Hi Ken -

Well in "Corporate America" a trade secret is generally considered to be among other things "a practice or process or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable". (Wikipedia had a great definition so I am borrowing it for this instance).

Just wondering if most magicians consider exposing magic (in general) a kin to revealing a trade secret. I guess I do in a way. Curious if others do as well.

It depends on whether you're asking a legal question or an ethical question.

"Trade secret" is a legal term, and technically, no, "trade secret" would not apply to most magic secrets -- not in a legal sense. It's an ethical line, not a legal line, that is at issue.

In order for it to be a trade secret, there has to be an owner. "Magicians" is not an owner --- there has to be a magician, production company, etc. that owns that secret and keeps it secret among the magician/company and his/her/their employees. For some magic this would apply -- David Copperfield's illusions, for example, would be trade secrets because his staff is required to keep it a secret.

Also, in order for something to be legally considered a "trade secret", there have to be reasonable efforts to keep it secret, and the secret can't be readily available.

Nearly all magic secrets are available in published books, magic tricks, etc. Not only are these secrets not protected -- they're made publically available.

You don't need to belong to any company, club, or society to buy these books and items. Anyone can order them online, walk into a magic store -- or regular bookstore or library -- and get access to these secrets. They're marketed, not protected. And the secrets themselves are not protected by copyright. (The writers of the books that contain these secrets usually did not even invent the sleights, techniques, etc.)

Moreover, a large portion of the people who make use of these secrets do so not as a trade -- they do it as a hobby. You can't really define this group of people as a "trade".

The fact that people usually have to pay for these secrets has no legal weight. They are publicly available. And no one has to sign a document promising not to reveal the essence of the contents, anymore than anyone has to sign a document saying they won't reveal the ending of Harry Potter.

So, no, they're not "trade secrets." The issue is an ethical one, not a legal one, and "trade secret" is a legal term that does not apply.

Good point Magic Barry. You're right - it doesn't apply in a general sense only in a specific sense - like in your example.

Democracy assumes we are all equals. We aren’t. Some have a much better show than others-many here have never even performed in public. We like to assume it takes a modicum of working intelligence to be a magician, but, as proven over and over again, it is not so. We like to assume others are honest - but many are rarely honest. You wonder why so few big names post here much? Read this thread. Read the raw anger from the frustration of not being successful, or happy with oneself, being redirected via “mob” mentality so one can feel better about himself. Read the remarks of those that talk before they read or even think -at least a few have the decency to apologize later. See how some seem to be constantly stirring up emotions, and how they will say anything to get people riled up. It does not need to have any factual base, nor does it have to jive with what they said yesterday. To them, this is all a big show, made just for them, by them. Why do so many of us their puppets? Is it because we need to release our anger on someone, and these manipulators allow us to do that?

There have been a lot of juvenile remarks on this thread by people who talk before thinking. Isn’t that unethical? There are people who are chiming in who have no reason to chime in but for a gut emotional feeling. Isn’t that unethical? Others are known rabble rousers who seem to enjoy a fight and kick a guy when he is down. Isn’t that unethical? I find it amusing when these people talk about ethics! It does seem to prove an old adage - Those that cry the loudest are the guiltiest. Someone said that to a bunch a religious fanatics who wanted to stone somebody . . . now who was that?

There is a guy in Philly who never heard of Paul. Well that says a lot about him, not about Paul. Another ignorant of Paul thinks his performance is poor. Not that I have seen this other guy’s performance, but I know the lay people love Paul. Once again, the remark says more about yourself. Both of them would benefit from a better knowledge of him.

There is a good reason why the people who say it is “unethical” are not coming up with an argument on why it is unethical- other than it is against SAM & IBM's rules (doubtful since they are not enforced) or it in some way "sullies" the art. Because their IS NO REASON -other than to gripe.

