|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
chichi711 Inner circle 5810 Posts |
In these pages you have two threads that are right next to each other. One complaining about a mentalist exposing everything on national TV and another where people are justifying sharing sites.
So let me get this straight. We can steal from each other and if we cant afford what is out and we want it then it is our right to have it, but as soon as someone goes on TV and gives it away for free then everyone freaks out? According to some neither one is illegal, so why do you care about one and not the other? Posted: Apr 13, 2010 9:21pm --------------------------------- Looks like all 3 thread were moved out of where they should be to die here where no one goes. It's why the Café is the Café I guess. |
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Or maybe they were moved here because they were topics about whether something is right or wrong, and therefore should have been posted here in the first place...
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
mmreed Inner circle Harrisburg, PA 1432 Posts |
Anyone else hear the theme from Twilight Zone?
:)
Mark Reed
Wedding and Event Entertainment |
|||||||||
chichi711 Inner circle 5810 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-14 02:56, Scott F. Guinn wrote: nope to die. Nobody comes here and the Café knows it. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Last I heard Nobody was busy downloading the latest videos and books from the internet and could not be bothered to worry about folks crying "exposure".
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
"The Café knows it"...? Not sure I even know what that means. As the former Chief of Staff, I do know that it is the job of the staff to move topics to the correct area--and this is the correct area for discussions regarding ethics. Perhaps the reason not as many members frequent this area is because not as many magicians much care whether something is ethical or not.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-13 20:12, chichi711 wrote: Actually, I take the opposite view on both points (in principle). Nobody has a "right" to infringe/steal/copy/plagarize/blah blah anybody else's property/work. Affordibility is irrelevant, so is availability. I don't care if something is $10000 or completely unavailable outside of file sharing sites. In terms of exposure on TV, I am more moderate. The examples I'll give are Penn & Teller's Cup & Balls routine and Milton Kort's Cup & Balls routine. Both sets of performers were absolutely blasted for "exposure", one for TV and the other for newspaper exposure. Yet if you actually look at the performance (and article), it's pretty silly to think that any "layperson" would really figure things out based on the exposure. I am NOT saying that all exposure, or even all TV exposure, is a good thing. Masked Magician = bad thing, for example. I'm just saying that everybody seems distracted by minute distinctions of words, which is funny when they aren't even using them correctly ("infringement" seems one word that less than 1% of people actually understand in this context). Your post is overly simplistic in the same way. In fact, it takes two overly simplistic points of view and merges them ("We can steal from each other but someone goes on TV and gives it away for free then everyone freaks out"). Neither is true for me but both are true for some and one or the other is true for many. By packaging them together, you are pretty much drawing a line in the sand where none should/actually does exist. However, I need to remember something I often forget: When people make grand statements like these, they are not trying to communicate facts, they are trying to communicate feelings. Your statement isn't based in fact (much like saying "Everybody loves pizza" is not based in fact) but it shares your feelings about the topic, so I shared mine. I just didn't want this to come off as an attack on your point of view, just a reminder that it isn't accurate, even if you think it might be. In the end, and I think this is what Scott was getting at, there are obvious differences in what people think, this topic being what is right versus what is wrong. My feeling on that is pretty simple too: If they think it is ok (as in morally acceptable, not "legal") to download somebody's product without paying for it, they are "dead" to me. They've demonstrated, to me, that their opinions are worthless and they don't even deserve my time to tell them they are worthless. I hope nothing I said here comes off as an insult but if it does, remember this: I wouldn't bother responding if all I wanted to do was insult or disagree. I wanted to have more of a dialog. |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
I fear if I read one more defender patiently explain how P&T do not expose magic I will turn into a chop cup.
But then, I have had my say. Problem is, it was weeks, really months or more, ago so my say is buried under many other pages or comments and opinions. I think what we need is a "tote board" so we can tally how many think exposure is acceptable, or not, or do P&T expose, or not, etc. etc. etc. Maybe someone will start a new thread to give us some idea of what percentage of people think one way or the other about such topics. Chichi- RE: "So let me get this straight. We can steal from each other and if we cant afford what is out and we want it then it is our right to have it, but as soon as someone goes on TV and gives it away for free then everyone freaks out?" These imponderables can make ones head hurt. Perhaps exposure is just a continuation to selling magic. Ever since I got into magic I was admonished that I could not devulge magic secrets- unless they paid for it. Never have got my brain around that one. Now, the same thing- don't expose... unless you get paid for it. Guess that works since few big names "give it away for free". They are making lots of money by exposure, I think. So, would it all be OK if everyone had to pay those YouTube exposers for each viewing? When does selling magic secrets become exposure for pay? Is the real difference just the almighty dollar, or its equivalent? Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Did Dai Vernon expose the principle of the load or the sake transfer in his cups and balls routine?
