Hi Guys

Here is the updated link with the performances of Helder’s effects edited out of the show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAc0QochQIg

All the very best

Dave

Craig's earlier post:
Hi there,

Just to let everyone know that we have been asked by Helder Guimaires to remove and edit our latest Wizard Product Review. As you may be aware the Internet Performance Rights were reserved by him, as detailed in the manuscript that is supplied with the project. On a busy morning when recording the show, even though we read the disclaimer, we didn't take it in and I went on to perform two effects from the project. I know that it's hard to believe that we missed the disclaimer so naturally we have complied with Helder's wishes and we would like to apologise to Helder for any upset caused. As such we have re-edited our show without this review.

However we would just like everyone to know that nothing changes our opinion about one of our reviews. Even though the Ontology Project review can no longer be seen, we want to go on record that our review stands. Ontology Project will always remain worker of the week for us and both Dave and I think it's excellent. Dave is re-editing the show as we speak and a new link will be posted shortly.

Craig

Wow. How nit picky.

You should let creator know it was your performance that made me want to buy this.

I said the same thing. I've learned my lesson with Helder. First Red Mirror, now this. Very poor business practices.

Wow that seems to be taking thing to extremes. The review was glowing.

Didn't see the review, just the edit, which conveys no useful information. So has anyone actually purchased this who thinks it's great? If so, why? Otherwise, pass.

Well, fortunately, your opinion doesn't matter.

MaxfieldsMagic: To answer your question, I have it, and it's fantastic. But why trust me? Bill Malone, Michael Weber, David Williamson, Chris Kenner, Jim Steinmeyer and Mac King have all praised it. If those endorsements wouldn't convince you, mine won't matter.

Seeing as how word of mouth is one of the greatest selling points of a product/service,and the internet is now the multinational equivalent of local word of mouth....I'd say his opinion does matter!
The sooner the elite deign to let the paying masses get their monies worth,the better...Ivory towers and all that,you know?
Ray.

Some additional details from Helder explaining precisely what the "restrictions" are, and why some here may be reacting without first obtaining all of the information:

http://journalofsecrets.com/ontology/faq

Seems more than fair to me.

Mike - thanks for the link fella BUT I really wouldn't want to waste one more second of my remaining lifetime watching, listening or reading any more rhetoric from, or indeed about, this bloke.

I think his rationale is MORE than fair.

I wish I would have seen the review for Ontology. I probably would have bought it. I tried to look into it further and am not really sold on it. Oh well.

I wasn't really considering Holey, but am considering it now.

Wow, really? I hold a master's degree in business, I'm no idiot. Consumer opinions DO matter, and any savvy businessman should know that. Opinions are what DRIVE the entertainment industry...sure it's about sales, but the customer's opinion will determine whether or not they choose to buy something. That's a pretty ridiculous statement from someone I've heard such good things about. I'm a little surprised.

With a master's degree in business, I'm guessing that your profession are/will be within a business related area. Your requirements are unlikely the same as those of a professional performer.
That Helder reserve some rights are, for me, a sign of high quality. It says that there are some artistic pride involved, as opposed to some two-bit junk that has been created just to make money from new amateur magicians (Sankey, Ellusionist etc.). It says that it is designed for professional use, as opposed to being designed for magic club meetings. It says that if I desire to perform it on TV, I can find out whether I will be unique in my geographic area or if it is currently being taped for TV by ten other magicians. And it says that the audience will be unlikely to find hundreds of bad performances of the piece on YouTube, if they search for it after a performance (search the phrase "crazy man's handcuffs" on YouTube to see what I mean).
All this combined makes it into a very attractive piece of work for those who are professional performers.

If you've really studied business, then you might remember phrases like "target audience" or "target market"? In most business models and theories it is considered to be good practice to have a well defined target market. Well, maybe you are not a part of that target group. And since you label that as being "Very poor business practices." it seems like you didn't assimilate any knowledge from your studies and that your "Master's degree" is just an empty title.