Ethics are NOT universal. OBVIOUSLY, as shown on this thread, there is a wide discrepancy on what people claim is ethical. Saying "good" and "bad", "ethical" and "unethical" ALWAYS comes from a point of view (or someone's "nether regions") and there are many points of view. If one is going to sound intelligent about this, one must disclose what point of view they are coming from - or their "opinion" is just "noise" - most of this is just that, noise. Of course, once one stakes out a position, then that person can be judged on how well they hold their position. If one cannot understand this basis of ethics, perhaps one should withhold one’s opinion on ethics and talk "legal or illegal". For some reason, lack of understanding of a subject doesn’t stop many here. Obviously our courts, with their very protective copy write laws, find it legal.

I imagine many of the people here should take a great moralist's position - he who has not sinned, throw the first stone.

1) If IBM or SAM ACTUALLY had a problem with this, they could do something about it. They haven't - for a reason. Can one find a national level magician who has NOT revealed how to do at least one magic trick? Doubtful. We tell kids not to reveal a trick because if they do, the trick is no longer "magic" for the audience. THIS IS THE REAL REASON. Truthfully, as a rule people don't remember the “revelations”, so it really doesn't make much negative impact. The few times it does, (in my opinion) the negative is greatly outweighed by the interest it brings to the art. Still, IBM & SAM are purposely vague on this so they can hold multiple positions, depending on the situation. Still, if one is not a member of IBM or SAM, how can one ethically hold them to IBM or SAM's doctrines of revelation???? If they are a member, how can you judge them by their organizational standards if their organization is silent on the particular issue? Perhaps through ignorance???

So why do we not "condemn" the big names that reveal magic? The list is HUGE. Because it is easy to pick on the small guy. We can feel validated, and we can feel superior to someone else. Sort of like those Pharisees. Period. If there really was any other reason, they would take action other than flapping their jaws to be seen as “superior”. Those few that may have actually have called or wrote SAM or IBM will find out they don’t care enough to enforce those “rules” (assuming Paul really broke them - which is a stretch). I know, I have contacted both in the past, and they really don’t care. Rules that are not enforced are not rules, but just marks on a paper. (BTW Rules and ethics are not the same). In fact it was a bunch of these “rule breakers” (whom I am sure England found most unethical) that founded the USA - so perhaps it is genetic?

If one thinks something is unethical, don't do it - - but don't blindly criticize others who do not hold the "religious MOB" view that one has spent probably less than 5 minutes thinking about. Ethics are PERSONAL and meant to reighn in oneself, not to try to control others. That is what laws are for. Hlding others to one's personal ethics just exposes one’s own inadequacy and insecurity and ultimate nature. It is arguable that there is nothing anyone can do that will not be found as “unethical” by someone and some system.

As for exposure, those who claim to be "Old School" - remember, old school is just that. Old, and less developed, and meant for the past. There is no way "Old School" thinking is equipped to deal with modern issues. (Yes, the world is not flat!) It is an excuse not to think but blindly follow.


2) Exposure "sullies" the art. Yes, I believe, if explained right after a trick is done, it does take away some of the “magic”. This is why we tell kids not to expose it. Magic was quickly dying for the public but now it is booming. Why? We are have more exposure than ever before, so it doesn't appear to be hurting the art. Could be helping it? I have not seen any reason supporting the argument that exposure in general (as on YouTube) hurts the art more than it helps it, but I have personally experienced a lot showing it HELPS the art. It is the reason magic is advancing so much faster than when the "Dinosaurs" ruled. We all have benefited from exposure. More and more new tricks are released every day, so over all, it doesn’t seem to be hurting sales - the salesmen have come up with better ways to sell their products.

Someone mentioned microsoft. Microsoft actually owns the software, pirating is stealing. No one owns “cut and restored rope” . Still, the business model of Microsoft is failing because they have refused to adapt. Virtual Computing, Cloud Technology, this is the future: http://www.G.ho.st/ If I had shares in Microsoft, I would sell - they have peaked.

