|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Eshla Inner circle 1239 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-09 21:33, Greg Arce wrote: Greg, this is what is known as a false analogy. All the examples you name are examples of either theft or copywrite infringement. Derren Brown was certainly not the first one to perform this effect, and so he was clearly devaluing it when he "stole" it from someone else, right? ...or do you see it as ok because he did the effect for a bigger audiance? What we are dealing with here is more like a song, if Lady Gaga sings Speechless and I love the lyrics of it, then I am free to make a Youtube video of me covering the song. If anything this only increases its "value", because as they say, mimmicary is the sinceirest form of flattery. Indeed there are several versions of Speechless on Youtube which I believe to be better than the origional. That ladies and gentleman, is how to rebute a strawman Tom xx
I come from the future to culture you poor sods with fire.
|
|||||||||
Dale A. Hildebrandt Special user 637 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 06:14, Eshla wrote: This was NOT a false analogy from Greg--it was a question about ethics, morals and values. If there was any analogy implied it was a correct analogy. IF Derren Brown "copied" or "stole" this from other sources, then why do you have to ask here what those sources are? If those sources AND Derren's presentation are so obviously not his then you should have no trouble finding it your own self! BTW, Lady Gaga's music/vocals/lyrics are NOT public domain and those YouTube videos could be shut down by the owners of that material at any time. Singing Speechless for YouTube in the manner of Lady Gaga is ripping off Gaga. Doing Derren's trick as he does it is ripping off Derren. Is it that hard to figure that little out? Instead of becoming Derren, how about being you? Sincerely, Dale A. Hildebrandt |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 06:14, Eshla wrote: eshla - you often talk about basing judgements on evidence - where is your evidence for this comment? you do realise derren has a team of people he consults and works with... who first performed this?
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
MindBrigade New user 99 Posts |
As for lady Gaga, nope cover is not illegal, and you can sell any cover you want, but the "rights" part of the money that you will earn from it would go to the authors of the song. What is illegal is take the song from her album and post it, or release it as your own or sample it.
back to the debate : it's only about ethic here once again, if it"s patented or copyrighted it's illegal, if not, the creator can only blame himself not protecting it, and the stealer blame himself of being a bad person. Business is hard and cold, even in magic ( I still think that those guys who made bycicle homemade gaffs without paying anything to USPCC were stealing too, and that's why it's not possible aanymore ). |
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 06:14, Eshla wrote: Fine. I always love how uncreative people try to rationalize why it's okay to take other people's ideas and presentations. They can't think on their own so it's very easy to take from others. As I said, there's no winning this argument with people that think that way. Luckily, karma seems to do its magic every time. I leave it all up to karma. Have fun trying to be everyone but yourself. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Gatehouse Regular user Cardiff, UK 117 Posts |
As a mentalism newbie I just thought I'd add a little something here.
I'm not taking sides and to be quite frank, I'd rather sit on the fence when it comes to stuff like this. I will, however, say that for me, it's very interesting to learn a new method (such as the ones mentioned by people here) not to simply rip off the presentation by Derren, but to learn from them and inform my own development. I will probably never perform this effect and would certainly never try to be Derren (he's doing a good enough job of that himself) but being directed to methods such as these will surely inform ones creative arsenal and could make the difference when developing your own effect. Although I'm still learning techniques and practicing methods, I still give a lot of thought to presentation and (even at such an early stage) do no wish to be the next anyone... I'd feel a lot better getting credit for being myself lol. Just a thought from someone who doesn't know better lol. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Ryan:
Your approach is a reasonable one. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Look, let's just lay the cards on the table. Guys, come clean... all you want it the shiny new toy that you don't understand how it works. That's all.
C'mon, the only reason the person is interested is that he doesn't know how it works. He was fooled so he needs to know how it works. Once he knows he'll go to the next shiny toy that fools him. That's all that's happening here. You can talk about reverse engineering, research, building a repertoire, yadda-yadda-yadda, but it all comes down to, "Wait. How did he do that? I need to know!!! I was fooled. I can't be fooled. I need to know that!!! NOW!!!" Then once they know they'll act like it was easy and no one will be fooled by the same principle until the new shiny toy comes around. So let's cut the intellectual dribble and speak in real terms: You want the new shiny toy that someone has that you don't. You'll play with it until someone opens up another box with a new shiny toy in it. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
A bit harsh, Greg, and not universally true, but appropriate to this discussion.
- entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 22:42, entity wrote: Might not be "universally" true, but it seems to hold water on this planet. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
Jay Jennings Veteran user Scottsdale, AZ 332 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 22:05, entity wrote: In general, reverse engineering does NOT mean that you are trying to come up with the same method -- it means you are trying to come up with A method. When the effect can be recreated, the reverse engineering is done -- and NOBODY cares whether the method was the same or not, because that's NOT what reverse engineering is about. You may call it reverse engineering when someone tries to figure out the EXACT method something is done, or created, but your definition of reverse engineering is narrow and not what is typically thought of for that phrase. Jay Jennings
Mystery arts articles and thoughts: https://ExclusiveMagic.com
Free video crash course for numerology readings: https://LoShuNumerology.com |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Jay: With respect, you are dead wrong.
Reverse engineering is the act of taking apart a system or device to find out exactly how it works. The PURPOSE many companies and individuals put to reverse engineering is to bypass copyright or patent laws by discovering how the original works and then using the principles involved in a slightly changed way to create a replica product. Once the original method and principles are understood, a new method might be created, but that is apart from the act of reverse engineering. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. From Webopedia: reverse engineering The process of recreating a design by analyzing a final product. From Business Dictionary.com reverse engineering Legally sanctioned method of copying a technology which (as opposed to starting from scratch) begins with an existing product and works backward to figure out how it does what it does. From MSN Encarta: reverse engineering re·verse en·gi·neer·ing noun Definition: stealing competitor's technology: the pirating of a competitor's technology by dismantling an existing product and reproducing its parts and construction to manufacture a replica
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Edward Cutting New user I only have a measly 42 Posts |
Evening,
I'm going to join this lively discussion and I will do so in what will seem an arrogant way: by banding about my qualifications to speak on this topic. Though these qualifications amount to nothing in the larger sense of things, I feel that, maybe in some self-justified way, they hopefully will grant my words some weight. The qualifications are these: I am an MIT graduate in mathematics and physics. How does this give my words weight? It should show that I know at least one or two things about engineering. Mr. Lejon, if I may quote you: Quote:
On 2010-07-09 23:20, lejon wrote: You are absolutely correct in your definition of reverse engineering. Futhermore, I might add a bit more to it: "The purpose of Reverse Engineering is to deduce design decisions from end products with little or no additional knowledge about the procedures involved in the original production, by working backwards from the end product to the design document from which it most likely would have been built from." I hope you will agree that my addition is in no way unfair, but merely serves a redundant point of clarification. Now let us see what this entails: I have a product, call it A, which is composed of several components C1, C2, C3,etc and whose components are arranged in a specific order O1, O2, O3 and according to a step-specific design processes D1, D2, D3. Now, instead of becoming elaborate and boring in our explanations, let us dumb it down. A= Cx + Oy + Dz (x, y and z being merely a numeral variable) In this case, C, O and D, are absolutely any design/component elements required for A to be A. In order to reverse engineer this, you would be strictly taking apart A in order to find out how A (the specific A, this is important) works. In other words the C O and D of it. There is another type of engineering, however. There is the engineering that says, "Hey, I want to make an A as well! How can I do that?" That person then goes off and tinkers and comes up with their own A (which, for identification purposes we will simply call A prime, or " A' ". Here is how they do it. A'= a + b(C')x + c(O')y + d(D')z In this case, b(C') is an engineers unique solution to achieving "C" (which is why we also called it C' - C prime). Same for c and d. There seems to be the addition of a new piece as well: a. Now, does A = A'? In the general sense, yes. In the specific sense, no. Pretend A and A' are televisions: A might have regular HD capabilities but A' might have HD and 3D capabilities; A might have 3 HDMI ports and a built in HDD for movie storage and a built-in DVD player and A' might have a wireless network card to allow streaming of content. Specifically, A and A' are two differently designed things; generally speaking, A and A' are both just TVs. In the real world, the fact is that companies will often truly reverse engineer each others technologies. But they then improve and modify them. The A' are never the reverse engineered product. They are an evolution that is justifiably defendable. This forms the basis of Capitalism. Joe-schmoe sells A and Jack-kerouac sells A'. They compete, prices go down, innovation is fostered because whoever has the more innovative product will sell better, the consumer spends money on different, improved versions of the product and in the end, the world is a happy place for Steve Jobs. It is here that I think that Lejon is making his mistake. Now you say, Lejon that you don't care about semantics... unfortunately, if you ever want to hold a conversation of any type in regards to intellectual proprietorship, you