|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Bryan Smith New user Korea 99 Posts |
I was just thinking about this so I thought I'd see what you guys think?
I was watching the demo of an effect and almost completely figured it out from the demo. It took a lot of rewinding and playing again and there's one thing I don't know but I have some ideas about it. It's quite an expensive trick, costing over $100 to buy. The hypothetical question is that if someone were to figure out a trick completely this way and then make their own gimmicks and perform it, do they owe the creator money? In magic, what you pay for when you buy a trick is information. You're not just buying the gimmick, of course. Now it seems you would have the information but not have paid the money. You wouldn't have thought it up on my own if I hadn't seen the demo (or actually you might have but now you'll never know if I would have or not...) It would seem as though you owe at least a little of the money for the trick to its creator if you want to use the trick. What would you folks do in this situation? Buy the trick? Not buy the trick? Send the creator a little money but not the whole price? Just wondering what people's take was.
"I'm half drunk most the time
and I'm all drunk the rest" --Tom Waits |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Generally, in such a situation, I will go ahead and buy the effect so that I can use it with clear conscience. Here is a further example: my grandson does magic with me, and many times he wants, or I want him to, have his own copy. So, I buy it twice, even though I know the "secret" and could copy it.
Notice, I said "generally". Although I can't think of an instance offhand, if something were horribly overpriced, or blatantly exposed on the trailer, etc. I might make an exception. Otherwise, I feel magic in general is a pretty nice bargain compared with what it must have been like to learn it 50 years ago, and I feel good supporting an art I love and the people who are creative and make it fun. The other thing I think you will find, there is always something in the original information that you will be glad to know, perhaps a better way to do the effect, etc. A good question, and the replies should make some interesting reading, even though it has been discussed in various forms many times on the Café. You might even want to try the search feature to find some of those topics... Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
I have a similar case.
I figured out an effect, but would still need to buy the 'primary components' from the dealer. The dealer had offered to sell building plans if purchased with the components. If I ever do build the effect, I WILL buy both the components AND the plans, out of respect to the dealer, whom I consider a good friend.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Innovation can be tricky as you don't always know where the idea comes from, and it may be composite of several ideas. Here you know, but were drawn to look at the effect by some affinity or brain fart. So, I would not feel obligated to send the full amount. I have several sleights that I created independently, but have later found that another pre-dated me. Even though there is no direct connection I will chnage my eBooks to give them acknowledgement in case they have other things for sale -- sort of like a referral. You might contact this inventor and offer to refer people to him if they like your presentation. Maybe you can even be a dealer or something. That way you both can win.
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
Father Photius Grammar Host El Paso, TX (Formerly Amarillo) 17161 Posts |
Technically speaking, when you purchase the trick you not only get information, but performance rights. After all you are performing another persons intellectual property. Now who is to say how much of any part of the cost of the trick is gimmick, secret, and performance rights? Well basically the inventor gets to say that.
Personally, when I know the trick and could easily copy it for my own use, if I were just doing hobby magic, meaning zero paid performances, then I'd probably just copy it. However, if I am going to do it in a paid performance then I would definitely buy the trick, or the book it is in, or something to grant me performance rights. In cases of most small tricks, the inventor isn't probably going to chase you down and sue you over a $100 trick's performance rights. Yet in larger tricks, I wouldn't be surprised to see the inventor go to the effort to protect his rights. Where you would get in trouble with the small tricks would be in manufacturing and selling the trick yourself or publishing it somewhere without his consent. But to be ethical, if you perform it for money, then you should pay for it.
"Now here's the man with the 25 cent hands, that two bit magician..."
|
|||||||||
David Bilan Special user Clarksville, TN 714 Posts |
This is one reason inventors of magic effects are reluctant to post video of their effects.
Quote:
I was watching the demo of an effect and almost completely figured it out from the demo. It took a lot of rewinding and playing again and there's one thing I don't know but I have some ideas about it. Let's turn it around. If you invented an effect and were selling it, would you want to be paid if someone wanted to perform it? Character is what you do when no one is watching. Let's carry the query a step farther. You see a magician perform an effect once. It has an impact and gives you an idea. You engineer a way to perform the effect without consulting video playback, plus you add twists that bring the effect to a new level. What do you do?
Yes, I am a magician. No I did not make my hare (hair) disappear... it just took early retirement.
|
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-10-15 01:50, David Bilan wrote: Even further on back. You and some other magicians discuss a new trick that has hit the market (1960) and come up with a variation. You don't even think about marketing it. Forty years later some stranger does market it and there is a big fight over who invented the idea in 1998. A well known magician claims he thought of it first. You smile. You decide to market your version based on the fact that you can prove your idea predated his. Is there an ethical problem? You certainly do not have to pay him for the idea, but you are piggy-backing on his marketing efforts. What is proprietary, the concept or the willingness to act?
"the more one pretends at magic, the more awe and wonder will be found in real life." Arnold Furst
eBooks at https://www.lybrary.com/ken-muller-m-579928.html questions at ken@eversway.com |
|||||||||
David Bilan Special user Clarksville, TN 714 Posts |
I feel sorry for those looking for clear-cut answers, but the fact that we are asking questions either shows we care, or... we have too much time on our hands.