Putting a smiley face at the end of a rude comment doesn't make it any less rude - sorry. Clearly you support Helder and that's fine but no need to insult me or my intelligence.

I've been a performer since I was five years old. I fully respect his right to have control over his work, and I agree that YouTube features a whole lot of really awful performances of some otherwise fantastic work.

What I DON'T agree with is Helder asking a positive review to be pulled. Like I said, I purchased this BECAUSE I saw Craig perform several effects from it. Craig isn't some random little kid exposing stuff on the Internet. When you make rules and then follow them blindly, you are hurting only yourself. Every situation is different, and a smart businessman would see that the WPR was a GOOD thing, and would have thanked Dave and Craig for the review, rather than asking them to pull it. Why not just contact them and say, "Thanks for the great review! In the future, would you mind just contacting me if you'd like to perform an effect of mine on your show? Thanks! " See how simple that is? Everybody wins.

I don't agree with restrictions being withheld until AFTER I've spent my money. He did the same thing with Red Mirror. I have no interest in performing this stuff online...that's not my complaint. My complaint is selling something without full disclosure. If I'm supposed to respect the creator's wishes concerning his material, he ought to respect his customers and not take their money until they know EXACTLY what they're getting. Why wouldn't the ad copy tell us what the restrictions are? Because it could diminish sales. In THAT respect, it was a smart decision from a business standpoint, but I don't think it was very honest, and I think that's disappointing.

People keep saying, "it's his work, he was nice enough to release it, he can do whatever he wants with it." I never said he couldn't...but when you take someone's money, you ought to show them the same courtesy they've shown you, and you ought to recognize good press when it comes your way, and appreciate it rather than shun it.

And for the record, I graduated #1 in my class and had my dissertation published in - you got it - an entertainment business publication. I promise you, I'm no slouch

The reason for the smiley was because I assumed that you would interpret the same language you use as "concerned customer" to be "rude" when you, and not Helder, was subjected to it. I found that to be amusing.

I'm pretty sure that Helder asked for the performance to be pulled, since it was in violation of the copyright. To pull the whole review was probably WPR's decision.

You are looking at it from the wrong direction when you say that "restrictions being withheld". The default is that there are restrictions. That is a part of what copyright is. If nothing is said about the rights, then they are reserved. Look it up.
Sure, by tradition magicians usually assume that there are no restrictions on published works - but that assumption is not documented anywhere. You can not find that tradition detailed in any texts on copyright.
At some point it is necessary to begin to treat our performing art in the same way as other performing arts are treated. For many people that point is already here. The restrictions are in place as a default, and Helder grant complete performing rights for all live performances - and for that he is insulted?

And neither does yours <---(obligatory TStone smily face)
I was fortunate to see the full review before it was yanked...I understand Helders point of view, but does seem nitpicky that he wanted a good review pulled, just because he was not asked for permission first.
But I do REALLY like it and I am still buying it, strictly based on the WPR review of it.

Do Craig and Dave select items for review, or are they sent? - If Mr Guimaires sent this item then surely there is an expectation that it may be performed during the show?

Tom Stone said:



To see a post like this from a magician I have admired for a long time saddens me. I'd like to remind you Tom, that the motto of the Magic Café is "Magicians Helping Magicians." Andrew is a well respected member of this on-line community, such a dismissive post was not helpful. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with Andrew's point of view regarding the issue at hand, but there are politer ways to do this. I don't totally agree with Andrew on this matter, but I do think Mr Guimaires is cutting his nose off to spite his face.

Marty

I took a couple of minutes to read Helder's thoughts. Does seem pretty reasonable to me as well. As a marketing professional would hate to lose the public positive endorsement of WPR but I applaud his efforts to protect his brand. The fact that he does not want to over expose his material is somewhat refreshing in this somewhat staurated magic marketplace.

http://journalofsecrets.com/ontology/faq

Cheers,

John