BTW selfish does not mean "thinking of oneself ONLY and without regard to others" but instead denotes "thinking FOR oneself and acting according to ones values".

Now go be selfish and act according to your values. Words mean so little around here. Actions and results offer a much clearer message about character.

This thread makes for some interesting reading... At the end of the Day I am glad my DVD's are originals, and I haven't sold them. I keep my books, and rarely purge my junk drawer.

Just my thoughts but obviously there are those who think otherwise...

I know what is what is laughingly refered to as "ethical" for me.

My stuff is original packaging. I don't buy lots of it so to me it is not a huge deal.

It seems like the last 2 posts here are dealing with something other than what has been discussed in this thread. That is "pirating of original material". This thread is not pirating. I do not believe that anyone here condones pirating material and using it, or selling it at a profit.

This thread is about acquiring knowledge from legally purchased material and using the knowledge from that material. Then selling that same material (usually at a loss) and using the knowledge gained from said material.

I still believe that any knowledge gained from study is yours and no one can take it from you. I believe that knowledge can and should be used as long as it was obtained legally.

The key words here is "I believe". The reason I became involved in this thread is just that....what I believe. I do not feel that anyone has the right to tell me what I believe is wrong as long as I am not breaking any laws. Yet that is what some have tried to do.

I would be curious as to what you believe about knowledge gained through reading books or viewing videos from a library.

I learned shooting discipline from books over the years and have since given away or sold many of them. Yet I continue to use that knowledge gained and see nothing wrong in doing so. As a matter of fact I have passed on that knowledge to others at no cost through courses taught at the "Y" and Boy Scouts. Is that a bad thing? Yes I gave away secrets of shooting such as how to slow down your pulse rate and lessen wobble, how to deal with tension in a competitive match, proper sight picture, etc. Many of these secrets were just that secrets that were written in a book that was sold in order to make a profit for the individual, but many of these books could be obtained in a library and while not as easily learaned just from reading they could be learned through study and practice which I gave freely after learning. If in your eyes I am unethical then so be it.

The more I discuss this topic the more I realize that in the scheme of things it does not really matter much to the billions of people in this world who have much bigger problems.

Aces, imho it's a little simpler than that.

If someone is going to use a trick, it seems only just that they own a copy of a source of that trick.

This is not about KNOWLEGE but about performing rights.

And as stated earlier our field is almost unique in its treatment of ideas-knowlege as property AKA secrets.

Jonathan,

I feel that it is difficult to seperate the two, knowledge and the right to perform (for me anyway). I am sure opinions vary. I guess that is where the problem lies.

If you want to perform a play, you need both the script and performing rights.
Using established theatrical tradition and legal precident...
If you want to perform a trick, all you need (morally) is the book or sold item.
What's so difficult?

If you want to perform a butchered version of a Neil Simon play... well aside from just getting rights these days the holders are actually forbidding the alteration of their works even down to the genders etc of the characters... so get ready for a real battle over preserving and justifying derivitive works in magic.

Jonathan,

The problem is that I did initially purchase the product. Having purchased the product I gained the knowledge in how to perform the effect. I think that we can agree that magic is mostly knowledge. Well from purchasing that effect I gained that knowledge. I cannot undo what I learned. I now have the capability to perform it. I feel that having purchased the effect legally, which was mostly knowledge which I learned. That is why I purchased it in the first place to learn it in order to perform it. I feel that after learning it after purchasinig it I gained the knowledge. Knowledge is what they sold me. I have not seen anywhere on any of my purchases anything to the effect that I must have in my posession the effefct in order to perform it. They sold me the knowledge not the rights to perform it.

I realize I cannot produce copies of this effect and sell them, but I can darn well perform it after selling the original because I have the knowledge to do so and that is what I paid for, the knowledge.

AS I said this could go on forever.

I agree aces, the framework is not settled in magic per-se.

However the framework is settled nicely in theater and magic is a subset of theater so we can appeal to the larger case and go from there.

Is it really that much of hardship to ask permission from the inventor or just to purhcase a copy of some work which contains the item you wish to perform?

Jonathan,

As I said this could go on forever.

To answer your question which was: Is it really that much of hardship to ask permission from the inventor or just to purhcase a copy of some work which contains the item you wish to perform?


I already purchased it. It is just that I do not have it any more.

Actually when reading your last post I realize that most if not all the effects that I perform I do have a book, DVD or tape that explains the real workings of my effects. Be it the aforementioned McDonalds Aces, Shell Game, etc. When it is all said and done there is really not a lot of NEW in magic, just varations.

Is it that you have disposed of the book or manuscript by accident or have you given the work to another - as in transferred rights?

For example, nothing unethical about loaning books to others for EXTENDED periods of time. Here, keep this for me. It does put the borrower at an ethical crossroads should they wish to start using the material but those who are trustworthy will go and buy what they need out of simple self respect.

And yes you can find the basis of Mac Aces in Hofzinser's book available in Dover Paperback. License to go forth with your own ace assembly using the ideas? Sure is. License to use Dingle's or Garcia's work on that item? IMHO no.

Interesting that Aces fights so hard for the rights of people to do anything they wish, which is not prevented by law. Yet at the same time alludes that I do not have the freedom of speech which allows me to direct people between right and wrong. I think this may be because this debate is more about Aces being right, and less about what actually is "right".

Oh, and one more thing "Getting to know the method without buying". Hmmm, I must be reading that wrong.

Jack, I think we are going to seee this argument go around as a "Dead heat" on a merry go round.

There are some of us who choose to own the rights and sources to that which we perform, others who do not and will never be disuaded from doing so.

I guess it all boils down to the man in the mirror...

Oh, but I could not possibly agree with you more. The ones who have made the decision to take unjustly are not my concern, nor the reason I am here. My only desire is to make a fair case for the undecideds. To present a sound reasoning to those who want to do what is right, but have not yet fully considered the ramifications of their actions.

Drew an admirable goal. A frustrating one but admirable. Some problems that you will have though. First off doing the right thing is its own reward. It needs no reasoning, it just is. Second off the foundation for doing right and wrong is laid far earlier than any contact with you. Nobody is undecided on doing right or wrong, only misinformed.

The last part about considering the ramifications of actions, yes that is the part to concentrate on. To get someone looking to justify bad behavior past the point of it and help them make the right choice. THAT again is an admirable goal.

Jack,

I would like to ask you a question. Did you get the rights to use the picture of the belt buckle depicting 5 aces on your Web site? That is a picture of the belt buckle in the Left Hand corner isn't it? Of course I know you still have it as I have seen you wearing it in pictures. You still have it don't you? And you do have the right to copy and use it don't you? I don't know why I am even asking of course you do.

Jonathan,

Actually I think your arguement is wearing thin about the theatre and plays etc. A play is a copywrited item and in of it self is an entity. While learning how to perform a magic effect and I will again allude to the shell game is a skill which one learns. This skill can stand alone where lines from a play cannot and must be performed in its entirety to have any meaning. While the wording that magic is a subset of theatre sounds very impressive it means virtually nothing. The rules for one does not apply to the other. In fact what rules (for magic)?. And of course acting is a skill learned but I am sure that an actor after going to acting school does not necessairly have to save all of his acting books in order to act , whether it be to portray sorrow, happpiness, envy , greed or whatever. He paid his dues and learned his trade and now performs using those learned skills.

Please tell me what is being taken unjustly. The effect was bought and paid for. A book or DVD was purchased and the individual read or watched and learned how to manipulate the shells and purchased a nice set of shells...ahhh but he now sold the instructions for the shell game as he no longer needed them because he became profecient through dilegent practice. Does he not have the right to perform what he learned and practiced because the manuscript or DVD has been sold to another individual? If you think so please tell me WHY? What did he do wrong? What was unethical?

However if said individual copied and sold those copies I agree he has not right to do so. But that is pirating and that is not what this thread is about.

If you want to perform a scene from someone's play you need performing rights. If you want to perform Teller's Shadow's trick, same thing. And if you want to use any of my work... yes you need permission. Either via the work in published form or my direct permission. Anything less seems a a breach of trust or even theft of services.

If you want to drive a car you probably will need a driver's license, insurance and ... a car.

IF you want to make use of an artist's work you simply need their permission.

If you want to know how to do something you can likely find it in a book.

But if you want to perform surgery on a patient... you probably need that medical license.

If you want some respect... perhaps it's time to be respectful.

It's a photograph of an item that I own. See, I own it. It is legally in my possession. I didn't take a photograph then sell it to someone else. I took a photograph of something that my wife purchased, then gave to me as a gift. I didn't take a picture of someone else's item. I didn't take someone else's picture. My picture of my thing.

I thought you were done? Were you not so proud of your work that you couldn't resist sad weak non contextual points like this? I already told you, you've won. You are absolutely correct. I can not dispute your right to be any kind of person you want to be. Nothing I say can force you to be something you are unwilling to be. This thread, and myself are a complete waste of your very valuable time.