talkmagic.co.uk

I'm curious to hear what you think the ethical ramifications of the following situation are:

A performer gives a lecture where he teaches how many of his gimmicked effects work. In his lecture, he encourages the attenders to make the gimmicks themselves rather than pay the cost of purchasing them from him.

Typically, when you purchase a magic trick, you are purchasing the secret. However, in this case, the cost of the secret of these effects was included in the cost of the lecture. Therefore, if you were to purchase those gimmicks at the lecture, you really would be purchasing just the materials and the workmanship, not the secret. Is it still unethical for someone who attended the lecture to assemble multiple copies of the gimmicks and sell them to others who also attended the lecture at a reduced cost?

The way I see it, it would not be unethical. If you attended the lecture, then you already paid the cost for learning the method and it is not unethical to pay someone else to build the gimmick for you. Therefore, I don't see why it would be unethical for someone to build several copies of the gimmick and sell them to those who might have liked the effect but didn't have the time or skill to build the gimmick themselves and dont want to pay the inflated cost that buying it with the secret brings.

In practice it is not so simple since you make sure that you only sell the gimmic to thouse who attended the lecture. If however the lecture for example take place at a convension and you decide to sell the gimmic to other participants attending the convension, if I understand you correct, you think it is ethical.

Infact I think such a behaviour it is quite rude and unacceptable, since you are reducing the revenew the magican can make (despite that he generously recomended people make their own gimmic).

I my mind there is absolutely no argument for not clearing this with the lecturer first.

Actually, it is simple in this case. The lecturer came to our local magic club some time ago and has since left. Checking who was in attendance at that lecture is easy.

But, I think the bottom line comes down to this question: Is it ok to sell the gimmicks for someone else's effect to someone who has already paid the creator for the secret?

I would argue that yes, it is ok to do this. It isn't much different from selling a pull to someone who already paid for the secret by buying Mark Wilson's book (or any other beginner's book that includes instructions on how to create and use a pull).

Why not email the lecturer and ask him?

I reckon he'd be fine with it.

saxmad wrote:Why not email the lecturer and ask him?

I reckon he'd be fine with it.

I thought about that and, actually, it's what I decided to do.

But I thought the question was interesting enough to still post it here. It raises an interesting ethical dilemma and I think it's worth discussing.

If the lecturer was willing to give away the method for building the prop then he probably isn't worried about selling as many as possible himself.

He's probably more interested in as many magicians as possible knowing about him and performing his magic.

Publicity.

That way he can sell more books & videos, get more lecture engagements, get more recommendations as a performer etc.

A lot less short-sighted than trying to squeeze a few quid (and it probably is only a small sum) by flogging as many gimmicks as possible.

I would make an assumption tht the lecturing magician is etailing his gimmick and the construction of it for the sole use of the magicians who have paid to attend his lecture. I think that it would be reasonable for the lecturer to expect that those attending were there to further their knowlege and skill in performing and were not there to simply hijack his ideas and methods in order to sell them on to othes for a quick buck.

If anyone isn't skilled at making a gimmick, and there are plenty who may not have access to tools that could be needed, then I see it as being ethical to ask someone to make the gimmick, or perhaps a few spares for your own personal use.

I would expect the lecturing magician to feel that in visiting a magic society he was sharing his secrets with like minded individuals who respected his right to some protection. Many lecturing magicians also sell DVD's and lecture notes and part of their lecture is showing what on or in these items. Is it therefore ethical to also copy these for wider distribution?

I think not and we should respect the rights of our fellow magicians.

dat8962 wrote:I would make an assumption tht the lecturing magician is etailing his gimmick and the construction of it for the sole use of the magicians who have paid to attend his lecture.

and those are the only people who would be sold the gimmicks. So, where is the problem?

This is where the problem is:

Is it still unethical for someone who attended the lecture to assemble multiple copies of the gimmicks and sell them to others who also attended the lecture at a reduced cost?

It is ethical in my view to make as many gimmicks as you wish to for your own personal use but not to sell on for the use of others - even if they too attended the lecture and paid the entrance fee.

Why do you suppose that some lecturers perform a sleight, acknowledge a credit to it's creator but still refuse to teach it? It's because they don't own the right to give the sleight away, even though they may have paid to go to a lecture and paid an additional amount for a DVD. The entitlement through payment is for you to make your own gimmick for your use.

Write to the creator and see what he says. If you're given the OK then fine. That's the only way to find out for sure.

If I'm understanding what you've said correctly yes, it is wrong for someone to "mass produce" someone else's intellectual property that's been entrusted to you, for the sake of personal gain whilst cutting the originator out of the profit bearing loop. When we attend a lecture, purchase lecture notes, etc. we are given limited permission to make the items outlined in those notes, etc. for PERSONAL USE not for the sake of personal gain via manufacturing/retail. The only exception to this is when you have a legal agreement with the innovator to do so.

In saying this, let me give you a cruel demonstration as to how what you're sharing about, has been abused; the famed Harbin Illusion Plan book. Legally and ethically ONLY those that own the book have the legal and ethical right to build and use the effects revealed in said tome. Yet, major manufacturers the world over have mass produced the Zig Zag and dozens of other effects shared in that book WITHOUT any sense of concent or permission from Mr. Harbin or his successors e.g. 99% of the people that own a Zig Zag aren't supposed to have access to it or any of the other effects found within said book.

Sadly, magicians are worse than lawyers when it comes to skirting around the ethical and moral issue when it comes to their sense of greed and lust i.e. the things they want and the various means by which to get them. They love manipulating the legal language of things so as to justify their actions (a.k.a. hair splitting) and typically, those that are the most guilty for doing these things are the loudest voices in these forums when it comes to the issue of theft, ethics, et al (it's called "misdirection").