are going to have to care about semantics because they are the fine print of differentiation. Unfortunately these things get even more convoluted with respect to magic performances because of the inherent difficulties of patenting a presentation. What you say is correct Lejon, seeing an effect and then going home and trying to come up with a solution to how that effect was achieved is fine. But there are several given conditions for this: you are genuinely trying to come up with your own solution to the effect (if it happens to be the exact one used, that's fine), you are not copying the presentation or "patter" of the effect but genuinely coming up with your own (if it happens to be the exact one used, that's not fine, haha), you are genuinely developing your presentation of the effect by only looking to achieve the final effect rather than duplicating what was done when you saw the effect performed. This is not reverse engineering. Allow me to repeat: this is NOT reverse engineering. This is making A'. Reverse engineering the effect would be going home with a video of the performance and then trying to work out the EXACT METHOD used to achieve THAT PARTICULAR, SPECIFIC EFFECT by the performer in question. So you're not making A', but really just A. Even if you change the script a little, you're still left with A. Greg's analogy works here, you cannot reverse engineer the formula for Coca-Cola, put that same stuff in a different looking bottle and then sell it. You can come up with something similar: PEPSI-Cola. Here is where the real difficulty lies in this subject, however: in mentalism, where there are few plots, how far can you go and not cross the line of theft? Personally, while I think the effect is quite delightful, and while I can think of a few ways I would achieve the effect, I would never do this because I've never seen this done before. Is it truly an original piece? Maybe, maybe not. I seem to remember reading a similar plot in Barrie Richardsons Theater of the Mind Act 2. If this becomes an effect that is widely available, and if I was taken enough with the effect, I might think of performing it with my own method, sure. This is by way of example, of course (Disclaimer, as seems to be required to avoid misunderstandings on the Café: I am not interested in performing this effect. I thinks it's great. I am staying far away from it.) But as you can see, this is a difficult discussion. I certainly can never, say, make the Statue of Liberty disappear. That's David Copperfield. Even if I came up with 10 ways of doing the effect, each better than David's and each cleverer than the one before it, it would still not be an effect I could perform. But what about when it comes to predicting the future. Am I not allowed to have a box on stage containing my prediction because someone else already did it? I genuinely raised the issue myself recently in regards to a concern I had (which I worked out, thanks all!) and received some not so nice words of discouragement. (And, yes, Tom, I did look up the Grey character you insinuatingly compared me to on the Café's search and, I have to say, first, I hope I prove to be quite a bit above that level of immaturity and, second, regardless of your obviously respected standing here at the Café, I hope you refrain from such harsh comparisons against me in the future.) In the end, contact that performer and ask for permission to perform the effect if that's what you want to do and it's not a marketed effect. Anyway, that's the difference between reverse engineering and, well, just plain old engineering. Hopefully, my detailed post will have cleared things up. The author of another novella post, Edward Cutting EDIT - Seems Tom beat me to trying to clarify reverse engineering. Oh well, I will leave my post up for those bored enough to bite into it. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
For the record, Edward -- I wasn't comparing you to Grey. I was asking if you were him.
Thank you for your insights with regard to reverse engineering. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
Jay Jennings Veteran user Scottsdale, AZ 332 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 23:50, entity wrote: The end of that Wikipedia paragraph ends with, " ...or to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without utilizing any physical part of the original." -- To me that says the internals don't have to be the same, just the actions of the device. And Webopedia, "The process of recreating a design by analyzing a final product." -- That says nothing about the internals. I based my opinion (in part) on the years I spent as a programmer. The boss would come to us and say, "Our competitor can do X and Y -- can we do that?" The boss didn't care how it was done, he just wanted to be able to say to the prospects, "Yes, we do X, Y *and* Z!" To get to that point we'd look at what was happening and come up with a way that it could be done. As an example of reverse engineering where the exact method isn't known is clean room design. From Wikipedia: Quote:
Clean room design is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights and trade secrets associated with the original design. In a case like that it's similar to watching someone do a magic effect and coming up with a way to do it. You're after the effect, not the method. (Okay, maybe some people are after the exact method, but only anal-retentive types. Or scholars.) Jay Jennings --EDIT-- Edward Cutting was posting his while I was posting mine -- otherwise I wouldn't have ended with the smart remark about scholars! =:)
Mystery arts articles and thoughts: https://ExclusiveMagic.com
Free video crash course for numerology readings: https://LoShuNumerology.com |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Jay: See Edwards remarks re: what is NOT reverse engineering. It seems to mesh with your tasks as a programmer.