Yes, I am a magician. No I did not make my hare (hair) disappear... it just took early retirement.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
If I'm going to be using/doing someone's item or working from that item I feel the need to get a license from them of some sort - be it direct permission or if it's on the market buying the item in some format.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Bryan Smith New user Korea 99 Posts |
Let me add some more fuel to the fire by pointing out some examples from other industries.
The software industry is analogous in many ways considering we both deal in information rather than concrete product most of the time. In 1999, the US issued a patent to Amazon.com for their one-click buying method. Now anyone halfway through a beginner's programming class could have written the code for that feature. How it was done was about as much a mystery as how to fall off a log. The patent was issued for simply thinking of the idea to do it! When the case went to court only a couple months later against BarnesandNoble.com for doing their Express Lane buying method, the court upheld the patent and found in favor of Amazon.com. This whole situation sparked a huge outcry from a lot of people and several groups boycotted Amazon.com for 5 years afterwards. More importantly, it left a bad taste in many people's mouths about software patents in general and created a lot of support for abolishing software patents altogether. What this case basically proved is that even if a method is blatantly obvious to anyone who sees it, whoever runs to the patent office first can stop their competitors from using it. Let's think of the ramifications of this kind of thinking. Let's say, hypothetically, there were no magic shops in the USA. I think of the idea of opening a magic shop and then patent the idea of opening a magic shop. Then I can be the only magic shop in the USA, right? So, while the concept of patenting an idea seems to hold up in the US, I still don't quite buy it. Of course, that patent was issued by the same patent office that issued this one: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6368227 Yes, it's real... There's a lot of grey area here which makes it interesting to talk about. So far we've had views ranging from my being ethically questionable for even examining the video closely in the first place to not being obligated to send the full amount. This is a very fun discussion. How about this situation, while I'm at it. There is effect X which you have known about being available for some time but not been all that interested in buying. It has been around a while and so costs $50. Effect Y comes out which utilizes the principles of X but adds some additional things that improve the whole effect tremendously. You really want to buy Y but it costs $200. Even though you don't know X, you can tell that Y builds on it. Therefore, you buy X to see how it's done and then invent a way to add the extra effects in Y. Remember, you knew about X before but weren't that interested in it until Y came along.
"I'm half drunk most the time
and I'm all drunk the rest" --Tom Waits |
|||||||||
Dreadnought Special user Athens, Georgia 836 Posts |
About a year and a half ago, after visiting Salem, Mass, I thought what if. I formulated an idea and planned and researched and seven months later put the idea to paper and went into my workshop. I put the idea together and tested it out and it worked. The illusion is not part of my core routines but I have now been performing that illusion, a mentalism effect, on and off for about four months.
About two months I saw a dealer/builder here advertise and release the same effect, a bit different story line and some differences in design and construction but the same effect, the same illusion. Out of courtesy, I immediately contacted the person and told him about my illusion and asked permission to keep going with it, which he gave me. He asked me how it was working. I told him the audience was well receipetive of it and he should have a hit on his hands. The moral is: Respect and professional courtesy goes a long way. Peace.
Peace
"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..." Scott Would you do anything for the person you love? |
|||||||||
MickeyPainless Inner circle California 6065 Posts |
Doesn't rewinding over and over (reverse engineering) constitute intentional theft?
|
|||||||||
marcus56 New user 3 Posts |
How about this...I came up with a trick on my own (using rubber bands) and later discovered that it was availble in DVD. I developed the trick totally without knowledge of it being published on DVD and in a book. So should I give credit to myself or the person who has it on DVD/book.
