|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Shikina Loyal user Los Angeles 260 Posts |
Quote:
Let's say I want to learn Kostya's cull work but can't "get" it from the book and video he's written. What if Kostya delegated someone to produce some teaching materials for the basic move and gave then the rights to sell that derivative work as an add-in to his books? Under that agreement the guy might be able to give "cull courses" where Kostya's books would be the reading material and the add-on vendor would teach the thing in person as a course. That would be ideal Jonathan! But what if he disagreed? What if his manuscript contained no drawings depicting finger positions, enough typos to throw off even the most astute student, and remained elusive for reasons other than someone's native talent? I admit that this is example is a little contrived, but I think it's worthwhile only because it leads us to the grey area where one's right to learn, butt's heads with a creator's right to have sole discretion over his material and techniques. As someone has already pointed out, techniques are not legally protected. I assume that he is correct, though I don't know that for a fact. I simply wonder what the attitude of the Café's members would be when the stymied Kostya student released the "add on" you described to other stymied students without Kostya's permission. Would it make a difference if he gave away his unique "patches" for free and not for sale? Would it make any difference if he verified that the beneficiaries of his patches had legally purchased the source material? |
|||||||||
Shikina Loyal user Los Angeles 260 Posts |
Quote:
The second argument was based on the idea that sometimes "patches" (a great ****ogy) seem merited in the world of magic instruction. THe word that was blocked out with asterisks is defined as follows by Encarta online encyclopedia. Synonyms: similarity, likeness, equivalence, parallel, correspondence, correlation, comparison, resemblance, consonance, relation That it was deemed inappropriate due to a non-root derived sequence that rhymes with "banal" reveals an unfortunate programming script in the Café's architecture which calls for a "patch". How fitting. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-12-02 16:39, Shikina wrote:...what if he disagreed? What if his manuscript contained no drawings depicting finger positions, enough typos to throw off even the most astute student, and remained elusive for reasons other than someone's native talent? I admit that this is example is a little contrived, but I think it's worthwhile only because it leads us to the grey area where one's right to learn, butt's heads with a creator's right to have sole discretion over his material and techniques.... You ask "what if they say NO?" How often is that? Unless they really want something kept quiet and only published to establish the material for academic reasons, it is highly unlikely they would refuse an offer which brings them more money and them good publicity. I can tell you a little from experience about this. Consider the Vernon coin pass in Bobo's Modern Magic. It sat quietly till David Roth taught the thing. Or consider the Ramsay material. His student Andrew Galloway decided to write a few books and that was pretty much it for most of Ramsay's ideas till the current generation of hacks ran in and propagated some ideas out of context. Or to get personal for a moment, consider most of my old coin stuff. The folks in NYC watched it as it evolved from 75-81. And though they understood it they kept it quiet. Aside from a few visitors and perhaps one guy who made a mistake during a session... it stayed secret for over twenty years. On the other side of this is we know who is working on what and can ASK the artist about their work. Most of the time help is forthcoming. For example, I can ask Sol Stone to walk me through his published tricks or Wesley James to help me through his published material. Pretty much a nice respectful community. What about third party issues? For example, one day Geoff Latta did something using a card change on a tabled deck. I liked it and asked about the change. He pointed me to the source, Marlo's Tabled Palm book and it was up to me get the book. This was also true for Galloway's books on Ramsay's magic. AFAIK this sort of social arrangement can work if we choose to be honorable and respect the wishes of our fellow artists.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
C. Loubard Special user 615 Posts |
Quote:
Exposure on the Café is pretty well contained and minimized. I don't feel that is true. look at the different areas of the forum. Everyone is reviewing videos and books, giving their opinion of what material is the best and worth getting... the examples go on. One doesn't even have to be a member to browse this forum. everyone here is too hypocritical about exposure, when, in fact, they themselves are guilty of it, by recommending books, videos, etc. This forum posts links to online stores where anyone can buy secrets, magician or not. Last I checked, as long as you have the money, you get the secret, no screening process or contract signing. the whining around here about exposure is pathetic. C. Loubard |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-12-02 17:21, C. Loubard wrote: I feel those three points deserve separate attention 1) Not sure that citing effects and sources is the same as exposure. 2) Agreed and I would like to see that stopped. Just as adults we agree not to tell other people's children that there is no Santa, we as magicians have a real issue with how we make items available in a public market. 3) And yes, as long as we support a public market where a muggle's dollar buys our secrets it is somewhat hypocritical to whine about exposure. ;)
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
fogelka New user 45 Posts |
Quote:
