I've sold almost all the routines I have created. I don't think it has ever hurt me or the art.

Indeed, you may well be right. But I don't think this discussion needs to revolve around personal anecdote - that gets emotionally messy. And, obviously, I could simply ask how one could possibly ascertain to what degree an action had or had not damaged the art - it's something unmeasurable.

However, I think it's fair for me to point out the obvious increase in exposure risk between indiscriminate selling and selective selling. If people are genuinely excised by exposure, and if it is agreed that exposers don't care about their conduct and can't be convinced to change it, then the only remaining control lies with magic creators and sellers.

If you can't stop the exposers then one may have to stop the access to secrets.

But I think that many sellers and creators would stand to lose a fair whack of income, not to mention the hassle of changing the current business model, if they were more selective - thus I don't think they'll do it. This is a people problem, not an idea problem.

Obviously, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too. People want the increased sales that comes from easy access, marketing and advertising, unrestricted sales etc. But they also, obviously, don't want their stuff exposed. Well, it appears one cannot have both because people are idiots. If the idiots won't stop being idiots, maybe the creators and sellers have to take a step up the ethical ladder to a higher level.

Or maybe we should just ignore exposure completely, since maybe no one cares all that much anyway.

It's a bell the cat problem.

Maybe not. I agree it is impossible to totally solve the problem, but no one is suggesting such a thing be done. However, I am suggesting the situation can be made better by a course of deliberate action.

Do we throw up our hands because we can't stop theft in society?
Or do we improve the situation by better locks, better policing and neighbourhood watch schemes?

Or is it the case that it would be too painful to sell to much fewer people? I can understand that. But that is different to saying that this is a theoretically unsolvable issue.

Sellers and creators sell to a much more restrictive target market. I don't see that as even difficult, let alone impossible.

Exposure = secret given away for free = devaluing the art

Selling a secret = demonstrates the secret has some value and is not worthless = variable but symbolically shows it has worth (other things besides $ can be there but there must be something to indicate value)

Selling a secret to anyone with X amount of money = nowadays, expect it to be pirated

Selling a secret to anyone who passes some screening or other for x amount of money = nowadays, expect it to be pirated

Sharing a secret with a trusted colleague in the art = camaraderie and collaboration -> assuming the secret was the first person's to share

Sharing a secret of some other performer without their permission with a trusted colleague of the art -> now we enter something in the murk

Sharing a secret on the MC in 50+ posts sections = unclear - in theory helping magicians but seen sometimes this has been a rip-off without credit zone

Trading physical secrets = 2 magicians decide to swap something for something else = a book for a wallet, a b screen for a e-pad etc. = original seller gets zip except from initial sale... hmmm

Selling a second hand anything physical = considered ok by the MC = yet the original creator gets nothing = and depending on the object, the seller and the buyer both get the secret(s) = i.e. knowledge of the inner workings of an effect that can now be replicated or techniques in th head e.g. from a book or lets say you had a box or wallet = you sell it off as you make your own (not to sell to others but just to customize) = interesting

Trading ebooks = most people here would say that is wrong.... but the trading the physical is ok....fascinating

Selling an ebook second hand = most people say that is wrong

Sharing the key aspects to a performance vs a method = equal to me at least for all the above = in fact, a video not doing overt exposure but just some poorly performed effect can end up being exposure

Spin off thoughts = to share ideas in a magazine etc. perhaps its to help share with the community to raise the wealth of knowledge, inspire each other, collaborate and synergize - for others its just to say "look at me" - etc.

Maybe its a myth but I believe many professionals (working) share with a select inner circle of colleagues they trust and that is that.

As some have mentioned, most of us would be woefully stunted in our growth or not get into the field if it were not that some pros decided to share via selling their secrets with the original intent it was of the mystical arts brethren (mentalists too ya)


Exposure of classic effects that have been around in the common for ages is still wrong IF YOU HONOUR the art of magic/mystery/mentalism = just because it might be 1000 of years old does not give a person the ownership of the secret to give to the PUBLIC. Now, if you are not part of the art and are just a skeptic etc. I assume they are not interested in entertainment = they just hate not knowing things, feel loss of control whenever they find out there is a secret etc. and it bugs them and they will start posting exposures anywhere = or they do it as well to show others how smart they are etc. That isn't right from our perspective - from theirs its "I must warn humanity against all things I don't like - like not being told everything I want to know" - these people have, do and will exist - I deal with them when I perform all the time - and there are techniques to take care of them anyway.... but they will try to expose unless your style can turn them to the "entertainment for enjoyment" side

As for the youtube channel = if its open for the entire public = ouch - if a person was able to monetize it and was only sharing secrets that were "creative commons" or their own = seems ok according to the above framework...

I don't think we can ignore exposure - but also, I don't think exposure will be eradicated but rather increase thanks to social media and 21st century cyber land.... so we must adapt for that reality but not endorsing it as "ok" but rather really consider if we should be sharing secrets in ways that having yet accepted the potential of techno pirates, twitter land and so on.... and realize that selling today with a click of a Buy it Now releases work to others in ways much different 50 years ago - where people went into brick and mortar shops and there was a ritual even then for gaining access to secrets.

Ah, its 4 in the morning here my dog was barking - had to let him out and so was bored and started typing - he is back so I'm going to bed. Hence here is a shared post of a sleepy fellow, full of text and fuzzy - likely signifying nothing (or will be ignored anyway )

My dog says, now that he has returned form his dead of night sojourn, he will not reveal what he was doing out there beyond the obvious - he told me if I really want to know, next time, get out of my pyjamas, put on some clothes and go for a walk with him. He decided to go out at 4 so no one could see him do his arcane business. He said what I think he did is just an assumption as it was dark outside - but he will not tell me even though I offered him some kibbel.

