lecture notes which the entire club shares amongst themselves? No copies mind you, just the original. If not, why not?

The fact that you have been paid to perform "your art" completely undermines your "it is for the art and not the money" position. With that out of the way we can address other issues.

If you own what you have bought and it is yours to do with as you please, is it right to put your name on it and give it away as yours?... for free of course. You do believe you own it... all facets of it. Not an exact copy mind you. One would have to rewrite the words but nothing legally protects the trick from being redistributed under someone else's name. Is that OK with you? If not, why not?

What is my position on the issue of teaching magic tricks from magazines to people who do not own the magazine in question? I believe it is unethical to act in a way that denies the author and publisher their due profits, unless they have granted you permission to do so, while disseminating their work.

What you imply through your misquotes and your inflamatory labeling only serves to diminish your stature in this discussion.

I did not intend for this discussion to be another repeat of so many other threads. Not a problem, though, its a complex and important issue.

So, about the magazines. I've learned some great stuff out of Magic. A few things out of Genni. Nothing from the Linking Ring. I've shared some of what I've learned with others, which is the ethical thing to do.

I think its very telling that Josh Jay will often open his column by saying something like "here's one that everyone was showing each other at FISM" or "this is one that's been shared in the undergound for a while."

Magician's are so interesting. I can't imagine this discussion holding up in many other fields. Would a doctor not share with a collegue something she read in Psychology Today. Or should a teacher feel guilty discussing something in the faculty lounge he had read in Educator Magazine?

You are quite correct bsears, magic has an economy of secrets. These secrets are private currency and come with a trust. When the originator chooses to publish in a book or magazine, the material becomes a sort of community secret.

This is quite unlike the public side of other professions, though... very much like any field where there is competition for resources and there is no advantage in letting others know how much you know. For perspective, have a look at the research into DNA structure last century and how those involved treated eachother.

Jonathan,

When you say "community secret" do you mean the community of the magazine or book owners, or do you mean the entire magic community?


Bsears,

you wrote:

By what ethic is that?

Tom:

For the record, I am NOT arguing for the indiscriminate sharing of magic material. I am arguing AGAINST the blanket assumption that any and all instances of sharing are by definition "unethical." In particular, I have problems with people making wrong-headed allusions to issues of copyright when they clearly have no idea what copyright is or how it works.

The law is crystal clear on this point: when you buy a book, you own not only the paper and ink, but the information within it, and you are free to use that information however you want to, including sharing it with others. This includes magic as well as any other intellectual property. This is fact, and not subject to debate. Now, if you want to argue that as magicians, we have a special responsibility to protect that information, then we have the start of a dialog. However, if you take the position that all sharing is wrong, there isn't much room for sharing of ideas.



I'm sorry you feel this way. I thought I had made a reasoned and cogent argument, and I am disappointed that you couldn't see this, since several people have posted that they appreciated what I wrote. Nevertheless, I don't find anything wrong with saying, "I don't know," since I don't presume to have all the answers. Like everyone else, I'm still trying to figure things out, which I thought was the purpose of this board: to share ideas and arguments, and try to come to some kind of conclusion. Apparently, you believe that everyone who has a different opinion from you is either stupid, misguided, or unethical, and that no one should express an opinion different from your own.



Actually, what you said was that instead of teaching my daughter the trick, I should have bought her another copy of the book. If she has no right to one book, by extension she has no right to any of them. My reason for allowing her access to my collection is that it is mine, and I can do whatever I want with it. I love my daughter, and I want her to be happy, so if allowing her to learn magic accomplishes that, I don't need any more justification.



I'm sorry, but this is grossly unfair. I don't think what I wrote qualifies as a "rant," nor is it hyperbole. Every time you have addressed me directly in this thread, you have made a personal attack on my ethics, implying that because I don't have the same opinion as you, I am somehow morally inferior. As a moderator of these forums, you are supposed to prevent personal attacks; instead, you continually try to make the issue about me as a person, rather than on the substance of what I've said. I'm disappointed that your sense of responsibility to the integrity of what is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas doesn't extend to yourself.



You continually use words like "right" and "ethics" to justify what you believe. The subtext is clear: you believe that your position is morally superior, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is therefore unethical. But as I pointed out, your beliefs are just that: beliefs. They have no objective reality outside the confines of your own mind. And I respect that; what I don't respect is your self-righteous condescencion towards those who believe differently, because then you aren't extending them the same sort of respect.

The fact that magicians tend to keep secrets and to support the creators of magic is a professional courtesy, nothing more, and is, as you point out, strictly voluntary. I myself adhere it whenever I think sharing would be harmful to someone else. But I don't believe that sharing is absolutely wrong in all circumstances; if I teach a young person something, I believe I am furthering the art of magic. You might have a different opinion, and I can respect that. I just wish you could extend the same courtesy to me.

As a community we have a credo about not revealing secrets (to the laity).

That said, are we ready to respect a private currency of secrets and trust?