For example, one day Geoff Latta did something using a card change on a tabled deck. I liked it and asked about the change. He pointed me to the source, Marlo's Tabled Palm book and it was up to me get the book. This little vignette is lovely, but unfortunately it rarely occurs this way, in my experience. Maybe part of the problem is that the ones who oblige requests for explanations derive a short-lived sense of importance by virtue of their knowlege. Maybe they don't see that they are giving away someone's IP, just as if they were file-sharing. Maybe, like with most file-sharers, they feel entitled to the IP, as if they have been granted a license for unlimited distribution. In any case, the problem will remain as long as we have a whole parallel career path in magic. Now, it seems that about any working magician must also explain his magic, via videos or by marketing tricks. It's really not about secrets any more, I'm afraid. It's about getting as much cash as possible while the iron is hot. I can't blame them, but this paradigm is only going to perpetuate the "add-on" syndrome. That's because in a magic "market", we're dealing in magic the same way industry deals with its IP. You make a slight change to a solid patent, and viola! You've got your very own, new and improved widget. |
|||||||||
CJRichard Special user Massachusetts 542 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-12-02 16:26, Jonathan Townsend wrote: That would work fine for all involved, but that involves the original secret holder, just like the other illustration with licensing iPod-related merchandise. That's not how the original question was worded,though. The original premise was that the third party produces, and sells, teaching materials without the consent of the original producer because potential buyers have some "consumer right" to that information. Would you like me to produce a video teaching your handling of an effect because I felt you didn't teach it well enough yourself? And can I claim that my video is ethical because consumers have a "right" to see me try to teach your effect? That, I think, is the question.
"You know some of you are laughin', but there's people here tryin' to learn. . ." -Pop Haydn
"I know of no other art that proclaims itself 'easy to do.'" -Master Payne Ezekiel the Green |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-12-02 17:38, fogelka wrote:...the problem will remain as long as we have a whole parallel career path in magic. Now, it seems that about any working magician must also explain his magic, via videos or by marketing tricks. It's really not about secrets any more, I'm afraid. It's about getting as much cash as possible while the iron is hot. IMHO if a new product offers the IP of an existing product... there is an issue of permissions. Perhaps these notions may be workable, that of "delegation to teach" and "delegation of the original to offer a new product" IE if you want the new version you need to have the original in hand.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-12-02 14:07, Jonathan Townsend wrote: I see a minor effort to stop exposure, but it comes to money. Magic shops are only different in the physical commitment to go to one. You can spend your money for magic secrets and there is no test I have ever witnessed. Guys it comes to money.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Yep - I once went into a magic shop (which will go nameless) and asked for a particular viking product - they said they didn't carry Viking because Viking asks that anyone carrying their product will not carry rip-offs of their products - the owner stated that since his customers couldn't afford Viking prices, he felt obligated to serve his clients by getting a range of the same type of effects....
Money money money - mmmmoooney (sung to the tune from the Apprentice) And no, I didn't buy the knock-off.
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Shikina Loyal user Los Angeles 260 Posts |
Quote:
Would you like me to produce a video teaching your handling of an effect because I felt you didn't teach it well enough yourself? And can I claim that my video is ethical because consumers have a "right" to see me try to teach your effect? I wish that you would take a few more minutes to consider the caveats that I have tried to establish in the wording of my question. The critical difference between the example as defined by you, versus the one I have tried to construct, is that in your example, a third party is guiding someone all the way through the learning of another's effect. Thus, 3rd party is teaching consumer how to do 1st party's magic. The spectator thus never needs to purchase the magician's products, because he can learn everything he needs from the 3rd party. The very basis of my question, and I have stressed this over and over, is that the "patch" that I propsed as being ethical, would focus solely on a critical moment or two of the effect in question. Someone who had not bought the original piece of magic would be left with a move or sequence taken totally out of context. They would be able to perform the 1st party magicians effects using only the "Patch". I keep trying to construct these (arguably contrived and/or vague) examples but the only question which truly matters is, what is the right of a consumer in the world of magic instruction? It seems to me that some here consider the growing business of dvd and internet marketing as an abberration on the age old custom of secrecy and exculsion that formed the basis of magic up until the 20th century. Others (of which I consider myself a part) see the positives of marketing magic as a full-fledged 21st century hobby/profession. I do not call for the wanton disregard of cummunity standards, and or copyright ethics/legality. I argue only that just as a proliferation of choice (vis-a-vis product offerings) is generally thought to benefit the consumer in all other fields of commerce, so should it be in magic. This argument is informed by my identity as a consumer of magic related products. I buy not the secret, but the technique. And I believe that once someone purports to sell me the technique, I have a right to do all in my power to learn it, and if that means turning to a third party who can make the SPECIFIC technique more attainable than the original author could, than so be it. I would like to see both profit from their work, and I think the consumer in the magic world will be the victor. |
|||||||||
CJRichard Special user Massachusetts 542 Posts |
I do understand your caveats. I understand that you are just talking about teaching certain tricky parts and that the consumer would still need to have the original in order to learn the whole thing. You read more into my simplification than was there.