We are now in the information age, the age of the internet, and things are different whether we like it or not. Adapt or die with the dinosaurs. YouTube is very new, but here to stay. As much as it makes one feel good to jump up and down and yell "exposure", it is going to happen, and is continue to happen on a massive scale. Some magician's seem to hold on to an archaic rule that has NEVER been enforced to any meaningful degree. They are NOT dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were very successful in their day. This rule has NEVER been successful except for kids, and those that have not grown out of it. Now it is happening on a massive scale, it won't stop, so why not deal with it in a meaningful way? The “worst” according to some - Exposure for exposures sake is everywhere and repeating the religious mantra of "No Exposure" has been incredibly UNsuccessful - for a reason. Wake up and look around. Get your head out of the past/sand.

Is it unethical? WHY????? I can expose how a painter paints, and yet painters do not get up in arms. . . Is your magic so weak that this will hurt it? People know how Shakespeare's plays end, but throng to see them time and time again.

Why does one have a right to "know" these “secrets”? (Okay, we call them “secrets” but only a fool thinks they are secrets now.) How does one get this right?

I understand if some are exposing something that is new, and some magician is making his living off the idea is not healthy for the craft, but something as old as “cut and restore ropes”? Get real! Bad magic is about secrets. Good magic is about entertainment. Many of Copperfield's secrets are easy to find on the net, but he seems to be doing okay. Sure, a few will find them, but most of those are fans of good magic and will see him again.

I know a lot of magic tricks, but that does not mean I don't enjoy them when I see them done well. I bet you are the same way. Even so, the FACT is people generally don't remember this stuff UNLESS they are interested in magic. People are generally not staying up nights trying to figure out how something is done. Most people just don't care enough to even look it up on YouTube. Shouldn't we be fostering those that do show enough interest?

How many readers have watched an "exposure" video? All of us? Definitely most of us. I guess we are all guilty too, by these intellectually unsupported, gut-reaction standards. How did the original author find these videos of Paul's . . . was he searching for free magic, or was he searching to watch a performance that he could use himself? I don't know. I know I watch them from time to time to get ideas (big surprise -I bet you do too- if you are honest enough to admit it. Why else look at another magician’s material?) I also know I spend a small fortune on magic. I also expose magic in my own magic club (horror upon horror children finding out how to do age old tricks w/o paying me money!- - surely I will burn!...) I don't have much on video yet . . but I will. Perhaps some are not doing enough magic and have time to respond to this. I don’t/won’t. This should be it for this month.

So, if I don't agree with you Capt Kid I am somehow ignorant, unethical and not working enough??? Sorry if my believe that there are some things that are right and wrong is wrong to you. How hypocritical is that? But, I doubt if we could ever agree on this thread, so go ahead and rant it's your turn.

Teaching kids??? Nice one. This is not about teaching at all. Teaching can be done through a much more secure process without much effort. These videos were left to be viewed by one and all.

No difference between Eric Paul on YouTube and the Masked Magician on TV.

Hey CaptinKid,

You said
"Read the raw anger from the frustration of not being successful, or happy with oneself, being redirected via “mob” mentality so one can feel better about himself. Read the remarks of those that talk before they read or even think -at least a few have the decency to apologize later. See how some seem to be constantly stirring up emotions, and how they will say anything to get people riled up. It does not need to have any factual base, nor does it have to jive with what they said yesterday. To them, this is all a big show, made just for them, by them. Why do so many of us their puppets? Is it because we need to release our anger on someone, and these manipulators allow us to do that?

I find it amusing when these people talk about ethics! It does seem to prove an old adage - Those that cry the loudest are the guiltiest. Someone said that to a bunch a religious fanatics who wanted to stone somebody . . . now who was that?"


Why would you bring this thread back after 3 weeks of it being quite. For someone who doesn't like to RANT or stir up emotions?
Let it go.

Dean Schindler & President Kalver,

First, I am a magician of 20 years professional experience, but I am not a member of S.A.M. While I do see S.A.M. as a good organization, it is not for me. It is my opinion that S.A.M. is outdated, especially the “Oath”. Still, it is your organization, and how you run it is up to you. I do have a problem with your “President-Elect” being judge and jury over NONMEMBERS of S.A.M. - especially over something he does not fully understand - and all while telling people he is “President-Elect of SAM”.

I certainly don’t expect you to answer this letter. The inner workings of S.A.M. are not my business. I’m not even a member. I do think that the remarks and publicly published thoughts of your President-Elect, Mike Miller should come to your attention. I also am issuing a challenge to make S.A.M. more relevant to the pro magic practitioner, and the hoard of kids learning magic, but not joining your organization.

Here is a post of mine in the http://themagiccafe.com, responding to Mike Miller.


Mike, since you have been a member for a while, I assume you are whom you say you are. If not, I apologize to the real President elect of S.A.M.

Why did I start it back up? Well I was looking for some “instant author” material, and ran across this big thread of libel. There were some well thought posts, and a lot of posts by people who seem to pull their “opinion” out of the air -like yourself. I didn’t bother to look at the date, it was obviously fresh. After reviewing your statements, I do see why YOU want it hushed up. Anyway, while this thread SHOULD have been erased, it wasn’t. It was a specific attack. My comments are to the mob that attacked, including you Mike. Why do you think these posts are time sensitive?????


First, the length of my posts show this is important to me. Note these are not the quick, un-thought out posts like many on this thread. I do wish to stir people up, but not for the sake of stirring people up as some on this thread do regularly. I did not start this discussion, but I am making sure that anyone who reads it at least thinks about their position-hopefully.

I am neither a member of SAM or IBM because they are pretty irrelevant to being a pro magician. I WISH THIS WASN’T SO, and maybe in the future it will change. Outside of a nice magazine, and occasional guest lecturers, why be a member if you are a pro magician?a
1) It could possibly be good advertising, and if I market to magicians, it could help.
2) it is fun to talk magic.

Why not be a member?

1) It is not designed for pros. Pro magicians are BUSINESS MEN, these two clubs DO NOT caterer to businessmen - just the opposite (I am speaking especially on the local level).

2) While it is fun to talk magic, other magicians copy, intentionally and unintentionally. While I don’t want someone locally to copy me, or even use the same props, and I don’t want to copy someone else unintentionally or intentionally, and then become part of the “cookie cutter magician brigade” that these clubs breed if not watched carefully. Thus I follow my own advice and limit my exposure.

3) If I do copy someone in some way, I want it to be a successful magician. Copying unsuccessful magicians can be dangerous to the business. To advance in magic, one should surround themselves with successful magicians. While there are some great guys attending these meetings, most have found success in other areas, not performing magic. Not that they could or couldn’t, just they didn’t. Currently to me, it seems IBM and SAM are far more social clubs for middle age and older men who find magic fun (and their kids) than “Trade Organizations” like they claim. Now I fall into middle age (or possibly old), but for me, magic is how I feed my family.


As “President-Elect” of S.A.M., it is important that the constituents understand your thought, or lack thereof. Hopefully other leaders and lay members will not make the same errors. Each quote is from your posts on this thread, and carefully not taken out of context (something others seem to have a problem doing). It flushes out why I think you are part of the “Tree-House Club”. It also provides a context where you can actually do your job and lead on real issues and make SAM more vibrant and in-touch with modern magic. Last I checked (and it has been a couple years) SAM was dying. We have tens of thousands of new kids that are practicing magic every year thanks to online dealers and downloads. It should be a joy that there is so much new appreciation of the craft; IBM & SAM SHOULD be flourishing - why aren’t they? Is it because many magicians DON’T want others in the flock? It is how we feel superior because we know the ”secrets”? Does it also force us to to actually be a better entertainers and technicians- or to be passed by?

The young have passed by many of us, as it should be. Instead of being “good parents” we are often selfish, grouchy old men who kick at anyone else who is being successful doing something differently than we did. It is a challenge I offer for SAM to become more relevant to the tide of young that are ignoring SAM.




