Then I would say "what does it mean different in this context"?
Different as in "different (sell-able) product" or "different (spectator perceived) trick"?
From a product perspective, different method clearly means "different product": easy example, all different levitation illusions; same trick (more or less) but different method, some of them even patented by IBM (Copperfield's).
From a spectator perspective: different method means nothing. They are not supposed to see that.

To clarify...
see above.
--Harlan

This is a great point! At what point does "Originality" - take over as a monopoly and not create a fair market value? - In the retail world imagine that there was only one company who was allowed to make bottled water because they thought of it first, it would be ten times the price, as if bottled water already wasnt expensive enough lol

But, ripping off is a big difference then creating a variation. We are also in the magic world, and its a much more niche market and should be respected. Its very hard to create a clear answer about any of this, but at the end of the day sadly, its creating a fair market. Fair for whom, well that's a different answer.

The question I think should be, how does this version actually imrpove the effect...Thats a huge question, or is it just another way of doing it with no improvemant to the last. We should only be improving and backing it up, not just creating for the heck of it.

There are a very, very few who actually create new ideas. The rest are simply repeaters, remixers, copycats and thieves.

They circle around those gifted few like sharks, waiting for inspiration.

Not everything is a remix. Whoever said that is obviously a repeater.


DD

PS. NO SOPA

Lol. Innovation builds on what has come before.

Innovators take something that is very basic or bad and improve upon it. Sometimes they also take a classic and think of one way to make it better even though it has been untouched for generations. Usually they are the ones who change method or facade.

Creators think of something new that we haven't seen before but perhaps use props we are familiar with.

I think both are equally important in the creative process.

I believe originality exists, even in our art. It may be rare, but it DOES happen

I was leafing through 'Vortex', by Tom Stone, and enjoying his thoughts on 'Ambidextrous Travellers'. It's a disengenuous example, I know, but it is possible to reexamine others' work with originality and verve.

The, simple, point I'm trying to make is that a moderately intelligent human being should have no problem ascertaining what is okay to publish and why.

Conversely, the number of ludicrous rehashes, released as one-off DVD's, glut our gizzards with the taste of poorly cleaned offal. Some people have no shame: perhaps they are truly desperate for money? Times are hard, after all.

Oh, and in Maelstrom, Mr Stone gives his thoughts on The Invisible Palm. He is a highly original fellow, in my opinion.

A great debate guys thanks for all your input