|
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-11-17 16:02, marcus56 wrote: To the predecessor, not to yourself. And you should not make use of it without the predecessor's permission. You are obliged to research before making a creation public, so that you don't duplicate someone else's creation. |
|||||||||
J-Mac Inner circle Ridley Park, PA 5338 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-10-20 23:53, MickeyPainless wrote: Why? Reverse engineering itself is perfectly legal. Now, what you do with something after reverse engineering it may or may not be legal. Morality is a whole 'nother animal! Jim |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-11-17 17:30, TStone wrote: I disagree with part of this. If your creation is truly independent, then I feel you have complete performance rights to the idea. You do NOT have the right to publish or otherwise market the idea WITHOUT the predecessors permission. |
|||||||||
Todd Bernard Loyal user 263 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-10-15 01:09, Father Photius wrote: I have never bought a DVD or book that gave you legal rights to perform it. In fact, I don't believe there is any such thing. Someone sells you something, you have all the rights to do with it what you like. Unless the originator of a specific routine has some kind of legal protection on their performance, it's pretty much fair game. I remember when I was young and watching other magicians perform. Sometimes I would figure out what they were doing and teach myself the trick. I would be broke if I felt I had some made up obligation to pay them. I have seen demo's where I could figure out what was being done, (It helps knowing your slieghts and history) Liked what they did with them and used their idea's without ever feeling like I owed them something. Most of the stuff I learn I give my own variation to, sometimes only subtle. Either way, I don't think the people who come up with new routines using old methods ever feel they are obligated to pay the estate of those they learned the methods from. Also, I don't believe they feel obligated to pay the estates of those who came up with the original routine which they have either changed a little, or upgraded. In my 50 years of magic I have seen many changes. Magician's used to go and watch other magician's to see what they were up to. If they seen something the magician did that they liked, they would try to figure out how it was done. This was sort of a sport for some of us, a game as you will. To copy another magician outright was lame, but never deemed unethical. Copycats were usually just poor imitator's and didn't get much work. Today, I hear so much about ethics surrounding magic that I find myself laughing at times. When did magician's ever have ethics? (lol) We stole from each other, sometimes we even tried to sabbatage each others acts, we'd perposely plant hecklers in their shows. Never to great extents, and I never did any of that myself. My point is, who are these people who are making up all these rules and ethics that all magician's are supposed to follow? When we started joining unions we all had common interrests and respect for one another. Slowly things began to change. We started to play nice, but we didn't sit around and discuss ethics. If one of our peers did something to p*ss another of us off, we had our ways of getting back. Ever since "street magic" became a household word, almost every young magician wanted to jump on the band wagon while the gravy train was hot. I believe E's owner was the first success of that, and he was ridiculed and called unethical by other magicians for doing what they are now doing. Brad Christian has made himself a millionaire out of exploiting magic for cash. Now I see more young magicians cranking out effect after effect trying to find the same pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I've seen magician's stop working gigs just to create magic effects and routines to sell to anyone and everyone who pays the asking price, and that's ethical? I hear people complaining about exposure, which 20 years ago was almost never heard of. Top name magicians and no name magician's were exposing their stuff through books and vhs's but no one called it unethical. They called it learning tools. They can still be found in your local library. Now that selling magic tricks can generate a lot of money, there seems to be a bunch of rules and ethics being made. People are told that they are paying for the trick so no refunds. Now we are told that one is paying for the performance rights. Balderdash! It's all rubish. There is just way too much stuff out there for sale to think that whatever I say will turn back time to the way it used to be, but progress moves forward, no matter how good or bad. As for me, I find it comical to listen to magicians talk about ethics. Posted: Nov 25, 2009 11:55pm Correction. "In my 50 years of magic" should be, "In my 30 years of magic". I'm old, but not that old. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-11-25 22:59, Todd Bernard wrote: I can think of three Quote:
So, what you are saying is - your desires and pocketbook are far more important than those of the creator. Why should we care what they think. I mean, it's only THEIR idea and THEIR work we are stealing. Quote:
In my 50 years of magic I have seen many changes. Magician's used to go and watch other magician's to see what they were up to. If they seen something the magician did that they liked, they would try to figure out how it was done. This was sort of a sport for some of us, a game as you will. .. We stole from each other, sometimes we even tried to sabbatage each others acts, we'd perposely plant hecklers in their shows. Never to great extents, and I never did any of that myself. Nice winky face. Nice use of the word 'we'. Nice rationalization that if people used to do stupid things it's still ok for them to do stupid things. I can think of lots of ugly things we as humans used to do. Does that mean we should still do them? |
|||||||||
RLFrame Elite user 447 Posts |
"If your creation is truly independent, then I feel you have complete performance rights to the idea. You do NOT have the right to publish or otherwise market the idea WITHOUT the predecessors permission."
This is the part that has always been hard for me to understand. In many situations, you would have to know all that has been published or released on the topic, and I do not think that is possible even for the most knowledgeable among us. If you are doing research on an effect, you either have to buy a lot of material to check it out, which will pretty much kill every project, or you are going to be wading through a lot of secrets that you are not supposed to see without buying... which has its own ehtical concerns. The norm is to run the idea by some experts in that area to see if it is original, but that is often a hit or miss proposition too. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-11-23 02:46, truthteller wrote: Yes, I understand your opinion, but unfortunately it is in contradiction to what the copyright laws say. Because, how do you prove that it is truly independent? When it was decided to make copyright automatic, instead of requiring a registration, they put the responsibility on the shoulders of the creator. You are legally obliged to make research on any potential predecessors before making a piece public (i.e. in performance or writing), so being unaware is not a working defense. Quote:
On 2009-12-14 08:01, RLFrame wrote: It seems like a huge obstacle, I know. But in practice, it isn't very difficult at all. It is only when you are new to magic, or to creating, when you run the risk of duplicating predecessors. But that risk diminish when you find your own voice. In my case, as a teenager it happened all the time, but now it happens very seldom. And researching isn't that difficult, after you discover the thoughts behind the creations. If you compare with a tree - a branch forks out into smaller branches, which in turn fork you into even smaller branches. The same with magic - every big idea have a number of offshoots with variations. Some variations are so different that they become new branches/ideas that in turn create offshoots. Therefore, you can learn to quickly trace an idea backwards, and see if it is based on something with a lot of offshoots or not. There's plenty of help to be found as well - most creators in the field are happy to assist and provide their knowledge. Personally, it rarely takes me more than 7 days to properly research potential predecessors to a new piece. In average, it takes three days. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » If you figure out a trick should you pay for it? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [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 < |