|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-10-09 08:02, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Hmmm, isn't there some precedent about giving away a product that is bought and sold? Doesn't that kill the possibility for profit by selling the product? Having someone give it away for free that is? Also, if he is expossing DC's secrest, then they are also not specific ones that are being sold, thus could they not still be considered trade secrets? Also, I wonder, how is it different then someone stealing a secret recipie and just sharing it, so that people don't have to buy the baked goods?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Gdw, if ANY of that made sense the Professor Hoffmann books would be put on display as examples of what NOT to do and some folks would have been kicked out of magic years ago for touching my coins across. Since all the parties involved are still with us, take it as gospel that there are no such things in magic and at best some try to live on one side of a community double standard.
need another example? what about Harbin's zig-zag? got it? let's not even try to go near matters of conscience or morality on this one. instead I see the interent and places like GoogleVideo/YouTube as part of a great leveling process that is antithetical to magic and may quickly absorb and disseminate most of what's in our market and literature to all who go looking. The boogey man is not under your bed or in your closet. But perhaps it is searching for you on the internet.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
ricker Special user Tampa, FL 914 Posts |
The video the clips come from is a Russian TV show called Copperfield Revealed that has made the rounds on the peer-to-peer programs.
All he is doing is reposting bits and pieces of that show. We really just need to ignore these things, don't make a big tado, then there wont be any press about it. |
|||||||||
Dave Le Fevre Inner circle UK 1666 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-10-08 10:48, macGyver(south Africa) wrote: Not an attitude that I can understand at all. "Someone has a secret. I want to know it. Therefore I am entitled to know it." I really don't see where that comes from. It's a non sequiter to me. Dave
The Ozzy Osbourne of the 34x27
|
|||||||||
rutabaga Inner circle Toronto, Canada 1283 Posts |
There have always been those who only wish to know the secret... it's just more public now.
So the dynamics of magic will change. It's happening everywhere. The way I see it [for what it's worth], the emphasis will shift [correctly] to the effect of the magic and not the secret. I've been fooled many times by familiar principles dressed in new clothes. |
|||||||||
Diavo Veteran user The District 357 Posts |
We're dealing with a hacker mentality. Some equate this to immaturity. Sometimes that's true.
A [non-malicious] hacker's mentality is that all information should be free. I believe this, as I love to learn, and I especially think digital information should be free since it's so easily distrubted/accessed. HOWEVER, I am not immature in my thinking, and I very much respect things like intelluctual property, origins of ideas, etc -- which is why I absoultely don't agree with "kids" posting exposure. These kids are immature in their thinking. They want something, they try to get it. They don't Respect anything. I see clear jealousy in his reasoning (the 2nd sentence in his reply). It could be viewed as he's trying to knock down magicians because we're better than him. Instead of putting the time & effort into learning magic to become a super star like us, he's taking the easy way out, the instant gratification method, the no-brainer: exposure. To him, it's satisfying. Perhaps that is because his life is meaningless & insignificant, but that satisfaction is no where near the satisfaction we get from entertaining someone with our magic. We touch lives, make people happy and feel emotions. He posts videos online. I know what level I live on. Jeez, where'd all that come from?! Sleep deprivation with results! --Diavo
I'm not just a magician, I'm an interpreter of Reality.
Underground, above ground, whatever. I don't need a label, thanks. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
That could read as self-justification for hacking as it took "legitimate" work to hack for the data as opposed to simply finding it posted in an obvious place.
Taking the hacker/graffiti artist perspective... how better to prove you were the first to hack the secret than to post the evidence in a public place. How than could anyone else distinguish a tag for a successful hack with the "immature" line of thinking mentioned? If the data is truly free, it will perch where it serves those who wish to learn.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Diavo Veteran user The District 357 Posts |
If data is not sufficiently encrypted, it is free. ':-)
Likewise, unfortunately, if the magic secrets are not sufficiently guarded, they are public. Or can be publicized. And now we get into the classic arguements about that. <rolls eyes> So macGyver... do we get a link to this kid's screen name on YouTube...?
I'm not just a magician, I'm an interpreter of Reality.
Underground, above ground, whatever. I don't need a label, thanks. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Why, to show him how to do more advanced hacks?
How to cleanroom the data he wishes to share? Perhaps to make a snazzy cyber robinhood avatar?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-10-16 13:53, Diavo wrote: This is a quite interesting point of view of the hacker perspective. The problem, of course, is that it isn't really correct. Furthermore, it is a bit short-sighted to argue that information is more or less valuable based on the medium. Using a reductio ad absurdum argument, this is what happens if everybody thinks along the same lines... all capitalism will collapse. The reasoning is that people make products and do research and publish results for profit. Since everything is now digital, to say digital info. is free (i.e., no profit), there is no longer any incentive to produce/publish, hence the capitalist society collapses. It further illustrates this that "hackers" themselves engage in the shareware model: a limited portion of software is free, you pay for the rest. The endpoint of the argument is simple. People like to blame hackers when somebody breaks the law on the computers and this drives the TRUE hacker community bonkers. There are people who think they know something who call "bad" hackers something else to identify them: "black hat hackers". They also drive the true hacker community bonkers. You want to know somebody who does something illegal on a computer? How about a CRIMINAL. There is no reason the term hackers should have even been brought up, if somebody breaks a law, they are criminals. I highly recommend people who are interested in what a hacker truly is read the 2600 magazine for a year or two. -Carlos
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I don't understand. How is making boxes to make free phone calls in Prague "good" while displacing "secrets" from "commercial" to "trivial" is bad.
