The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sharpie Through Bill by Alan Rorrison & SansMinds -VS- Timothy Wenk's MISLED (16 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
I perform my version of bill though.. to perform mislead it would need to be the exact same gimmick. its simple logic...

No, you perform Timothy Wenk's version of bill through. You've added or changed nothing of merit. And you are still being dishonest in portraiting the specific as the generic.
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
So this is now becoming an opinion Tom? From some one who dosnt own my own to compare and who has directed some one to proof that states no method or similar?
PRINCE
View Profile
Inner circle
1448 Posts

Profile of PRINCE
Hahaha Tom you honestly get better and better - please please please take the time to go through your factory blanks thread again and if it states anywhere that I've apparently said "it's impossible to perform factory blanks" like you have just stated I did apparently quote that, then will personally give you $50,000 - yes I do have the money. There is no need to be bitter because Alan's effect is a worker and factory blanks is not.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Tim Cavendish wrote:
What precise aspect of Misled does Timothy Wenk currently claim to be protected?

I have no idea. I myself is solely concerned with paternity - that an originator's name is allowed to remain attached to one's work.
Kaliix
View Profile
Inner circle
Connecticut
1377 Posts

Profile of Kaliix
It's sharpie through bill versus pencil through bill. Being able to do the penetration on a sharpie is an improvement. It's a sliding shell gimmick versus a cap gimmick is different and arguably an improvement. That the Cap gimmick is examinable in context of routine is different and an improvement,. Sure STB does use the FnB concept of Misled, but that's it and Wenk is credited for that.

The Berne treaty covers copyright. The method for doing something is patentable, which is totally different than copyright, but as stated earlier, the patent is now expired.

So why are we arguing again?

Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, TStone wrote:
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
I perform my version of bill though.. to perform mislead it would need to be the exact same gimmick. its simple logic...

No, you perform Timothy Wenk's version of bill through. You've added or changed nothing of merit. And you are still being dishonest in portraiting the specific as the generic.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
So this is now becoming an opinion Tom?

It is not an opinion.
It is a fact that Misled is performed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bekqwitaFzU
Both effect and method is very recognizable. Misled is quite different from most other penetrations like Harkey&Sankey's "East meets West", Cornelius "Pen through anything", Yoshio Hirose's "Invisible Hole" from Apocalypse, Vanni Bossi's amazing ungaffed penetration... and it is quite disingenuous to pretend Misled is a generic penetration effect.
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
So from what you are saying there tom in your last statment is that this is the exact same gimmick as mislead? lets be clear.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Kaliix wrote:
The Berne treaty covers copyright. The method for doing something is patentable, which is totally different than copyright, but as stated earlier, the patent is now expired.

You lack understanding of both patents and copyright.
If this had been an *actual* method for transfering objects through paper without breakage, something useable an factory, it would be eligeble for a patent.
That isn't what Misled is. Rather, it is a fictional rendition of what it might look like. The pen doesn't actually penetrate anything. It is fiction. Drama. Art. And as all other dramatic works, it is covered by the Berne treaty.
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
One small addition I never claimed mislead was generic. I said my own was imply a different gimmick that would allow you to do a marker through bill. So by your logic and going on what you have said. For mislead to be performed in my trailer we would need to have use the mislead gimmick. Now I need to presume your are going by what Tim has told you as you do not own mine. so why would tim claim my version has "ripped off" a version he came up with before I was born and never released?

how does that go together?
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
So from what you are saying there tom in your last statment is that this is the exact same gimmick as mislead? lets be clear.

Let's be crystal clear.
If you change the forcing method used in Martin Lewis's "Cardiology", let's say from a forcing deck to a riffle force, it is still Martin Lewis's "Cardiology", even though you might claim that the method is completely different. The change is too small and trivial for you to usurp the paternity of the effect.
That's the case here as well. Performing Misled with its slit at the same place but with a minor and trivial change of object does not transmutate it into something else than Misled. It is not enough to claim paternity. For you to claim originality, there must be some significant difference in handling or effect.
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
That's not what I asked tim and dosnt support your prior statement. You are now going round in a circle to try and make your argument fit. Again by that logic a slippery sam cant excist because a shell does which is silly.

so would you like to answer my question and be crystal clear.
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Alan Rorrison wrote:
Again by that logic a slippery sam cant excist because a shell does which is silly.

No, that's not a correct representation of the logic.
The logic is more: Let's say David Roth have an iconic coin effect using a shell. If you then release the same effect where the *only* difference is that you use a slippery sam instead of the shell - then the difference is to minute and trivial for you to usurp the paternity of the effect.
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
So does the slippery sam make the effect easier or harder or allow the effect to happen in a way it could never work before? or does it do the exact same thing?
Infographicmagicreviews
View Profile
New user
Nelson
77 Posts

Profile of Infographicmagicreviews
Responding to your response to me earlier, your statement doesn't stand as you were exposing Alan Rorrison's secret, which I paid for and still on its way to me, not Timothy's.

And from where the conversation is going, it's very clear that the two versions are completely different. I don't know how you can call this a rip-off if they are clearly two different things. If what you said about copy right and patent are valid (which from my understanding they are far from being valid), it's a simple matter of having Timothy taken this to court and solve this civilly. Just saying..
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Quote:
On Dec 18, 2016, Infographicmagicreviews wrote:
And from where the conversation is going, it's very clear that the two versions are completely different.

Doesn't surprise me. Rip-off apologists are legio at this place.
Matt Chalk
View Profile
Regular user
New Zealand
166 Posts

Profile of Matt Chalk
Alan is still creating!

Pretty sure I read on three separate occasions...
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
Does anyone sincerely believe that the main thing that Timothy Wenk contributed was the specific writing implement used? That it became iconic because people were amazed that it used a pencil, and that the effect itself merely was secondary and incidental?
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
Your now just swerving questions and asking your own expecting an answer again because it suits your argument. so again just to follow your logic path here So does the slippery sam make the effect easier or harder or allow the effect to happen in a way it could never work before? or does it do the exact same thing?
TStone
View Profile
V.I.P.
Stockholm, Sweden
702 Posts

Profile of TStone
That is already answered:
Quote:
If you then release the same effect where the *only* difference is that you use a slippery sam instead of the shell - then the difference is to minute and trivial for you to usurp the paternity of the effect.

i.e. the change from shell to slippery sam makes no significant difference.

Just as little difference as between the original Misled
https://youtu.be/RzQLQRaigj4?t=161
and your handling of Misled
https://youtu.be/bekqwitaFzU?t=23
Alan Rorrison
View Profile
V.I.P.
2476 Posts

Profile of Alan Rorrison
But that wasnt my question tom. Again I'm just going for clarity here.. look let me get to the point. You originated by saying I perform mislead. There is no mislead gimmick for a sharpie pen. IF there was one that's what I would have bought and just used in gigs. I created a gimmick to make a pen melt through a bill that presentation looks like a phase in mislead. It is simply impossible use a mislead gimmick to do wha ti have done here. so the difference in the gimmick is key.

now during this conversation and during all of this debacle it has been claimed it was a direct copy of Tims gimmick by people who do not have it. t. from the people that do have it we know that this is not the case. if there was no significant differance the mislead would be usable on sharpie and it just isnits that simple
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Sharpie Through Bill by Alan Rorrison & SansMinds -VS- Timothy Wenk's MISLED (16 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 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