It's a very sad thing but I doubt seriously that we'll ever see an end of it.

[moved]

Craig wrote:

Sadly, magicians are worse than lawyers when it comes to skirting around the ethical and moral issue when it comes to their sense of greed

Sadly, whatever line of interest people pursue, whether magic or not, there will always be those who are more driven by greed and who care nothing about the morals of what they are doing.

and typically, those that are the most guilty for doing these things are the loudest voices in these forums when it comes to the issue of theft, ethics, et al (it's called "misdirection").

That may well be the case! I have a professional interest where theft and fraud is concerned, from the law enforcement side, although not directly in the example concerning breach of copyright issues. It is surprising that many of those who are caught stealingdo not give poverty as an example. All excuses tend to be related to greed.

It's a very sad thing but I doubt seriously that we'll ever see an end of it.

I agree!

Thank you all, for your insights. But here is where I'm still having trouble agreeing with anyone over this:

Craig Browning wrote:the famed Harbin Illusion Plan book. Legally and ethically ONLY those that own the book have the legal and ethical right to build and use the effects revealed in said tome. Yet, major manufacturers the world over have mass produced the Zig Zag and dozens of other effects shared in that book WITHOUT any sense of concent or permission from Mr. Harbin or his successors e.g. 99% of the people that own a Zig Zag aren't supposed to have access to it or any of the other effects found within said book.

In your example, the reason it is unethical is because 99% of the people that own a Zig Zag aren't supposed to have access to it. But, suppose a manufacturer limits the sale of Zig Zags to only those who own the book. Doesn't that solve the ethical problem? If a manufacturer did that, then 100% of the people who purchase a Zig Zag from them are supposed to have access to it and your entire argument for why that is unethical is now gone.


I don't disagree that this may be unethical. The reason I posted about it is precisely because of its ethical ambiguity. But I just haven't found any good solid arguments yet to back up the idea that this may be unethical.

Pardon, but you seem to have missed the point; in the case of the Zig Zag the greed factor broke through the legal and ethical element and we had most every major and most minor builders of magic building unsanctioned versions of the ZZ or any number of other Harbin effects.

Franz Harrary's "Janet Box" (what most of you guys would call the "Multiple Cutting") can only legally be obtained through David Mendoza AFTER you pay Franz a set royalty and sign a very limited performance agreement. This is not the only effect or system now controlled and on the market. There are Code techniques from the Mentalist side of the world, Hold Out Systems... even the famed Origami and Interlude effects can only be purchased legally from three primary builders, memory serving me correctly... on the down side we have some slimy low life types that have very questionable quality knock offs of these effects and others, made in 3rd world countries that they make available to those magic whores that could care less that they have an illegal copy or how patronizing such jerks hurts magic; our selfishness and greed coupled with the ego need to do a piece that's restricted and generally controlled serves as the catalyst to trespass.

The ZZ of our current era, at least on the smaller and more portable level, is the Smash & Stab type bits of which there exist probably a dozen or more variations and absolutely NONE of them have come to the market with the blessing of Gary Kurtz or Banachek, the two guys that created the original premise... No, it was seen on a couple of TV specials and quite literally in the magic shops and ads in under two months time. Personally I love the fact that so much wonderful karma is coming about as the little thieves that have run out to get this piece, are stabbing themselves or their patrons and paying for their arrogance and general stupidity... ain't Karma great!? :twisted:

What I am hearing in your words Bronin, is a poor attempt to justify something that intuitively, you already know is wrong... that's usually the case when someone asks a question of this sort... it's right up there with drunks asking others if they think they might be alcoholics...

Craig Browning wrote:What I am hearing in your words Bronin, is a poor attempt to justify something that intuitively, you already know is wrong... that's usually the case when someone asks a question of this sort... it's right up there with drunks asking others if they think they might be alcoholics...

Actually, my specific situation was resolved before I ever posted here. I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm trying to open a discussion on ethics that poses the following questions:

If you have already paid for the secret, is it ethical to pay for someone to build the device for you?

If the preceding is not unethical, then why would it be unethical for someone to build such devices and sell them only to those who have already paid the original inventor for the secret?


Those are the real questions I'm posing here. They were inspired by a personal situation, but it isn't my personal situation I am here to discuss and I have nothing to justify in that area since that situation was already resolved.

Let's set up a fictional scenario so we can see what an interesting ethical dilemma this is if you give it honest consideration instead of going with the immediate knee-jerk reaction:

Bob is a well known carpenter and amateur magician that the local magicians can count on to build all of their props. One day, he attends a lecture with 20 other magicians. The lecturer describes how to build Illusion X. Although he has hired a company to build these for him and he offers them for sale, he encourages the attenders not to buy them from him because it's so much cheaper to build it yourself once you know the secret.

Fred approaches Bob shortly after the lecture and asks him to build Illusion X for him. Bob builds it and sells it to Fred.

The following day, Vincent approaches Bob and asks him to build Illusion X for him. Bob begins building another one for Vincent, but before he's even done building that one, Michael has called him and asked him to build Illusion X.

Bob decides that it would be more efficient to build several of these at once rather than building them to order. So, after he finishes Vincent's copy, he builds 5 more. He gives Michael the one he asked for and now has 4 of them left. He decides to phone the other magicians who had attended the lecture and offer Illusion X to them for a reasonable cost.

Is what Bob did unethical? If so, at which point did it become unethical and why?