President Elect, if you wish to actually police YOUR members, I guess that is your right (not sure what a “President Elect” of S.A.M duties are). YOUR MEMBERS choose to be members and thus accept SAM’s “ethics”. (Okay, after actually reading the “Oath” I bet at least 30% of the membership, and probably more like 90%, violate it. Let’s get real, it is hard not to violate it today.) Policing your own is honorable, and generally not done. Trying to police others is self-righteous and foolish. You know where you sit.

IMO, SAM and IBM have a good function: helping young people appreciate magic, and a place where non-practicing "magicians” can gather and enjoy each other’s company. Practicing magicians rarely attend the monthly meeting for several reasons. Often they are one a night that we work. That alone shows they are not aimed at pros. Unfortunately, they are also a hot bed of copying routines and bad-mouthing the successful. While there are some very good people in these organizations, both have done a fabulous job of being pretty insignificant when it comes to disciplining it’s members. Here, the “President-Elect” is trying to discipline someone who IS NOT a member . . . all while his own “garden” is in incredible disarray. Is this ethical behavior? I hope lots of SAM and IBM members read this and give it some thought.


You claimed to be the President Elect of SAM, then you say these views are personal? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you are a private citizen or President Elect of SAM. Most organizations would be be horrified if their elected leader spouted off about a controversial subject in a public forum after claiming a high position in their organization. How professional is SAM? Not very, IF this is an example. I suggest you get permission to post under an anonymous name, then you can give your personal opinion w/o dragging SAM into it, like you have here. Remember, EVERYTHING you do reflects on SAM - by your choice.

Okay, are you saying YouTube bad, books good? So some how learning in a new form is bad, but doing so in the age old method is good? If it is in a book, it is not exposure???? As I age, I try hard to keep up with technology, and not just the use of it, but how it changes the world, and the ethics of it. It seems you have not, at least on this subject.


So this means a kid can have any secret he wants, as long as he can pay for it? So research means paid for??? Geez, and you are President Elect of SAM? Well old school is not equipped for “new School” .


Yes, I guess if you pay someone it is “research” and okay. Hmmmm, I don’t think you thought out this position well. Is this how you plan to lead SAM?


Okay, with this statement you open yourself, and more important, SAM to a lawsuit. You should be sued for talking so freely about something you don’t understand IN A PUBLIC FORUM. . . Things look bad for the future of SAM with this action at the head.


Nice to see, as President Elect of SAM, you do your homework before you make statements.

I did my homework. Yes, in Youtube you can make a video private. You need to hand input the email addresses of those you wish to share it with. The person who is granted access must view it logged in under the email address you gave them and not another. There is a limit on the amount of people you can share it with. It use to be 25, and now it seems like they don’t publish the limit, just say “select friends”, and inform you there is a limit. This is obviously NOT designed as you infer. It is meant to be used among friends. Still, earlier you claimed YouTube was a no-no . . . Well, at least you are thinking a little bit before you write in a public forum as “President-Elect of SAM”.


Duhhh? -----Then why are you making pronouncements? Electronic media has been around a long time, where has IBM and SAM been? I’ll tell you. Exposure is impossible to define w/o the strictest measures. Those would stop nearly ALL material published and sold to anyone with cash in hand. Only card carrying members of SAM could buy them. Poor magicians who expose magic would be censored. Magic development would come to a stand still since it would be impossible to make money developing magic. Magic would DIE. Yes I said it. This rule, developed for fledglings and then pushed on pros would kill magic.

Of course, it won’t die, because those that try to impose these 13 century ideas would be eventually ignored.


Woah . . . now it is okay, as long as you developed the trick???? I thought all exposure was bad?? Are you changing your position in midstream? Hey that is okay, you other position was untenable, but shouldn’t you give a heads up? Is that ethical? We now are not responsible for our actions if someone else can be blamed? Nice to know of the “pointing finger” loophole.