I was pointing out the difference between your major premise and Jonathan's question regarding Kostya granting a third party permission to produce a teaching aid. The difference is that your question did not involve the granting of that permission.
"You know some of you are laughin', but there's people here tryin' to learn. . ." -Pop Haydn
"I know of no other art that proclaims itself 'easy to do.'" -Master Payne Ezekiel the Green |
|||||||||
Suppo Regular user Indianapolis 101 Posts |
In the end, none of this is approaching criminal. This is all civil and whether the law would side on one or the other is subjective, mostly up to a jury.
I once sat on a jury in which the plaintiff clearly had no real position. Unfortunately, his son was the attorney and suing his neighbors for right of way was cheaper than building a road and bridge. The outcome was correct, but how the facts came out really made it hard to see reality. Just a for instance. Most real business decisions regarding liability are made because of potential cost. If a business cannot afford the cost of potential litigation, they act ethically and morally. If they can afford it, and the profits to be derived are greater than the costs (including litigation), they wont. That is a very big, broad statement and there are exceptions. As a whole, however, this statement holds true more often than not. Cherry pick it but history speaks for itself. As far as I know, anyone can sue anyone given they have an offense and can estimate damanges. Before anyone decides to go into the grey area, you should make a reasonable business decision. Juries will award unusual amounts for unusual reasons. Afterall, McDonalds lost not due to the merits, but due to arrogance by their attorneys. Publish a derivative book on someone else's work? If it was that bad, go ahead, your book will probably sell about as well as the poorly written first book. Tarbell's series is still around because there is no real reason to improve its content. Famous magicians tend to have a following. Before you pick on Harry Lorayne and decide his book needs improvement, you might want to consider whether he has an attorney friend who will sue you just to help his buddy. When the case gets to the courtroom you probably wont even recognize yourself based on the representations. Again, there is that jury who can be pretty creative themselves. By the way, exposure is only a fraction as bad as people make it out to be. Most places around the country rarely, if ever, even see a magician. It is definitely not something people waste considerable time and effort to investigate just to know the hows and whys. It does happen over the internet and exists, it will always happen. Carry on, preach ethics, scorn those who do it, but don't waste away not sharing simply because someone without morals and ethics does it. If you do, the bad guy won. So, in summary: Should a consumer republish with clarifications? It is purely a moral issue. At least until the originator decides he has standing and the damages done are worth the cost of the effort to sue. Lets all smile, agree not to harm innocents and sing Kum Bah Ya at the campfire . |
|||||||||
Suppo Regular user Indianapolis 101 Posts |
[/quote]
Rather I wish to present a scenario wherein one creates an offering that is dependant upon another pre-existing product, but is not identical to it. [/quote] Sorry, not great at the board's nuances yet. Re-reading this, at that point it is going to be hard to win ethically or legally. Imagine telling your local Ring your work was dependant upon someone else's but was without permission or compensation. Imagine doing this same thing in a courtroom to a bunch of people who understand you have stated that without the one, there would not be the other. |
|||||||||
Tony James Inner circle Cheshire UK 1398 Posts |
This thread becomes broader as it progresses.
Going back a bit ( and much of it is over my head legally) if one followed these thoughts to their logical conclusion, most magic lectures would be driven out of town. So many ride on making the difficult simpler and improving existing dealer effects by adding and subtracting. Some give credit, some don't. And as for secrets - in all my years of going to magic conventions the only question anyone has ever asked me is precisely the same as the only question dealers have asked me: 'How do you want to pay?'
Tony James
Still A Child At Heart |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-12-06 15:43, Tony James wrote:... How nice of those who give away other people's secrets to at least speak the names of those whose estates they erode and whose wallets they empty. Yes, how do you want to pay? Trust makes a good credit card. How's your trustworthness these days?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Consumer rights in modern magic (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |