|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Phaedrus Loyal user Mexico City 212 Posts 
|
Quote:
If two people share a Viper, then the person who is without said car has none of the benefit of it, except half the insurance and liabilty should his buddy crash it. Not necessarily. There are tangible benefits to owning a high-end automobile, even if only part-time (status, picking up chicks, etc.). The fact that only one of the two have access to the car at a given time doesn't change the basic dynamics of the situation; being able to use the car fifty percent of the time is vastly better than being able to use it zero percent of the time, which is the case of they don't pool their resources. Granted, a physical entity like a car is different than an intangible quantity like magical knowledge, but my example was a response to the question of whether or not people are entitled to things they can't afford. There is nothing inherently unethical about people pooling resources or joint ownership. Quote:
If the boys share this concept and they agree to not perform any of the tricks they are not in physical posession of the books for, then I would see less wrong with this. This is similar to Jonathan's idea of magic being treated as though it were under license. It's an interesting idea, and people are certainly free to adopt it as a working philosophy, but at the moment the current system isn't set up that way, and magic knowledge enjoys no special dispensation, as much as anyone might like it to. I have a problem with the notion that physical ownership is required for a person to have the right to perform an effect. This would imply that no one could ever perform anything they learned from a library, a book they borrowed from a friend, or even from something they once owned but no longer have, either because it was lost or destroyed. If my VCR eats my Bill Malone tape, does my right to perform Sam the Bellhop go with it? It seems a bit silly to talk about physical possession when two people own something jointly; ownership is ownership, whether you have something in your physical possession or not. Consider what you're suggesting from this perspective, and you'll see what I mean: Boy 1: Hey, I'm going to need that book back; I have a gig this Saturday. Boy 2; Sorry, I have gig this Friday. I'll give it to you on Saturday morning. If I own something, it's mine, whether it's in my possession or not, and things can be owned by more than one person at a time. Quote:
Sit down at a bar with a friend and ask the bar tender if you can share a beer between the two of you. I don't see a problem here. So long as you pay for your beer, the bartender has no say as to what you do with it. Quote:
As for the discussion on libraries, folks need to read up on why there are public libraries and how they function before they use that as an example for two boys trying to get around paying for what they want. If you read the situation, they aren't trying to get around anything. They are paying for the material, but they are pooling their resources in order to do so. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Okay, let's examine that proposition about casual joint ownership without possesion:
Everybody in the Café contributes a penny and collectively buys a copy of Tarbell on CD. The CD is on a server here at the Café. Are we still good with joint ownership? If so, consider the following; A new member joins the Café. An existing member sends them a link to the tarbell directory. Are we still good? If so, consider this next case: Replace "tarbell" with "all existing magical literature". Are still good? After all, the Café membership owns the stuff and its digital backup is maintained on the Café so we don't have ordinary copyright issues. What then? I instead choose to hold that in reading a book, we are making a mental copy and have thus done the implied "backup" of the work. To permit another to read the book without the former owner letting go of its contents (act of honor here) implies a basic action of copying. One can test for this. If you know what is in a book that is not in your hands now, then you must have (on some level of detail) a copy of the book in your mind.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
The principle is not Ethical in my opinion:
Each are only buying half a book but each are reading half a book they have not paid for. Cut the book in half and have half each, then it is ethical.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Phaedrus Loyal user Mexico City 212 Posts
|
Jonathan:
In theory, I suppose, there aren't any limits to how many people can own something, but there are trade-offs between participation and availability. For example, if a video costs $36.50, and 365 people each kick in a dime to buy it with the understanding that each will have one day of access to it, then each person can have the book one day a year. For most, that wouldn't make the reduced cost very attractive. If 37 people each kicked in a dollar, they could each read the book about one day a month. Still not a very good cost-to-benefit ration. On the other hand, if 3 people each kick in 12 dollars, then the trade-off as to availability seems acceptable. I think this sort of thing is self-adjusting. What makes your example problematic is the idea of putting it on a server. If everyone has access to it at the same time, then the built-in limiting that occurs with physical possession is eliminated. If the server were set-up so that only one person had access to it at a time, then I don't see that this would be any different than people sharing physical possession of something. I also have a problem with calling human memory a copy. This is simply not an accurate description of a mental construct; a copy as most people think of it is a physical duplicate of a given work. There is no reasonable mechanism whereby people can be made to forget something they know, which means that there is really no means of enacting your idea, voluntarily or otherwise. Quote:
On 2005-09-11 16:01, tommy wrote: tommy: What, then, of the situation of a person who lends a book that he paid for entirely? By your logic, the person borrowing the book is reading 100 percent of a book that he paid nothing for. What about a book that was borrowed from a library? Are you really trying to argue that one can only ethically read a book that he has paid for? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-09-11 19:01, Phaedrus wrote: This brings us close to the current time-share of housing which seems popular. Are you reading every book you own at this very moment? Quote:
...If everyone has access to it at the same time, then the built-in limiting that occurs with physical possession is eliminated. If the server were set-up so that only one person had access to it at a time, then I don't see that this would be any different than people sharing physical possession of something. The "it" and "thing" are the question here. Is it the entire book or just the desired secret? That's the thing. Is one person looking or a quote using it in the same way as another who just wants to know which hand to hide the coin after you...{insert particular moment from particular routine here} or are these all seperate uses of the same document? A lumping question if you ask me. Quote:
I also have a problem with calling human memory a copy. This is simply not an accurate description of a mental construct; [] I would not classify memory as a mere copy. Only subjective perceptions and observations are kept. A copy need not be physical. If you hear a story, tell it to another and they in turn tell a third person. There are at least three known copies of that story. You have one in your mind, and they have copies in theirs. I suppose in a few years we will have the ability to watch these copies being made via fast NMRI scanners. We probably can already watch the activity that moves perceptions from short term memory to long term memory. Agreed about memory wiping... well it can be done but it's not a permanant thing and so far the methods are not very nice. Instead I suggest not acting upon the knowlege without having its source on hand. This amounts to a code of honor.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
JTW Special user Florida 670 Posts
|
Ok I have written and re-written my response too many times and I'm just going to put it down and see what happens...
My problems formulating an answer stem from trying to apply the ideas proposed here by others to non-magic related situations. Specifically something that Jonathan wrote If you know what is in a book that is not in your hands now, then you must have (on some level of detail) a copy of the book in your mind. This statement isn't accurate from my perspective. It is not a "copy" of a book it is knowledge the reader has attained from the book. I think that knowledge learned is being confused with the source (the actual physical book) of that knowledge. Jonathan later posts Instead I suggest not acting upon the knowlege without having its source on hand. This amounts to a code of honor. If that is the case then a person who doesn't own a bible cannot believe in God (the Christian version) or act in a way that is based on the belief that there is one. I am NOT discussing the validity or proof of any religion nor do I want to discuss religion on ANY level, I am only using it a an analogy for the topic. I submit that once something is written the information it contains -regardless of the authors intent for that information- becomes part of the individual that reads it. The vessel which contains the information, while useful for referencing, is not needed to apply or disseminate the knowledge futher. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5931 Posts
|
Quote: Last time I tried picking up a chick because of my ride it kind of required the ride to be present as proof of ability to up hold the contract. There are tangible benefits to owning a high-end automobile, even if only part-time (status, picking up chicks, etc.). 
Being able to use the car 50% of the time is better than not at all, and using the knowledge in the book 50% of the time is better for the same reason. Quote: Ooops, you are breaking your own rule mixing legality with ethic. There is no law, but it is my ethic that to perform something one should own it as much as one can. In some cases there are only descriptions of "how to" which one can own. It assures that the creator gets his due compensation for sharing his information.
at the moment the current system isn't set up that way, and magic knowledge enjoys no special dispensation, as much as anyone might like it to. Quote: You still have the tape carcass to prove proof of ownership. I have a big issue with the extreme exception making the rule.