OMG, the leader of SAM has been pounding someone not in his own flock, and doesn’t understand the very basics of the argument?[/quote]

Nearly ALL magic routines, as long as they are not exact copies, are public domain. The mechanics of nearly every magic trick is public domain, as long as it is not an exact copy. Since the mechanics of most tricks are so simple, they can’t be successful copyrighted. A lot of intelligent people, smarter than you or me, came up with the copyright laws. Now the laws are so complex, and they change so regularly you need to be a specialist to practice successfully in this field. I would yield to any Copyright attorney.

I really think you should do a little research here. Basically, if I copy a DVD, or a printed page, and sell it to others, it is illegal. If I make my own DVD to sell and use the same routines, just put into my own words, it is legal. That is why if you want something secret, don’t sell it, don’t let anyone know about it. Of course you don’t get the recognition or money from that. If you do publish, you know the risks. Heck, they are not risks, it WILL happen if it is any good. Rampant “sharing” of exact copies goes on all the time among magicians and people in general, and is legally punishable- this is a concern where you can actually do some good. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS???

All this is why the anti-exposure argument is pie-in-the-sky -at best.

As I said in the beginning, this is a challenge for SAM to become more relevant to the tide of young that are ignoring SAM. Mike, in this point at least, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. In this, you are like the grumpy old men who sit around and complain about how the world changed - all while the world passes them by.

Posted: Nov 5, 2008 9:25pm
Just for your information, The president of S.A.M responded within 10 minutes of me e-mailing him. We don't see eye to eye, but that is VERY impressive, and he was very nice. He did make it a point that he does not visit the Café -ever.

On the other hand, he also made it clear S.A.M. does not see itself as the Magic Police - even to it's own members/elected officials. Somewhat disappointing to hear from an organization that has an Oath. Expected, but disappointing. I would expect them to enforce an "Oath" - or why have it?

Why make such a big deal of this oath, and then change it in the middle of the conversation? (They just changed it 3 days ago) Obviously S.A.M. thought the ORIGINAL oath that Mike spoke about was flawed, and he was instrumental in changing it. Makes me wonder. Glad they changed it, but why not mention it?

On the bright side, they just got a new oath that is not as silly(?), although IMO it is still outdated.

Here is a quote from the S.A.M.'s new oath ( http://www.magicsam.com/oath.asp ):
"I will not condone the dissemination of trade secrets and principles related to magicians or magic effects with no effort or expectation by the recipient to obtain or acquire the information." Pretty convoluted huh? Why do you need to know a lawyer to understand this? How many people will sign this and not understand it?

Now, If I understand this correctly, if I give a magic DVD to someone (magician or not) as a surprise gift, it is against the new oath (they made no effort to get it and did not expect it). Now if someone takes the effort to look up a magic trick on Google, then that is not exposure because they made an effort, and had the expectation. Here is the twist. After speaking with S.A.M.'s president, and seeing Mike's posts what they REALLY mean is you have to pay for it. Why didn't they just say it, instead of this convoluted phrase?

It appears, as Mike has alluded, that in S.A.M.'s new oath if you make people pay for the "how/to" of magic tricks, it is okay and not exposure (assuming it is not the property of another). It begs the question, how much do they need to pay to make it non-exposure? What if a parent pays for them, or it is a gift, so they it for free -is that exposure? If not, what if I give it to them as a gift, then is it exposure? If I give it to one person, is it okay? What if I give it to more than one person? How many people can I give a gift of magic to before it becomes exposure? Can libraries not loan magic books out -even with the author's permission? The truth is, the internet is the modern library. Heck, even libraries have access to the internet. Schools have kids go on the internet to look up things - like we old folks did with libraries. Looking something up on the internet is no different than using the library EXCEPT it is often more efficient. Why do these same magicians encourage reading from a library, and discourage learning online? IT IS TOO EASY. Yep, that is the reasoning. Now I understand why they don’t enforce their own oath with their own members -it is unenforceable.