He did this all through non verbal communication if you are wondering.

Exposure happens when magic is popular. As magic wanes again in popularity, the exposure and interest in exposure will pass.

That's an interesting point. I guess time will tell. But shouldn't we want interest in magic to continue ... Might it best to think of ways to balance popularity with limiting exposure rather than waiting for people to get bored with magic?

I know you realize that this wouldn't work, but I will take the bait...

This would never work, first of all anyone can write a book about magic, how to perform it, and fill it full of tricks and publish it. They don't have to be in the supersecret magic club to do that and the supersecret magic club can't stop them. second of all people would trade tricks and effects one another whenever and whereever they want to, the supersecret magic club be ***ed. And that's just a fact.

Besides it isn't necessary and wouldn't be helpful. Quit trying to change other's behavior. It is a lost cause. If there are enough honest people who pay fairly and share the right way everyone will be okay. Just be a decent guy and appreciate and pay what things are worth, and if there are enough people like that, we'll mostly be okay in spite of takers and exposers.

Misterbill:
Of course. If magic creators won't take on board more responsibility for being selective about who they sell to then that's that. But IF magic creators wanted to, then they could sell their products much more selectively. and if magic societies wanted to, they could boot people for exposure. But I guess people don't really want to control exposure quite as much as they want things to remain the same. Fair enough.

Pop:
Sure, I don't think it's the end of the world, and personally it doesn't bother me that much. But if people complain about x, and y could be done about x, then it seems sensible to either do y or stop complaining about x. I'd prefer less x, and am willing to do y. I can only maintain my own standards, what others do is up to them. But I am also free to voice my opinion. But it seems it's a lost cause ... And I suspect there are more motives at play than a desire to control exposure. Fair enough.

The ancient fable of the Cat and the Mice applies. The fable concerns a group of mice who debate plans to nullify the threat of a marauding cat. One of them proposes placing a bell around its neck, so that they are warned of its approach. The plan is applauded by the others, until one mouse asks who will volunteer to place the bell on the cat. All of them make excuses. The story is used to teach the wisdom of evaluating a plan not only on how desirable the outcome would be, but also on how it can be executed. It provides a moral lesson about the fundamental difference between ideas and their feasibility, and how this affects the value of a given plan.

Indeed. I cannot do anything if those who complain don't want to do what is required to help alleviate exposure. But I can choose to do so myself, and I can choose to try and persuade the mice to do what is necessary.

Nice list Dr. Spektor to think about. But this:



follows a pretty well delineated rule: re-selling an item so that the original buyer no longer has use of the item--okay; re-selling so that the original buyer still has use of the item--not okay. So books and original DVDs may be resold; ebooks and copies of DVD may not be resold. Selling an original DVD and not destroying a back-up? Not right, but I can't say I haven't been guilty of that.

In this particular instance, the way I see it, Even if the cat were to be belled, that doesn't stop another cat from coming along and taking its place. You can't bell them all.

But a few nullified cats are better than no nullified cats, though. Can't solve crime, but can reduce it.

Terrible Wizard, I think you keep missing the point. A plan that is unworkable is no plan at all. It is a waste of time in proposal, and a waste of time in consideration. The mice got nowhere, and no cat ever got belled. No mouse was willing to take the insane risk, so it would never be done. They were just blowing smoke up each other's butts. A plan that will not work is worse than no plan. You can't reduce the cat threat at all. No cat will ever be belled.

Oh, I understand that. It's simply that I disagree about the workability of a magic creator being more restrictive over who they sell to. Even the most complex of my proposals, the one involving magic societies, I think is possible. But far more so the simple thing of individual creators being selective in their own dealings.

Also, something I think you've missed, is my concern and wonder about those who complain about x, but don't do much to deal with x.

I'm open to other suggestions as how to deal with the problem.

I'm not prepared to just throw my hands up in despair.

Any plan that requires you to get other people to change their behavior, against their own interest is going to fail. It is stupid. Unless you can clearly show them that the change is of value to them directly, it will never happen.

But don't despair. This really isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

All plans to change ethical behaviour involve persuading or co-ercing them to do something against their own interests. But oddly, crime rates and charity giving rates can easily be reduced or increased, and so not fail, through persuasion and co-ercion. This is why either appealing to either 'the good of art' or personal ethics is required for getting individual magic creators to be more selective in their sales, or why using the co-ercion of the magic societies ability to expel members for exposure, are necessary for the reduction of exposure.

Both require only some (preferably most) to participate for a positive effect.

Of course, you also highlight the real issue here: for many magic creators selective selling will hurt income, and if the problem is not one they feel needs to be solved, then they won't be willing to reduce their income for no good reason. Ie, they don't care about exposure (it's a non problem to them) and non-selective sales are best for their bank accounts.

If it is assumed that most magic creators and publishers think like that, then you are right - the problem has become insoluble. Not because there isn't a workable method, but because the necessary people see nothing wrong with exposure, and/or because those people aren't willing to suffer a degree of financial loss simply because it is the 'right' thing to do (for others, for the art, or whatever).

So, I guess that you're right. The people who could affect exposure don't think exposure is actually a problem worth solving, especially if it costs them money. Since I defer to your much greater expertise and experience in this area, I think you've convinced me that it's not worth bothering about. No one really cares (except perhaps on Internet forums!). Exposure? Who cares?

Why do so many want to close the door only once they themselves are in the room?

Consider if you were on the outside here of your equation. One for whom secrets were not available. Does this change your positron?