If my VCR eats my Bill Malone tape, does my right to perform Sam the Bellhop go with it? It isn't silly at all to talk about physical posession in a joint ownership case. Sitcoms make great use of this premise to the delight of millions because it is a real issue. To prove the point your example taken to the next level: Boy1: Hey I need the book on Sat I have a gig. Boy2: Sorry I have a gig that night too, you can't have it. Boy1: But it is half mine! Etc. Ever heard the phrase "posession is 9/10ths of the law." Wonder why that is? Quote: I'm guessing you don't go to busy bars very much.
I don't see a problem here. So long as you pay for your beer, the bartender has no say as to what you do with it. Quote:
If you read the situation, they aren't trying to get around anything. They are paying for the material, but they are pooling their resources in order to do so. That might be your take but I see two boys trying to get acces to twice as much as they have paid for. Each boy only paid for half access to the information they "bought". And I'm sure shop owners wouldn't mind their revenues being cut in half when all their patrons adopt this policy. So whether you split the information in half or you divide their ability to use such information, it maters not. What does matter is that they recieve only what they have purchased, HALF access each. Quote:
If everyone has access to it at the same time, then the built-in limiting that occurs with physical possession is eliminated. EXACTLY! Just like the case when two boys who only paid for half a book each think they should have constant and complete use of the secrets that book contains, when it comes time for them to do a show. Cheers, Tom |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
JTW, if you know what color the book is, what the pages look like, and what page stuff is on in the book... then to some extent you have a MODEL of the book in your mind. I was looking to keep the language as simple as possible here. Agreed the model is not the thing and the map is not the territory.
As to referencing the book or having the contents of the book internalized... that is a tough one. A quick scan gives most people a good model of the book though not its contents in detail. What does it mean to have absorbed the knowledge in a book? There are people who know a good many digits of pi, yet know nothing more about those digits than a student who knows the definition of the number. What about in literature where there are layers of meaning to the text. Would a perfect recall of the words without a grasp of their meaning be sufficient? This brings to mind the end of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 where people are preserving works by memorizing the books. What then of Carol's Mouse's Tail from Alice in Wonderland? Or the works of E. E. Cummings? Now as to the model propagating additional instances, again we have the tale and the teller. Or would that be a game of telephone. At some point we go from telephone to Emily Letella, our hard of hearing news commentator and her "violins on TV". What's all this fuss about violins on TV? We need more culture in our society today. 
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
JTW Special user Florida 670 Posts
|
Thanks for using more specific language Jonathan. I finally made it through the desert of the real
Absorbing the knowledge of a book means (to me) that the reader has understanding of the information and can apply it (the information) creatively (in an instance not outlined by the orginal source). When we begin to discuss works with layered meaning such as Carol's we are moving to another place entirely. Apples and Oranges. This type of book is meant to make the reader think about the allusions and references. Its enjoyment is meant to be heightened by understanding these things. If we look at Alice in Wonderland from a literal sense it is a non-sensical story of a little girl who's gone down a rabbit hole. We know that isn't what its really about because someone has told us there is more to the story. When we read a book of instruction for a magic effect the author lays down the steps and sleights to accomplish the effect. If the author has succeded in his description I can perform a reasonable rendition of the effect. If he hasn't I must interpret what it is I "think" he means based on what information I have, this may or may not be the correct interpretation. Ocassionally people write about the theory, psychology and the philosophy of magic but the majority of manuscripts are instrutional step by step manuals. The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth--it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true. Ecclesiastes |
|||||||||
Dennis Michael Inner circle Southern, NJ 5821 Posts
|
They both chipped in and bought Tarbell Vol 1 and both learned coin and card moves and created a routine that was their design.
Many years, later they own the whole set. Life is full of ethical choices. The answer is really within, what we can live with. In the field of medicine, the right to die, the right to abort, and many more are choices one makes. There will always be those who verbalize their dissatifaction of a choice which was differ from theirs. Hence, there really is no correct answer. In religions there are commandments, and everyone of them are broke daily. They are designed to follow a good path, of the many paths in front of a person. I find nothing wrong with this and on some occasions and situations encourage it so someday others will experince the joy, fun, laughter, amazement, wonder, etc that I've experience. Do deny that to another would be unethical.