Mike and the current President of S.A.M. object to "The Masked Magician". I must admit, even as a magician, I have not watched his expose'. Still, I assume he was paid to show the magic, just not directly by the viewers. It was a gift from what ever channel to us. How is this different from a library loan, or a surprise Christmas gift? I am sure most will say it is different. I am also sure most magicians cannot give any real reason HOW it is different. Is there a different effect the exposure of the Xmas gift has that is different than the Masked Magician? REALLY??? Sure, the masked Magician is more efficient - but inefficiency is okay?

Now if it is okay to buy magic because you are curious, as long as you pay for it- does that not seem discriminatory to those without the money? Is there a difference between exposure that is paid for by the curious, and exposure where a magician has not directly profited? (I guess we can't anger the magic vendors! Selling is good, giving away is bad . . .) How many magic items have you personally bought just because you were curious? Is that ethical?

Well, it does seem to end with profit. Giving is bad, profiting is good. It is (not so) simply put to protect the magic vendor who profits from exposure.

Trying to restrict magic is a can of worms. There is no good way to do it,so why even try? In truth, S.A.M. doesn’t try. Does exposure do any harm? IMO very, very little. All I hear is hypothetically how it hurts us. I for one, don't see it. Can you tell how it hurt you in a significant way? I didn’t think so.

What other industry acts like us? Sure there are trade secrets you don't let your competition know, but why are we the only ones who try to protect information that is easily located in a library or online?

I have a private magic club. I thought kids would swarm to learn magic and then hire me to entertain them. Boy was I wrong. They want me to entertain them, but they have shown little interest in learning magic - even when it is only a click away. They get all excited about it, but then it is quickly forgotten. Only a very, very small percentage actually join (it is free and easy to join). I have spoken with others, and this is the norm.

Magic, for many magicians, is about tricks. For lay people who don't like magic it is about being tricked. For the majority of lay people, it is about being entertained. Exposure, unless it is done maliciously, does much less harm than it does good. People really want to be entertained. They are not knocking down doors to expose us. They really don’t care.

Now I will continue to "expose" magic until ANYONE can come up with a good argument not to (other than an emotional appeal). I don’t hold my breath. It is business. Not great business, but every little bit helps.

If the masked magician gave you this excuse would you go for it?

What else would you do for a "little" bit more money? lol

Natanel,

In regard to the rope comment ... hold this thought UNTIL you see Howie Schwartzman do his rope routine ... then re-post ... the results received from an ALL (mature) ADULT audience may shock you.

Dave

I'd like to know what the ethics are about someone who provides a link to a video that exposes tricks? In my books it makes one an accessory to it. I know the person was just trying to point it out, but the person should of at least contacted the accused first.That in my opinion would of been a more ethical approach to it. That is how it should of been dealt with first. Instead, we're quick to hang this guy. However, this topic is so overdone. I would also like to know how this was discovered. Was someone on youtube using the key word reveal searching for free tricks and then stumbled on this. I could be wrong but if I trolled youtube for exposure video's and then posted links of them here, I would feel dirty inside. Just my thoughts.

Merry Christmas all!

A bit off topic here..... I read earlier on in this thread that a comment made by a senior poster on the Magic Café was forwarded to their professional organization (in this case,the IBM) by a fellow Café member who took issue with their opinion......surely members can express their views within reason without fear of having their post forwarded outside the Café to an outside body......did this person tattle on their classmates in grade school as well? People here must feel free to express their opinions without fear of having their posts reported to an organization outside the Café. Let's have some tolerance, respect and a modicum of confidentiality toward our brother and sister magicians and Café members. Don

Well put!

Also, the more members post exposure links here in a public forum, the more they are contributing to the problem of exposure. I'm trying to understand the ethics in regards to magic, but the more I read the more I conclude that ethics can be rather vague and hyprocritical at times. I am against exposure, but it's never effected any of my Gospel shows or secular shows. Then again, I'm not a full time performer so what do I know?