What about magicians that do a sucker trick like torn and restored napkin or silk to egg? Secret hollow objects and one handed switches are real magic secrets, no? What about when Tamariz, using the theory of the magic way, mentions a viable method in an effort to disprove it's use? If you condemn Penn and Teller, you need to condemn Dai Vernon and Tamariz too? Are you prepared to do that, Mandarin. I for one do not believe penn and teller have ever exposed anything. Most of their alleged exposures consist of items they created to expose. Their cups and balls is more amazing and magical to audiences after they know. I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that penn and teller have ever really exposed anything. So, was Vernon an exposer? Tamariz? Every magician who does the sucker paper tear? |
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
I believe, yes. But what I ask is where would you draw the line?
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
If you create the idea, it seems to me that you should be able to do whatever it is you want with it.
Also, if the information revealed leads to a more amazing or magical experience for your audience, then I feel it is ok as well. As to lines - if a magician tells the audience to shuffle the cards so you can't remember about where in the deck it was returned, is that exposure - it points to estimation as a method. What about showing all the cards to be different? Doing so points to the possibility of an one way force deck as a method? What about a spider vanish? It points to the concept of a fake take as a method? What about dribbline cards on the table after the return of a selection - it points to holding a break as a method? Would you consider those exposures? |
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 03:04, Scott F. Guinn wrote: Yes and no, Scott. I can't disagree with the decision to move some of the threads here but I also wouldn't have disagreed if they had been left in Penny. One of them was started by Richard Osterlind, referring to his products and his point of view, which is as clearly a mentalism topic as (going to some of the most recent posts in penny): Underground Mentalism Site Surfaces! (pmc magic) 11 305 Apr 15, 2010 4:12pm by parmenion Maths for a Billion Monkeys (C.J.) 6 162 Apr 15, 2010 3:33pm by Brandon Queen Broken - from Don Theo III (psychicturtle) 29 1,074 Apr 15, 2010 2:31pm by muse Review of Mindzilla Vol.1 (Chester Sass) Go to page 1 ~ 2 34 1,575 Apr 15, 2010 2:23pm by Nathan Kranzo Best modern time mentalism recommended readings (knorbulyon) 9 254 Apr 15, 2010 2:22pm by parmenion Of these top 5 threads with newest posts: 1 is a website review and probably should be someplace other than penny but ok. 1 should be in Inner Thoughts but ok. 2 should be in the various Reviews sections but ok. 1 is a query about which books to get/read which should be locked and linked to the dozens of other similar threads. It's easy to say that stuff gets moved to where it "should" be but the lack of standardization and "other stuff" (don't want this thread deleted by "other stuff") makes that argument a bit weak. Again, I can see it both ways but my personal feeling, deep down, is similar to chichi's in that I think moving these threads here is a bit like sweeping stuff under the rug. Frankly, the Osterlind thread, contentious though it may be, is more deserving of being in Penny than any of the threads I listed above, in my opinion. Lem Mandarin, Different opinions are what make talking to other people worthwhile. I had no intention of pushing you to the edge of a chop cup transformation, although I might like to see that in person someday! I, of course, understand. My full opinion on the matter is on a dead board, years ago. Truthteller beat me to it but I was going to ask about statements referring to marked cards, palming, stacked decks, and anything else (other sleights, moves, gimmicks, etc.) constituting exposure. Darwin Ortiz has a great routine where he discusses/exposes a gambling move (the brush). Is that exposure? Is any gambling protection seminar exposure because magicians use the same moves? Don't answer (unless you want) because we are at the exact same point, which you stated clearly: Quote:
But what I ask is where would you draw the line? For me, and the reason I happen to think the P&T "exposure" wasn't exposure is this: would what was shared decrease the ability of the audience to enjoy the trick in the future (beyond the obvious "P&T did it better" or "I've seen this trick before" which are not exposure related). My answer is no. Again, you may disagree, that's fine. As for referring to stuff like marked decks (as many people do as justification for different ways of forcing cards or getting breaks): generally I think it's weak and you can use many other approaches but I don't think it's necessarily exposure in and of itself. I don't like to do it myself, personally, but that is just me. All in all, I subscribe more to the truthteller point of view but I completely understand both sides. But, until there is a tote board, here is my opinion: Do P&T expose? No Is exposure bad? Yes Is downloading stuff you didn't purchase/obtain "rightfully" bad? Yes Is selling something you created yourself bad? No, assuming you can actually establish that you created it yourself What would I recommend to get around this whole hairy problem? I don't know, I am not that smart. I know one of the most educational experiences was working one on one with a professional magician to learn the craft. I'd like to see more of that. One example would be Alain Nu's Metal Bending Seminar. I can't imagine information from that is available for download and why? The format. But, again, that is just me and my opinion. But I'd really love to see somebody transform into a chop cup!!! Lem |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
It wouldn't surprise me if the threads were moved because some people said some things they wish they hadn't.
Quote:
However, I need to remember something I often forget: When people make grand statements like these, they are not trying to communicate facts, they are trying to communicate feelings. Very true.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Please notice in my posts above that I made no absolute assertions. I used the words "maybe" and "perhaps". Those unaware of the inner workings of The Magic Café and its staff do not know definitively, unless they have been told, why one particular topic was moved and another not. The Café is a HUGE place, and the answer *may* be as simple as "because someone reported this topic and not the others mentioned." To declare categorically that something was done with an ulterior motive without said ulterior motive being stated by the perceived "offender" is to say that you are omniscient and can read the hearts, minds, and motives of the staff.