Dennis Michael
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Phaedrus
“What, then, of the situation of a person who lends a book that he paid for entirely? By your logic, the person borrowing the book is reading 100 percent of a book that he paid nothing for. What about a book that was borrowed from a ? Are you really trying to argue that one can only ethically read a book that he has paid for?” When a magician buys a magic book from a magician, the magician who buys the book, does not own the secrets it contains. The secrets the book contains belong to the magician who wrote the book. The magician who bought the book can use those secrets to perform magic. As a magician that is all he can do with another magicians secrets. As a magician that is what he is supposed to doing with secrets. If a magician decides to give away secrets or sell them, then let him sell his own secrets and write his own book. A library is not a magician it's nothing more than a brick layman that fosters no loyalty to magicians. A magic book to a magician should not be treated like a PlayBoy magazine that is passed around class. No I am not really trying to argue that one can only ethically read a book that he has paid for but I am arguing a magician should regard a magic book as confidential between himself and magician who wrote it, By your logic: It is ethical for two magicians to go to a magic show and pay for one ticket between them and one lets the other in through the exit. Moreover by your logic, you would have the temerity to tell the magician doing the show, that it was in his interest! as he had sold a ticket that he might not have sold, had you not shared it, so to speak. Regards Tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Phaedrus Loyal user Mexico City 212 Posts
|
Quote:
When a magician buys a magic book from a magician, the magician who buys the book, does not own the secrets it contains. The secrets the book contains belong to the magician who wrote the book. This is an interesting view, but I think it's flawed in its perception of what a secret is. A secret, by its very definition, is something that is not widely shared. I might agree with this premise if the secrets were imparted in confidence, but the truth is that a secret shared is no longer a secret. When a magician writes a book for monetary gain, he loses any kind of moral authority over the secrets he reveals. If I buy the book, then I do in fact own the secrets therein; I gain that right by giving the magician my money. If secrets are such sacred and fragile things, then the creators of magic ought not to be so cavalier in trading then for money. When literally anyone can buy a book with secrets, I think it's difficult to argue that secrets are sacrosanct. In other words, if we don't want secrets shared, then they shouldn't be published in the first place. Quote:
By your logic: It is ethical for two magicians to go to a magic show and pay for one ticket between them and one lets the other in through the exit. Moreover by your logic, you would have the temerity to tell the magician doing the show, that it was in his interest! as he had sold a ticket that he might not have sold, had you not shared it, so to speak. Unfortunately for you, here you have fallen into the logical fallacy of the "Strawman" argument. In essence, it consists of creating a flawed argument, attributing it to someone else, then arguing against it as if you were tackling the other person's argument. It is a fallacy because it is essentially putting words into someone else's mouth. The situation you suggest does not follow my logic, or anyone else's: a magic show is not the same thing as a physical entity such as a book or DVD. Just as no one would argue that a concert is the same as a CD, no would make the argument you lay out, least of all me. |
|||||||||
|
Phaedrus Loyal user Mexico City 212 Posts
|
Quote:
Last time I tried picking up a chick because of my ride it kind of required the ride to be present as proof of ability to up hold the contract. Right. When you are in possession of the car, you can use it for said purpose. If you never have access to the car, you will never be able to do it. That was the point of my argument: having access to it part of the time is better than never. Quote:
Ooops, you are breaking your own rule mixing legality with ethic. There is no law, but it is my ethic that to perform something one should own it as much as one can. In some cases there are only descriptions of "how to" which one can own. It assures that the creator gets his due compensation for sharing his information. No, I was responding to the argument that magic implies a license of sorts. A license is a legal agreement, which does not exist when currently purchasing magic; it is therefore not relevant to the discussion we are having here. I was merely trying to put the topic back on track. Quote:
It isn't silly at all to talk about physical posession in a joint ownership case. Sitcoms make great use of this premise to the delight of millions because it is a real issue. To prove the point your example taken to the next level: This is what is known as "begging the question." This example only works if you have already established that possession is required for use of knowledge. Since I haven't accepted that yet, I don't think that the example works. Quote:
I'm guessing you don't go to busy bars very much. Well, no, I don't, but I am familiar with the concept having spent some time in them in my youth. Your analogy is flawed because the displeasure of the bartender has nothing to do with sharing. The situation would be the same if you bought nothing at all; the business of the bar is to sell alcohol, and if you don't want to do that, they would rather not have you there. Since no one is obigated to buy magic, a more analogous situation would be buying something in a public place, for example, a hot dog vendor. I can buy a hot dog and share it with someone, and the vendor has nothing to say about the matter. This is not the case in a bar, where you can be asked to leave if you aren't willing to buy, as is their right as a private establishment. Quote:
That might be your take but I see two boys trying to get acces to twice as much as they have paid for. Each boy only paid for half access to the information they "bought". And I'm sure shop owners wouldn't mind their revenues being cut in half when all their patrons adopt this policy. So whether you split the information in half or you divide their ability to use such information, it maters not. What does matter is that they recieve only what they have purchased, HALF access each. Again, this is begging the question: you are assuming that one has to pay for everything one reads or watches. If I lend a book to a friend, he hasn't paid anything for access. So the question of how much access each boy is entitled to is irrelevant; until you establish that everyone has to pay for everything they read, you haven't made your point. Quote:
EXACTLY! Just like the case when two boys who only paid for half a book each think they should have constant and complete use of the secrets that book contains, when it comes time for them to do a show. There seems to be a trend developing here in terms of begging the question. The secrets are the knowledge that the boys gain from reading the book. That is a separate issue from whether or not they actually possess the book. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-09-12 08:58, Phaedrus wrote:...A secret, by its very definition, is something that is not widely shared. I might agree with this premise if the secrets were imparted in confidence, but the truth is that a secret shared is no longer a secret. ... Bingo! What we currently have is an open access market with some strange people decrying the flow of data into casual public knowledge. What some of us are suggesting is making a virtual polis where citizenship comes with the responsibility to prevent data flow into the common market. This creates a niche market, one I referred to as our 'Diagon Alley', borrowing from Ms Rowling's stories. As things stand however, ANYTHING bought with open market currency is PROPERTY and therefore open to utilization and disposition limited only by some safety and environmental laws. If you want better, start suggesting better. As things stand it is entirely within the rights of anyone to post EVERY published "secret"(sm?)(tm?) in magic on the Wikipedia.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts
|
Yes. It does not follow that all flawless logic, is flawlessly ethical.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Phaedrus Loyal user Mexico City 212 Posts
|
Jonathan:
One of the most important things I have gotten from this exercise is a clearer understanding of the market we find ourselves in. In this and numerous other threads, you have spoken of an "economy of secrets," which I now understand better. If we believe that the value of any kind of magical knowledge lies in the secrets themselves, then we need to establish a market system where secrets are treated as the commodity we are trading. The problem that I see with many of the discussions here is that the focus is solely on the consumer, without consideration for the role of the magic creator. We can bemoan the apparent lack of respect that magicians show by sharing, lending, and otherwise spreading magical knowledge amongst themselves, but we also need to address the fact that, if there weren't people publishing those secrets for profit, there wouldn't be anything for others to share. In this context, the idea of a license makes perfect sense: if magic knowledge is shared with an explicit understanding that it is not to be made public knowledge, there would be no question of what is ethical and what is not; any spreading of information would be a violation of an agreement between the creator and the purchaser. Indeed, there are some effects (mainly stage-sized illusions) in which the person buying the effect agrees to certain conditions. Quote:
As things stand however, ANYTHING bought with open market currency is PROPERTY and therefore open to utilization and disposition limited only by some safety and environmental laws. If you want better, start suggesting better. As things stand it is entirely within the rights of anyone to post EVERY published "secret"(sm?)(tm?) in magic on the Wikipedia. And that is the crux of the problem: so long as people are selling secrets in an open, public way, those secrets become public knowledge. It is not only the responsibility of consumers of magic to behave ethically, but also those who disseminate such information. We can debate the pros and cons of the easy availability of magic, but if we want to ensure that secrets retain their value, then we have to address both sides of the equation, creators and consumers. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Ethics Problem #1 (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 11, 2005 06:54 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|