Is it a good hack to get the files from Genii so all the data would be free or just a good hack to read through them oneself to learn then publish the hack in 2600? Or would both be simply criminal?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Diavo Veteran user The District 357 Posts |
Wow, you guys are going straight into left field with this. Not my intention.
I was merely drawing a corrleation of mindsets; neither labeling myself nor the exposing kid as a hacker! 8-O
I'm not just a magician, I'm an interpreter of Reality.
Underground, above ground, whatever. I don't need a label, thanks. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Some of us have read 2600 for a while now. even before it got tame.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-10-16 16:17, Jonathan Townsend wrote: These are the questions that we must deal with. Do we have obligations to follow "unust" laws (the DeCSS reaction the the DMCA for example) or do we have obligations to fight for what we feel is correct? These are the types of questions that can keep me up all night. However, in response to your specific questions... making the box that allows you to make free calls to Praque should be completely legal with no problems. Using it is another situation all together, depending on legalities. Displacing secrets... well, that is an interesting question, how about this: I think that everybody should and can be able to back up and modify the medium in which their purchases are stored (i.e., they should be able to scan them, upload them, rip them, etc.). Where it goes beyond is when laws are broken. In this discussion it becomes quite easy to ignore ethics but you can never really ignore ethics. The question I have is why we all keep giving these postings hits. I never go to them, never read them, and never tell anybody about them. I don't search for them and I have NEVER run across one accidently. I buy all of my effects (that I don't develop myself) and would even if I "saw" a video exposing them. In reality, we can all only control ourselves and it is our obligation that we act in the "right" way. I am not sure what you are referring to with the Genii question, exactly. However, if you come up with a hack that filters the forums for you, go for it. If you want to publish it, also go for it. If Genii doesn't want it, they can do something to change their site so it doesn't work. They already made their data available, I don't see a problem with some sort of algorithm to sort through it (Google does it already, doesn't it? and you can search site specific and even look at cached pages). There is a responsibility for sites as well. Banks got bent out of shape when they realized that google could link to sites with customers personal info on them. Far be it from the banks to actually, say, password protect such sites, they prefer the slightly easier "security through obscurity" method. There are responsibilities on all sides, but, as a quick answer to all of your questions, I would consider none of them criminal acts, depending on the result (i.e., making a blue box or whatever is fine, using it may not be; copying videos may be fine, posting them may not be, etc.). -Carlos
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-10-16 20:44, Diavo wrote: but you can't correlate a mindset if you have no idea what you are actually talking about or if your arguments are inherently flawed. Well, you can, but you have to expect a response correcting you, right? -Carlos
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-10-17 15:03, Carlos the Great wrote:...I would consider none of them criminal acts, depending on the result ... That is where we get in some deep water. Let's say something bad happens. When it's investigated it turns out the incident was due to five people who did five distinct and individually "innocent" things. And each of the five did not know about the other four at all. And each of the five was only aware of one sixth party. But if each of the five parties all do "innocent" things that only a sixth party has coordinated to produce a "non-innocent" result, is it only the sixth "mastermind" who did the "bad thing"?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Very interesting question, one that I am trying to understand. The opposite is pretty easy. If something illegal is done, what if something legal is done with the result. Examples include buying stolen artifacts. But let us go further. Let us say that you buy a stolen gun and then use the gun to shoot somebody who enters your house and tries to kill you. You would not get into trouble for the shooting but rather for the crime of owning a stolen gun.
Okay, what if you did something innocent and, as the result, somebody down the line takes your innocent action and uses the result to do something non-innocent? Well, this actually does seem to be pretty simple. Let's take an extreme example of you driving a car through a green light. Innocent. A pedestrian wants to cross the street and has a walk sign. Innocent. However, due to some technical glitches, the lights are not synched up and the pedestrian, legally, starts to walk while the car goes through the green light. Who gets charged? Nobody. Let's complicate matters and say that you are doing something "innocent" that you know will be used for something "non-innocent". That is known as conspiracy and you get nailed. If you do something truly innocent, then, in my opinion, you are fine. You have done all you can do, provided your "innocent" act was actually legal. However, I don't really see this as being relevant. Off-hand I cannot think of anything that really falls into this category. I am sure there are examples but without a good one in mind, it seems more of a thought experiment than actual issues. Can you give a good example? I tried to illustrate the differences between actions that could be lumped together (building a call box and using one, backing ones videos up and posting them online) because tht is really the only way I can think, lol, so if you could help me. -Carlos PS- Based on my understanding, yes, only the mastermind is evil, provided there was not a conspiracy (i.e., that the "non-innocent" end was known only to the sixth party). Fertilizer companies were not charged in the Oklahoma bombing were they? What about the company that made (not rented out) the truck? What about the company that made the box cutters used in the 9/11 attacks? The companies in question all had knowledge of another party (the purchasers of their wares) but are unabashedly innocent, meeting you criteria IF I followed correctly (a big question). It is a very hard topic to discuss but I can't see how any of the "innocent" individuals can really be considered guilty of a crime.
