talkmagic.co.uk

The difference, to me, is that Ellusionist isn't repackaging things that are "fresh" items. They are taking old ideas and repackaging them. If this guy was selling a pdf of how to do the pass, or DL, that's one thing. And Ellusionist isn't trying to divert sales from the other "old" idea. They are out and out claiming that it is a new trick. Which this guy ISN'T doing.

I guess it's a matter of principle. Because if the guys wasn't advertising an already developed trick, I wouldn't mind. If he had taken any reference of "Revolution", "Ellusionist", and the like out of his ad, it wouldn't be a problem. But he is using those popular names to sell a product.

It's getting an endorsement of sorts without really getting an endorsement. Ellusionist uses it's own name as the endorsement. That's the difference.

And as for Paul Harris' Art of Astonishment 3 Vol. series. What if the guy didn't "copy" it, but instead took the methods and rewrote them, just telling you the moves to do the trick (kind of like the inserts from ETMCM Vol. 4-6, where just the moves are listed for the tricks). That wouldn't be "copying", so would that be OK?

I'm not saying Ellusionist is squeaky clean, and they deserve my support. Only that it bothers me when I see someone trying to make money off of another person's product and hard work. Ellusionist isn't taking, say, Kevin James' "Ultimate Card Through Window" and repackaging it as "Ellusionist Knock-Through." That would be the same thing as what this guy is doing.