talkmagic.co.uk

I can see Jing's point. But yeah if you're an amateur and will never really use it as a professional why not share it? (With all the caveats mentioned above)

(PS, your latest blog post where you have too many parenthesis scares me and reminds me of many painful memories trying to learn Scheme)

If you think you're method is easier and less bulky, more pocket managed also, then you can keep it to yourself, or, after many performances and being sure of it, ask permission and sell it, or even talk to the originator about it.

I guess I'll have to agree with Jing

Shinning a Different Light on Things. . .

In the 80's one of the most popular "new" illusions was the Origami Box. The only legal builder for this prop was John Gaughan and you had to pay Stinemeyer his $1,500.00 up front (I think it was) + 50% down to get one built. . . all in all you would have close to $10k invested. But then comes Jim Sommers and a handful of others offering the same effect using an alternative method for about half that price.

Who is going to attract the majority of consumers?

The "big guys" that have and make the big money and who rely on the political side of the magic world can't afford to buy a "knock-off" it would hurt them on many levels. But for the "kid" just starting out, being able to afford the equipment is paramount. In days now past you could take a look at most any builder and find the quality and prop design, affordability, etc. by shopping around... if you don't want the Chevy for some reason you get a Ford. . . this is how things have always been when one SHOPS. Not so with today's politics and monopoly games; games in which any system, even when it uses an alternative method, will be stigmatized and viewed as "Pirated" and "Theft" -- the performers using such props seen as Hacks and Dishonorable, etc.

Legally and technically the props are NOT the same even though the effect is, but in the magic world legitimacy has little to do with such factors, it's more of who you know, who knows you, and who is willing to side with you or against you. This is the sad truth to it all.

I've raised a good deal of hell over all the Smash & Stab variations on the market, not one of them given Gary Kurtz recognition let alone any kind of royalty payment. For that matter, very few know that Kurtz & Banachek were the originators to the routine (as I understand things via chats with Banachek . . . .just a note for clarification).

We can find mud-slinging around effects (especially grand illusions) that go back to at least the early 1800's but most especially when we have things like the Levitation (ala Kellar) and the Sawing come into the world. For a good while magician's got into some very ugly scenarios that included physical brawls and even a few shootings/stabbings here and there. Then again, a chap named Edison was known for taking all kinds of credit on things that were actually developed by Tesla and other associates, so maybe the magic world isn't all that unique and it's just greed that brings it all about.

Joshua Jay has covered this topic quite nicely in this month's Magic magazine.