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Hi Carlos,
First off, that's a fun quote in your signature. What I'm getting at is the idea that when you teach folks to trespass, you are essentially enabling them. And then who takes responsibility for what they do? J
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Carlos the Great Inner circle California 1234 Posts |
Thanks, Jonathan,
One of my MBA instructors opened every class with a quote. He was teaching how to manage innovation and I thought it was especially applicable to the magic community. It's funny, I was thinking to myself, after my last post, that the idea I was really trying to get to was that each individual has to take personal responsibility. Knowledge itself is not power, it is how the knowledge is used (or not used). We teach thousands of soldiers how to kill and spy and other unsettling things (trespassing comes to mind, hence the example) but expect them to not use their skills when they return. If they do, we do not blame the government (well, some people do), we blame the person (or, to be fair, sometimes we blame PTSD). People need to understand that just because they know HOW to do something does not mean they are obligated to do it. Let's think of a 40-year old person of average intelligence who know hows to light a match, let's say he learned from a police officer friend of an uncle 35 years ago. If that person then lit the local hospital on fire, who do we blame? The uncle? The police officer? The employee at the local 7-11 who gave matches with a pack of cigarettes? The company that made the matches but did not specify "Not to be used to light buildings on fire"? They all contributed in "enabling" the fire to be started. Or do we blame the person who lit the fire? The answer SHOULD be evident, you blame the person who did it. Of course, it would not shock me in the least if the lawyer for the fire-starter tried to blame all of the above on the basis of enabling. TO ME (and just me), a lot of the talk surrounding enabling does nothing but enable people to do the wrong thing and blame somebody else ("My uncle taught me to drive a car, so it is his fault that I went on a grand theft auto spree"; PS- How did you like that efficient use of the word enable, lol). People need to take responsibilities for their own actions. I do what I feel is correct regarding exposure as well as my approach to it: "I never go to them, never read them, and never tell anybody about them. I don't search for them and I have NEVER run across one accidently. I buy all of my effects (that I don't develop myself) and would even if I "saw" a video exposing them. In reality, we can all only control ourselves and it is our obligation that we act in the "right" way. " In the end, we can only control ourselves. I could just troll the internet looking for exposed tricks. I could just lurk in the boards and use others ideas. But I don't. I try to contribute by buying effects and sharing my ideas. And, quite frankly, I feel it does make me superior to those who do otherwise (e.g., look for exposed tricks and/or trade secrets of marketed effects), but that is merely based on my ethics of what a "good" person does. Everybody has their own opinion, which makes me truly believe the exposure issue will never, ever go away, sad as that may be. -Carlos
Cognite tute
|
|||||||||
Banester Special user 669 Posts |
First of all ignorance is no exception for breaking the law. Just because you don't know about the law or laws (spitting on the side walk or whatever) does not mean you are innocent. So can we please stop saying someone is "innocent" because they don't know they are breaking the law. In a court of law you would be at the mercy of the judge/prosecuter and because you were unaware of the law does not mean you will go free or without a fine. As far as some of the other examples (traffic light malfuction etc) the 2 parties involved would not be at fault nor would there be criminal charges against the service provided, BUT there is no the "liability" issue that the service provider would have to deal with.
Now back to the original post. Why do you think these guys post this stuff? Does everyone really think that tons of people go online to find out how "fraud" is done? (btw, I have no idea if that is even on u-tube but I figured that most poeple here have heard of the trick by now) If you ask your audience how many know what the "fraud" trick is what do you think the response will be? Do you guys start the trick off by saying...this next trick is called "Fraud" which was produced by Daniel Garcia and I will be performing it for you tonight. Honestly I hope people are performing like that. So if you are not giving out the tricks name how the heck are people going to search for it on you tube? I am sure with a lot of time people find it on there, but are most people going to do that? When I take my wife and kids to a show (Copperfield, Lance) they are amazed by the big illusions, but they don't ask me how they are (which I am clueless anyways) and we don't go searching on the interent for the answers. People need to stop writing them and stop viewing them. Really what was the purpose of viewing it in the first place? Curious? Could it really be David's secrets revealed? If you respect his secrets and the ethics behind it then don't even bother viewing it.
The art of a magician is to create wonder.
If we live with a sense of wonder, our lives become filled with joy -Doug Henning- |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Conversation with a kid uploading exposure to you tube (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |