The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Peeki (5 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
jdmagic357
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of jdmagic357
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 11:56, ElliottB wrote:
“Peeki, while similar in nature to Millard Longman’s Acidus Novus and various other related techniques, is unique in that the handling is applied not to a billet, but to the wallet itself.”


If every person who made a variation of an effect added this kind of statment to there product we would have very little in the way of new thinking.

The fact is that since a wallet is used THIS IS DIFFERENT than acidus novus and thereby needs no disclaimer. Does everyone that uses invisible thread to animate an object credit Steve Durshick for making these animations popular with Wonder Bar?

These arguments once again are without basis. How come we don't loose our minds when Wayne Houchin put out stigmata or control both of which were older tricks, repackaged?

It's hypocritical to allow one kind of repackaging and not another.

Maybe someday we can worry about what really matters in the world, like the deaths of the innocent, and stop the championing of causes with no real problems? Just a thought.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
Prager
View Profile
Inner circle
e-Mentalism.com
1845 Posts

Profile of Prager
I am trying hard to see Peeki similar to AN, I really can´t.

A question to those who actually have my idea: Did you enjoyed it?
Jose Prager
The man who knows how to amuse and mystify

www.e-mentalism.com
Secret products for mentalists.
ElliottB
View Profile
Inner circle
2928 Posts

Profile of ElliottB
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 13:27, jdmagic357 wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 11:56, ElliottB wrote:
“Peeki, while similar in nature to Millard Longman’s Acidus Novus and various other related techniques, is unique in that the handling is applied not to a billet, but to the wallet itself.”


If every person who made a variation of an effect added this kind of statment to there product we would have very little in the way of new thinking.



Your statement is false. Adding a credit has no effect on one’s ability to think or publish one’s thoughts. Many authors credit diligently, yet publish their works all the time.

In any case, I was told that it was done before and I just missed it. I was also told that Mr. Prager was notified about things, so, hopefully, matters will be resolved in the near future.
TheGingerWizard
View Profile
Special user
628 Posts

Profile of TheGingerWizard
I think if there had to be a credit something like

Richard Busch has published a peek with billets, while Peeki is a completely different method using a wallet, it has it's foundations in these billet techniques.

would be more fitting.

I cannot see how this is like AN in any way shape or form. We will have people crediting Millard Longman for AN in spoon bending routines before too long. In fact let's credit him in everything.........just in case!
jdmagic357
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of jdmagic357
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 13:39, ElliottB wrote:
Your statement is false. Adding a credit has no effect on one’s ability to think or publish one’s thoughts. Many authors credit diligently, yet publish their works all the time.


It's not necessarily credits that I'm arguing, it's how much research one needs to do to give those credits?

Also to address why credits are not so imperative we could turn to the law. As I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) even if one was to hold a patent on something, one would only have to change it 10% to avoid litigation. If that's true, then how would Peeki fare in a court of law?

Me thinks, very well.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
ElliottB
View Profile
Inner circle
2928 Posts

Profile of ElliottB
According to a court of law, one would not even have to make an insignificant change. One would just need to rewrite the instructions for someone else’s technique or routine. Who’s talking about a court of law?
jdmagic357
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of jdmagic357
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 14:01, ElliottB wrote:
Who’s talking about a court of law?


I am. But I guess the court of opinion is more reliable? Perhaps we should reinstate that system of justice, and just let the popular have their way? That would mean that only those we liked, could use ideas in creation, and those we didn't, would have to be condemned.

Seems like what may be going on here?
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
ElliottB
View Profile
Inner circle
2928 Posts

Profile of ElliottB
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 14:11, jdmagic357 wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 14:01, ElliottB wrote:
Who’s talking about a court of law?


I am.


LOL. You win. I should have seen that coming.
Dale A. Hildebrandt
View Profile
Special user
628 Posts

Profile of Dale A. Hildebrandt
Hello,

I just looked at my wallet and messed around with it a bit. I can get a peek out of it with no gimmicks in the wallet. It is just an ordinary wallet. You could even wrap a rubberband around the thing and still get the peek. In fact, that would be the most opportune time to peek.

Since I haven't bought J. Prager's PEEKI and I cannot buy every single peek method, then I must have the right to publish my independant discovery--at least according to Prager's supporters here. I've done NO research by reading other peek methods or asking peek experts, but again, according to Prager's supporters that shouldn't be a problem. I can legally publish my routine, so why care about ethics and/or morals? I shouldn't be denied my right to publish material I come up with just become someone else came up with it first--at least according to Prager's supporters. And I should certainly be allowed to make "insignificant" amounts of money off one idea that I came up with independantly--like, say, for $7 USD. And I have lots of other valuable ideas and might be disposed to not to publish them if everyone doesn't fawn over me for my re-created method--according, again, to the J. Prager Supporters.