Quote:
On 2010-07-11 00:29, Edward Cutting wrote: Again, the creation of a new product in the "clean room" scenario happens AFTER the reverse engineering. It is NOT the act of reverse engineering. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
BillyTheSquid Veteran user My bamboo hut's supported on 331 Posts |
Hmm - without reverse engineering, we wouldn't have the likes of "Miserere Mei", where a young Mozart listened to it in a restricted performance, took it away in his genius of a head, recreated and altered it into something better than the original performance.
I like taking something and thinking "How would I do that", it sparks the creative juices and often leads on to something new. For me, taking something as simple as the Sha*on Flap and thinking about it for a while, led to me developing something that I could use for a certain routine, however, the flap itself is not part of the routine any more, it's been changed so much, it's not a flap any more. The challenge of doing something that I wanted to do, taking an existing innovation and using that as a springboard in a new direction should be encouraged. I say "Yes" to observing someone's routine and then trying to work it out, simply because I like a puzzle / challenge. I too like DB's Ross & Wife performance and have often pondered how it could be done. I have my own way that I could do it from thinking about it for a long time, whilst I studied / though and then was able to pull something similar into being. I wouldn't perform it as DB does, in fact, I'd give it a completely different presentation, but then, we all do a DL and present it in many many different ways, it's a simple utility move. However, taking a combination of utility moves, you can come up with some amazing stuff. It's a completely different thing then to go on to perform exactly the same act with it - which I would class as completely copying and if that's the aim of reverse engineering something, then, what a shame that person couldn't develop it / adapt it further. That's why China has the reputation it does for copying, not innovating. |
|||||||||
Gatehouse Regular user Cardiff, UK 117 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-10 22:10, Greg Arce wrote: I hate to say this, but this is exactly the sort of attitude that kept me lurking on these boards for a long while before taking the plunge and joining in. Now this is not a criticism of Greg (I understand that you're a very respected mentalist and I've seen your name/ideas crop up in book after book, most recently while reading through Banachek's PS series I believe). However, some people are sincere. Some people don't wish to be spoonfed routines so they can go out and impress their friends with their newfound 'skills'. I am in no way a professional performer, but I find this statement to be really harsh when there are genuine people out there trying to better themselves in an art they love. Yes it's in people's nature to want to know exactly how every little piece of magic is 'done'. However, there are people like myself who don't simply wish to copycat other's performances or even methods, but being directed to sources for ways to accomplish such effects can inform ones understanding and self-development. This is not dribble. This is one such person who is trying to develop his own understanding to be a better performer. I'd like to make it clear, however, that while I find it interesting to be directed to such information, I haven't looked up any of these suggestions for similar routines or methods which could be used to accomplish the same effect. I simply find it helpful that people will make these suggestions and share their experience. And for the record, I find all this talk of 'shiny new toys' etc to be rather insulting. Yes, I imagine that there are people like that, who come to these boards looking for easy answers, but I am not one of them. It's generalisations like this that really don't help beginners feel welcome. At all. |
|||||||||
MindBrigade New user 99 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-11 07:07, Ryan Leston wrote: I really agree, there are a lot of patronizing and condescending in this thread. it's like any other art form; painters, musicians, actors, ( mozart, picasso, etc...) all of them had to study, reverse enginer, and sometime copy the classics to better understand their art form and become the artists they were. I m always told that magicians and mentalists must have some acting skills, well I m a actor and a comedian, and well I ve been teach by one of the most regarded acting teacher in france, and may I tell you that we watched a lot of other actors performance and "reverse enginnering" the way they act and work, am I a stealer, is my teacher a stealer ? there was never mentioned that eshla or lejon or anyone else wanted to copy the effect to make money of it or sell it, so please everyone get down of your horses. |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
There's a big difference between taking a published routine and messing with it, and taking something you've seen from someone's act or show and using it...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Derren Brown "card coincidence" effect » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 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 < |