talkmagic.co.uk

This isn't a review because I don't own the dvd / book, but I found out myself how this works and just wanted to share my experience

Effect: Here’s the plot. You name a playing card and ask a spectator to randomly select a number between one and 52. You name a second playing card and ask a second spectator to randomly select a second number. In the third phase, you name a number and a third spectator names any playing card.
You bring out a deck of cards and show that the cards have numbers between one and 52 written on their backs. You clearly remove the card named by spectator number three and place it face up on their hand. You turn the deck over and remove the cards (face down) bearing the numbers named by spectators one and two.

Now for the revelations. When spectators one and two flip over their cards, they are shown to be the playing cards that you initially named before they selected numbers. And when the third spectator turns over his card, it’s found to display the exact number that you named on its back.


This is just a wondefull little piece of mentalism. it's easy to do, and easy to perform. It uses regular cards, so no rough and smooth, no gimmicks, no switches,... the only thing you have to do is write the numbers on the backs. But once you've done this, you can perform this as much as you like.

Also the main reason why I post this here is because of the thought process behind figuring out this trick myself.
I've seen over 250 card magic dvd's and know a lot of moves, sleights, techniques and so on. I can't do them all, but I can recognize them in a trick.
So it's a lot of fun for me to watch a performance, and then later reconstruct the trick myself, using my knowlegde.

I did the same with this trick and used plain magicians logic. Once I set up the deck I went to a friend of mine who does own the dvd and asked him if my version was close to the real version on the dvd and guess what... I was spot on

Are there more of you that can reconstruct tricks by just watching at a performance ? Or let me rephrase, do some of you reconstruct tricks so you'll get the same outcome with the trick on a dvd (but maybe your version uses other techniques / sleights ...) and therefore you don't have to buy the dvd anymore.

If you saw the effect, deconstructed it, established it was the same method, and then use it, then you really ought to pay for it. That's not to criticise reverse engineering effects; I think it's a very useful and worthwhile pursuit, especially when you find out that the method you came up with is different to the one that's marketed.

Fred Robinson, when asked how a particular effect of his was done, would usually tell the person to go away and think of how they themselves might do it. It's a much better way of learning how to do something than by following along deck in hand. It's also the last step before developing effect-led magic from scratch.

When Mark Elsdon demed the effect on Saturday, he only did two stages.Which i think is enough.

I agree fully with Grue, in that deconstruction of an effect, is not justification for Piracy.( which is kind of what your doing you know)

but would add that the instructions that come with an effect will contain far more than just the method.It will teach you how to do the trick properly.
Now, you dont say where you saw the effect, in order to do your deconstruction.
Bad performance, or on line video.

I saw it at a magicians wedding. And the performance was good.No flashes, or mistakes were made.
Just when I got home and thought 'how would I do it' I set up my own deck, technique and so on and it was the same as the original.

I don't really think this is piracy because otherwhise this would mean that every trick I see, simple or complicated, and I know how it works by just looking at it, I would have to buy the dvd (even though I got my own presentation & patter) before I may perform it.

If I go around telling everybody my method (and it's the same method as on the dvd) then I'd have to agree. But why would I spend 50 $ for this trick, for something i already know ?

Groovebird wrote:I don't really think this is piracy because otherwhise this would mean that every trick I see, simple or complicated, and I know how it works by just looking at it, I would have to buy the dvd (even though I got my own presentation & patter) before I may perform it.

It depends. Here the important bit is that you're talking about a trick that you would not have come up with yourself had you not seen the performance. It would be akin to going to see a new play, then putting the play on yourself based on what you remember from that performance.

There's an ownership issue, which is probably why you don't feel like you're pirating. It's certainly less of a theft in as much as you've put in real work to get at the method, rather than just download a bit torrent, and if you're just performing it to yourself, or a few close magic buddies, then it's probably no biggy. But if you go out and use it in front of real people, then, yes, it's theft. That's why often in manuscripts you'll see something called "performance rights" being discussed, usually with a restriction on performing particular material on TV.

As has been mentioned: pay the piper.

I personally get quite excised when I see new (not second-hand) copied props appear on eBay that don't pay royalties to the creator. Sometimes people then complain that the cheaper prop isn't as good at the original: well there's a reason for that sunshine.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that you're doing, providing it is for your own enjoyment or amusement. However, if you were to start performing Trilogy (for paid gigs or otherwise), you really should be paying for it first. Otherwise it is akin to piracy or theft. I don't think people realise just how important it is to support magic and encourage creators to release new ideas and effects.

Replicant wrote:"I've seen mackerel you people wouldn't believe..." - Replicant, Folkestone Pier, 2007

Sea bream glistening?

Mr_Grue wrote:

Replicant wrote:"I've seen mackerel you people wouldn't believe..." - Replicant, Folkestone Pier, 2007

Sea bream glistening?

Lost in time, like tilapia in rain....

you know the biggest mistake you have made with this, is telling people about what you have done.

There is no such thing as copyright for ideas. Copyright only applies to existing works, which you are not allowed to copy in full without permission. Deducing a method is not piracy. Neither is publishing a method you have devised on your own illegal

Actually, if you read a method and republished it using different words you would also be in the clear regarding copyright law.

However, if you published your method and knew that your phrasing was identical to a pre-published document, you should expect accusations of copyright infringement.

I know that lots of people don't want to hear this, because they believe that it would be fairer if ideas could be protected. But the only way you can protect an idea legally is to obtain a patent. And that is clearly impractical for most people most of the time.

daleshrimpton wrote:you know the biggest mistake you have made with this, is telling people about what you have done.

you make me feel like I killed someone and should burn in the firy fires of hell for this

I assume you are talking about the original trilology and not the streamlined version, which IMHO is a superior effect.

Groovebird wrote:But why would I spend 50 $ for this trick, for something i already know ?

You're confusing what you've done with independent creation.

Ask yourself this: if you hadn't seen the original effect, would you have come up with it yourself? Probably not. Fact of the matter is you may have worked it out for yourself, but that's only because somebody with enough creative impetus worked the thing out in the first place.

If you had come up with the idea yourself, and worked out a handling for it with no knowledge of the original, nobody would think ill of you for performing it (publishing, however, would be another matter) - it would after all be your own creation.

But this isn't what you've done; Brian Caswell has already done the hard work in dreaming up the idea, finding a handling, testing it in the real world, refining it, testing it again and so on and so forth until he has arrived at the method he eventually published. You are leeching off his hard work and reverse engineering the final method (easy in comparison to creating the effect).

So don't think of it as paying for something you already know - think of it as paying the creator for the hard work he put into it, for without that effort you wouldn't have anything to reverse engineer.

I'm a creator myself, with several effects floating about the market. Creating a decent effect is a difficult and lengthy process, and if I found out people were reverse engineering my effects and not paying for the right to perform them I wouldn't think "well, isn't that a creative person!" because most anyone who's been in magic for a while can reverse engineer most effects. I would, however, consider the point of releasing anything else in the future - as other creators are.

Something to think about, I hope

A bit off topic, but 250 magic DVDs?

I still don't have more than a few dozen....