Just to be clear, am I understanding the Prager supporters here?

Sincerely,
Dale A. Hildebrandt
jdmagic357
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of jdmagic357
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 14:35, Dale A. Hildebrandt wrote:
Just to be clear, am I understanding the Prager supporters here?
Dale A. Hildebrandt


No, you are not understanding the Prager supporters here. What we na; what I am saying, is that in the first place there isn't any moral issue, as this is a different peek.

However I did find one thing interesting in you post "or asking peek experts" this my be what all the fuss is about?

Only if the big names are asked for their opinions, are we to accept the deprivation of an effect. And only if they give their stamp of approval, are we to accept a "new" idea into the collective.

That's the issue. OK got it. Thanks for clearing things up.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18808 Posts

Profile of IAIN
I'm going to be releasing a new type of peek tomorrow called ikeep...

I've not read anything similar, so its mine...all mine!

if I were told by someone experienced, well respected and knowledgable that it was done before but in a rare book - but to contact a small group of guys for help (and even be given those names), then I would listen, I'd also want to credit as best I could...

if I wanted maybe a quick $200, then I'd just release it...

trolls, and mass-debaters are welcome to come kiss my ( ! ) I they wish to disagree...
NEW - the bear tear

20-25% OFF MOST THINGS
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/uncle90
dmoses
View Profile
Inner circle
2189 Posts

Profile of dmoses
"new" is the point. New ideas are not being shared-- "new to you" ideas are.

This is not about sharing ideas. if some one wants to share an idea for a great routine with someone privately I say fill your boots.
but when one begins sharing someone else's ideas-- whether you know it or not-- in a public forum. that is not okay.

or

when one intends to deliberately publish and/or claim credit for ideas that are not original with the author-- whether they know it or not-- that is not okay either.

So then how-- when one has no experience or library or extensive knowledge -- does one perform the due diligence needed to publish something?

I think the first question you want to ask is "Why am I publishing this at all?"
To paraphrase Houdin are you serving the art in yourself or yourself in the art?

If you have an original idea that you are trying to protect then let's face it-- it's best not to publish it at all.
If you are trying to make a name and a reputation for yourself there is another reason to wait... because publishing too soon will give you a reputation and a name all right-- unfortunately it won't be a good one because old geezers like myself-- older guys who actually BUY stuff will spread the word about the true value of the work.

There are only two reasons left then:
1. Because you actually want to serve the community and give back to others for sharing with you or--
2. Because you don't care about anyone else, or your rep. You're going to close your eyes and cross your fingers and make a quick buck.

If it's for the reason number one-- bless you.
If it's number two-- f*$# you.

If it is your sincere hope to be of service to the art-- putting aside for the moment the question of whether this brain child of yours is worthy of publishing at all-- you don't want to re-invent the wheel, you don't want to waste people's time publishing what already exists, you want to be grateful for those who have come before you and shared their ideas-- then there are accepted ways to do it.

You find someone who has all those things and ask... and then find someone else and ask them too! Because it's embarrassing to claim something as your own by accident. It shows you in the exactly opposite light as you intend-- Instead of being seen as someone brilliant and clever it paints you-- rightly or wrongly-- as someone one amateurish and inexperienced.

And because it's wrong and shameful to claim some one else's work as your own deliberately. And when you do-- you don't fool anyone. You just cement your reputation as a liar and a thief.

But EVEN THEN... even when you have done everything you could do... it happens ALL THE TIME that people publish ideas that have already been published. Or they create fantastic new routines based on the work of some one else. Some of my favourite creators have published work inspired by others... but credit is given and where the new work relies so much on the existing work or idea that the new effect-- or presentation could not be performed without it-- permission is sought!

One of the first things I was taught in Drivers' Ed was "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." You might break it occasionally and get away with it sooner or later you will be caught. Saying "But I didn't know..." will not excuse your actions.
"You're a comedian. You wanna do mankind a service, tell funnier jokes."
TPR by Dave Moses and Iain Dunford
Dale A. Hildebrandt
View Profile
Special user
628 Posts

Profile of Dale A. Hildebrandt
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 14:52, jdmagic357 wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 14:35, Dale A. Hildebrandt wrote:
Just to be clear, am I understanding the Prager supporters here?
Dale A. Hildebrandt


No, you are not understanding the Prager supporters here. What we na; what I am saying, is that in the first place there isn't any moral issue, as this is a different peek.

However I did find one thing interesting in you post "or asking peek experts" this my be what all the fuss is about?

Only if the big names are asked for their opinions, are we to accept the deprivation of an effect. And only if they give their stamp of approval, are we to accept a "new" idea into the collective.

That's the issue. OK got it. Thanks for clearing things up.


The "big names" are big names, in many cases, because they stand on the shoulders of giants--giants who they recognize, respect, and credit. It is not the deprivation of an effect if you find it has already been done--it is only a deprivation of repetition. If they give their "stamp of approval" it means that you most likely do have a new, and worthy, idea to add to the collective.

And Prager is doing the same thing here that he did with his previous two releases. I will now point out that doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is insanity. In fact, I found the credit that Prager could have easily found by having one top-notch expert PM me.

Sincerely,
Dale A. Hildebrandt
Mind over Magic
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of Mind over Magic
Would it be ok if I released Prager's 3 books (1 which he stopped selling) compiled them into 1 book, changed the color of the wallet, used a home office stapler instead of an office stapler and sold it for $10 total?

Of course it wouldn't, but that's exactly what he is doing.

Horrible. Read some books and learn before you jump the gun on releases. Use that excitement you have to learn.

Sid.
TheGingerWizard
View Profile
Special user
628 Posts

Profile of TheGingerWizard
Ok humble pie time guys! After reading a very interesting PM from Greg Arce I have had to re-evaluate my opinion of Prager's work. If I had this info sooner I wouldn't of said some of the things I did.

I am not saying that everything I said was wrong. But I was certainly too quick to come to Prager's defence. I did ask for direct sources early on but it seems they are rare!

Rare or not, they are out there. I was wrong!
jdmagic357
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of jdmagic357
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 15:22, IAIN wrote:
trolls, and mass-debaters are welcome to come kiss my ( ! ) I they wish to disagree...


Interesting argument, but how would kissing your arse add to the discussion? Seems like more of a troll statement, than an honest attempt at intelligence?

I have been pmed that there was something LIKE THIS published somewhere at sometime, but that it is very obscure. Given that fact, can't we assume that Pablo came up with this totally on his own, and since he wasn't and isn't PERSONALLY, knowledgeable about the exssistance of a previous work, then YES ethically he's entitled to market what he came up with independently? Or do we just reserve that right to the guys we like?

Just saying.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
TheGingerWizard
View Profile
Special user
628 Posts

Profile of TheGingerWizard
I was supporting Peeki for a long time in this thread. I still believe that Prager came up with this idea independently and I thought he had released it in ignorance of similar published methods. I have since found out that he was informed of these similar methods and they should of been credited. I'm not saying it shouldn't of been released but he should of done more homework. The Acidus Novus argument was a complete red herring to me and completely irrelevant!
bevbevvybev
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
2576 Posts

Profile of bevbevvybev
If it was that obscure this conversation would never have happened.
Gatehouse
View Profile
Regular user
Cardiff, UK
117 Posts

Profile of Gatehouse
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 15:50, jdmagic357 wrote:

I have been pmed that there was something LIKE THIS published somewhere at sometime, but that it is very obscure. Given that fact, can't we assume that Pablo came up with this totally on his own, and since he wasn't and isn't PERSONALLY, knowledgeable about the exssistance of a previous work, then YES ethically he's entitled to market what he came up with independently? Or do we just reserve that right to the guys we like?



The big problem is the nature of this release.. it was rushed out with no consideration to anything that MAY have come before it.
Even assuming that Prager had no knowledge of this obscure source, would it have killed him to double check?

Let's assume for a moment that I've discovered this amazing new force of nature that makes things fall to the ground when I release them from my hand.
I'm completely unaware of the works of Isaac Newton and have discovered this completely independently.... I await a positive response from the scientific community regarding the publication of such a monumental work.

Obviously, it doesn't work like that.. why should it be any different for magic and mentalism?
jdmagic357
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of jdmagic357
Quote:
On 2011-02-28 15:44, Dale A. Hildebrandt wrote:
The "big names" are big names, in many cases, because they stand on the shoulders of giants--giants who they recognize, respect, and credit. It is not the deprivation of an effect if you find it has already been done--it is only a deprivation of repetition. If they give their "stamp of approval" it means that you most likely do have a new, and worthy, idea to add to the collective.
Sincerely,
Dale A. Hildebrandt


I really have to say that I respect your argument here. It's cogent and concise. Thank you for understanding the rules of conversation, and how to employ them with class. Smile
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Peeki (5 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL