talkmagic.co.uk

Lady of Mystery wrote:There is a big difference between me copying a CD for my own use (yes I know it's still illegal) and me copying 100s of CDs to sell on ebay to make a dishonest quid or two.

There's also a big difference between selling a copy of something and your own interpretation of it.

Would it be OK for me to allow someone to have a copy of my Devil's Picture Book "for their own use"? I think not.

On a related topic, you don't see chefs selling single recipes for 20 quid or stopping people giving their own interpretation of them in other works.

All good points Marvell and I do think that selling single tricks for the ammount of money they charge is taking the mick, especially when you can find most of those tricks in a book costing half the price.

It's fine to make your own variation on a trick as long as it is distinct from the original and you credit the creator but it's not ok to blatently copy someone elses work and pass it off as your own.

I didn't see the ebay item in question so can't really comment directly about that.

Lady of Mystery wrote:It's fine to make your own variation on a trick as long as it is distinct from the original and you credit the creator but it's not ok to blatently copy someone elses work and pass it off as your own.

The guy was blatantly saying that if you want to do this trick by Ellusionist (and even linking to it!) don't buy it from them but buy his far cheaper explanation of their product instead. It might not be illegal, but the sort of person who does that is probably a complete **** in real life too.

I wonder whether his eBay purchasing history has anything juicy in it...

Lady of Mystery wrote:It's fine to make your own variation on a trick as long as it is distinct from the original and you credit the creator but it's not ok to blatantly copy someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

This chap is not passing it off as his own, he's saying he can teach you how to do the trick.

What is fundamentally wrong with selling ones own interpretation of something that is specifically perceived as a rip off? If Pure Effect cost 10,000 pounds, chances are, people would be happy to take someone else's interpretation of it or even a copy.

I'm not sure of the copyright laws associate with the book Royal Road to Card Magic or the two DVD interpretations of it, but I don't see people complaining about that. I'd love to know the ins and outs there if someone has information about it.

If this chap's interpretation sells and is well received, then it is to be perceived as a good value product. If this affects the sales of the "original" then that is perceived to be a bad value product. If people but the "original" over the interpretation, then that is not the case.

Here's another quandary. I worked out how to do Kaos. I've not bought it, but I know how it's done. Does this mean I'm not allowed to perform it or discuss it?

I can understand a lot about the code and ethics of the magic community and I can assure you that I'm not going to be creating my own interpretations of work and nor do I go around blabbing the method to tricks to sound special. However, nor am I going to be mountains of cash on single effects which turn out to be "not that special". There's a letter about that in Magic Seen, which has prompted some extra thought.

Marvell wrote:What is fundamentally wrong with selling ones own interpretation of something that is specifically perceived as a rip off?

It's snide.

He's saying buy the interpretation he generated from the original instead of buying the original.

Tomo wrote:He's saying buy the interpretation he generated from the original instead of buying the original.

That is a bit cold. However, he is trying to make the point that his version is "better" on the basis of cost.

The fact that he sayts it's generated from the original is a direct admission of copyright infringement and was a mistake on his part.

Oh, this is too funny! Somebody ripping off Elusionist? Say it ain't so!

Elusionist does nothing but regurgitate stuff that can be found in any half way reasonable library of magic and you folks are upset that someone is now doing to Elusionist what Elusionist has been doing to everyone else for years!

I'm sorry, but the irony is delicious.

Mike.

Michael Jay wrote::lol: Oh, this is too funny! Somebody ripping off Elusionist? Say it ain't so!

Elusionist does nothing but regurgitate stuff that can be found in any half way reasonable library of magic and you folks are upset that someone is now doing to Elusionist what Elusionist has been doing to everyone else for years!

I'm sorry, but the irony is delicious.

Mike.

Does that make what he's doing right? For me, it's the principle of the thing.

Again, my apologies, but when I see a thief getting ripped off by a thief, I can do nothing but laugh at the irony of it all.

As the saying goes:

"No honor amongst thieves."

It's the irony of it all. No, Tomo, doesn't make it right, but it does make it delicious.

Mike.

Well, just for a second forget that it's Ellusionist that is being ripped off. What if it was someone bought Jay Sankey's "Revolutionary Card Magic" and then created a pdf of all the tricks taught there, and then sell it. Or what if someone acquired Paul Harris' "Art of Astonishment" 3 volume book series, and then retyped the pages, then sold that.

It's someone making money off of something that they didn't do. Well, I guess since he took the trouble to type the effect out that makes it OK. This is just something that got me thinking. What's to keep people from reselling all the effects (at a lower cost)? Take, for example, "The Daniel Garcia Project" 3-DVD set. What if someone learned how to do the effects, typed out a "cheat sheet", then started selling it as "Learn the tricks in Daniel Garcia Project." Then someone else does the same thing, then another and another. Pretty soon you have 30 different versions of "The Daniel Garcia Project," but 29 of them have nothing to do with Daniel Garcia. But they are all repackaged to look different.

Obviously, this isn't going to stop. But I see this as the next step that YouTube posters start doing, all to make a quick buck. And that's what bothers me. Just like it bothers me when people buy a DVD, then sell burned copies on ebay. It will never go away, as people always want something for nothing, and most don't mind getting a burned DVD that retailed for $29.99, but they got for $2.00.

Marvell wrote:Here's another quandary. I worked out how to do Kaos. I've not bought it, but I know how it's done. Does this mean I'm not allowed to perform it or discuss it?

That's exactly what it means ethically speaking. There's nothing stopping you, but you shouldn't because you would not be performing it had you not seen the original effect (if you had come up with it independently then that would be another matter).

If you wanted to do anything about it - as others have said - the best option would be to link it to Ellusionist and let them do what they can about it because they're more likely to have the means to do so.

"Or what if someone acquired Paul Harris' "Art of Astonishment" 3 volume book series, and then retyped the pages, then sold that. "

That's a bad example. I don't think I need to specify.

That's copying and that's not aloud.

Well, just for a second forget that it's Ellusionist that is being ripped off.

I can't forget that it's Ellusionist because that's my specific point.

Alright, maybe I'm just dense...It wouldn't surprise me because I already know that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but here's a quandry for you:

What is the difference between this guy and Ellusionist?

• Ellusionist finds already published tricks, repackages them, adds a routine or two that you can do with the trick and sells it.
  
• This guys found an already published trick, repackaged it, didn't add a routine and sells it.

The only difference I see is that the guy didn't add any routines. So, you're going to have to explain to me how Ellusionist is different from this guy, because in my book, they are exactly the same.

Why isn't everyone decrying Ellusionist too? Why do you feel Ellusionist so squeaky clean and in need of your services to save them from this evil doer?

Seems to me that if Ellusionist can do it and nobody has anything to say about it, then they certainly don't have anything to say about it when someone else jumps on the bandwagon.

Mike.