I'll wager chichi doesn't even know which member of the staff actually moved the topic, unless that person PMd him and notified him of the action. Assuming I'm right, am I the only one who doesn't see it as quite a leap to state--as fact--that the topic was intentionally "moved here to die? Furthermore, I want to say this: While I was Chief and while I was not, there have been times where I have disagreed with some policies and the way certain matters have been handled from time to time. If I owned this board, certain things would have been done differently. But the fact of the matter is I do NOT own this board. I am Steve's guest here, as are all of you. And disagree or agree, I fully support his right to do whatever he darn well wants on his own board. So even if he DID, in fact move this topic here "to die" (which I do not believe for one minute), that is his prerogative, and I support it, even if it may not be what some people wanted. Back on topic: Since there are no official governing "magic police", but only voluntary societies, it is left up to each person to act in an ethical matter. Each of us can only be responsible for ourselves. I cannot make you or anyone else act ethically. All one can do is make sure one acts ethically himself. If more of us spent more time focusing on that, there would be less of an issue, methinks.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 17:30, Davit Sicseek wrote: Things that make you go hmmmm... You might just be onto something but it's all conjecture from here on out. I'm thinking that a race of superintelligent space-faring aliens didn't want people downloading their faster-than-light engine specs from a filesharing site so they are flooding it with magic tricks. Posted: Apr 15, 2010 7:29pm --------------------------------- Hey Scott, I really didn't mean anything by it except it's not always that clear cut, which is why I provided some examples. I don't think you need to explain a darn thing but I appreciate that you took the time. I should have been a little bit more clear instead of just saying "I can see it both ways" and "in my opinion". Sorry about that. Lem EDIT: I forgot to answer Scott's query: Quote:
Assuming I'm right, am I the only one who doesn't see it as quite a leap to state--as fact--that the topic was intentionally "moved here to die? For my answer, I'll repeat what I said without the rest of my ravings, then add one: 1.) I can't disagree with the decision to move some of the threads here but I also wouldn't have disagreed if they had been left in Penny. 2.) I can see it both ways but my personal feeling, deep down, is similar to chichi's in that I think moving these threads here is a bit like sweeping stuff under the rug. 3.) I never said, nor desired to imply, that there was any factual basis for the "moved here to die" statement. If my post read that way, I apologize. I might think there is some element to truth to it but that was just me sharing an opinion. |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Quote:
nope to die. Nobody comes here and the Café knows it. Right. Nobody comes here. It's too crowded. |
|||||||||
funsway Inner circle old things in new ways - new things in old ways 9981 Posts |
My first real exposure to magic secrets was books in the library when I was 11-12 years old. None of the books had been checked out for years until I did. About 20 years later I happened to look and no one since had checked them out. I did just to keep them active, but by now they proably went to a thift store. Nobody compained because so many secrets were being exposed since it took work to find them. People today who find secrets easily are not going to do anything with them.
It does truin them as spectators, though -- and that should be an ethical concern. When people no longer want to see a magic effect we will all be in trouble. So, exposure is unwise, if not immoral.
"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 |
|||||||||
chichi711 Inner circle 5810 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 19:07, Scott F. Guinn wrote: Actually if you see how much those other 2 threads were "hit" and "commented" on before they were moved here vs how many since they have been moved here you will clearly see that they are in fact dead/dieing. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
But yet your paranoia about it isn't???
|
|||||||||
Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3623 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-04-15 15:39, truthteller wrote: Truthteller- I was far from home with limited access to the net, and therefore the limited response to your post. However, I believe my question is valid, and unanswered. As I stated above, I have had my say and will not engage further in the P&T debate. You raise a significant issue- one that comes up frequently in human existence and one that generally leads to my question- where do you draw the line? Or, perhaps even, can you draw the line... Almost daily I find the need to deal with the word "precedence", choosing my actions carefully with knowledge that ideas, actions, reactions, words, etc. can frequently be like rolling a log down a hill- you only have control for the first turn or two. Add to that people who are eager to take advantage of prior actions to justify new actions and the plot thickens. After all, a pebble doesn't have to make the journey from the east coast to the west coast in one jump, kicking it an inch at a time works as well in the end. So, I stand by my answer to your question, but also recognize the pebble is fairly well along its journey and so, by today's standards, the actions you mention do not seem to be exposure. Certainly I would not put P&T and the MM in the same category of exposure. But were I using the sawing routine they exposed in my stage act I would no doubt feel a bit differently. It is an interesting question: what constitutes exposure these days. I admit my own guilt in using some of the sucker tricks you mention. And yet, that seems so far removed from the typical YouTube "let me show you how it's done" exposure for exposure's sake. Who knows where it will end. The death of magic? Perhaps, but I think not. Rather, I foresee a return to the early years, when magic was known by few, who jealously guarded their secrets from the unworthy. So, where DO you draw the line? Jim
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » You don't see how ironic this is? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 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 < |