Dude, you are flirting with a cartoon drawing....

I would like to encourage all of you to visit Eric Pauls website, and learn from a real pro. Not only is he fantastic marketing guro, but he is also willing to share great marketing advice/motivational advice for FREE when you sign up for his newsletters.

Just to give you an idea.

I had trouble completing projects, and ended up with lot of great ideas just lying around on the floor of my office that eventually got filed in the trash. Eric's free e-mails shared great advice that motivated me to make a difference, put together a business plan, maintain a schedule, and set deadlines.

He is also a recovering alcholic that he has been able to overcome through the power of Christ. I admire his ability to overcome such a huge hurdle, and so should you. Chances are many of you are sitting in your office wasting valuable time commenting on things like this. thanks goes out to CURTIS EUGENE whom I learned this from.

You can spend all day commenting and searching on topics like this, or you could take someones positive energy (Eric Paul) for example, and use it as a tool for motivation of your own success.

Thanks Eric for all your hard work and efforts. I am sure they are paying off very well for you.

P.S. I seen your video with DJ Ehlert. Looks like you guys has a fantastic time. I purchased his restaurant marketing course while at magi-fest, and the content if very true to its word. Its time to get out there, put it to use, make money and buy some of your stuff!

Charles Watson

I have absolutely no doubt that Eric is a man of great character. Although I have never met him, I have heard this from MANY people I respect very highly. I would like to meet him some day and am seriously considering attending his seminar in November.

For me, this debate was about the explosion of youtube and the considerations that magicians should make in its use. I am uncomfortable with the title of this thread and wish it were titled, “Posting teaching videos online, right or wrong?”

Still, the most noble of men can make mistakes. Perhaps in Eric’s overzealousness he did not think this through. This is a fairly new medium and I don’t think its a waste of time debating this. As pointed out in this thread, the SAM & IBM rules do not mention youtube. So, we discussed it here.

The local IBM chapter rejected me from membership. I finally had the opportunity to go to the meetings after many years of departure. My departure from the ring was due to many reasons, but I don't want to get into a battle here. I can tell you that I finally made an appearance at the ring meeting, and they said well Charles here is the deal.....Our club has talked about this beforhand and we feel that because you were gone from the ring for 2 years we thought that was a slap in the face to all of our members. If you would like to rejoin the ring you will have to pay the past two years dues (even though I wasn't there for two years) the current dues, and then we will all have to take a vote on rather we want you here.

IBM and SAM rules make no difference to me, but I do respect the art of magic enough to not reveal what I share with my audience. I do however have a select few of tricks available to teach a workshop.

Ken I really respect your quest of Going for the Gold and wish you the best of success. You seem to be a guy with a great head on your shoulders.

When I seen an the article it rubbed me the wrong way because I have respect for only a select few of magicians, and Eric is one of them.

All the best
Charles

Gentlemen (and women, where ever you may be hiding on this board)

I've only ready the first half of the posts, so I apologize if my thoughts are redundant.

Just one observation: I've been involved with SAM for quite a few years - including local officer roles - and have noticed one main trend which is the biggest risk (in my mind) to both SAM and IBM. Membership is getting older. Few new young members are joining. I believe that "death by old age" is a much much bigger risk to our craft than what Eric is doing. If only a small percentage of youngsters who stumble upon his videos get hooked on magic, and find their way to local magic classes (or Ellusionist....), then the benefit far outweighs any risks.

Regardless of the high regard with which we hold ourselves, I highly doubt many young people do searches for magic on youtube unless they already have a healthy interest in it. Even if they start off with cynical (learning how effects are done), they at least have an interest. Its a short leap from that point, to wanting to learn how to fool others.

For those claiming that "this is the end of magic as we know it," pick up a copy of Maven's Protocals of the Elders of Magic...

S

? huh? was it reprinted?

Don't expose tricks. We're magicians, which means we're liars. When you start telling the truth you're no longer a magician...

Jonathan

Not that I know of...

S