talkmagic.co.uk

Lawrence wrote:Thing is you're not buying to outcome are you? you'd be buying the method! and if you can come up with your own method of achieveing said outcome then kudos to you!
I like the idea that if you havn't bought their big magic secret method then you really shouldn't know what it is and therefor shouldn't be able to recreate it, therefore... anything you come up with without copying an actual method is your own work.

now, I challenge you to point out the flaws in that...

Let's see...In fact, let's change the circumstances around a little bit...Let's call the method "paint and brush." Let's call the outcome "The Mona Lisa."

Why in the world would you want to take your paint and brushes and copy The Mona Lisa? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

But, since we are magicians/mentalists then it is okay to copy the outcome as long as you use different tools, or similar tools.

Sorry, I disagree.

To me, the art is no different, only the circumstances. Much like telling a joke - you can tell it with different language, but if the punch line isn't yours, then neither is the joke.

If you want to copy someone, then fecking pay the guy. If you can't pay the guy, then don't copy him - come up with something that is YOURS. If you simply can't be @rsed to come up with your own stuff, then pay the guy who came up with it for you.

Again, it doesn't matter what language you use, or what arguments you post, theft is theft. Go ahead, tell me that there are shades of gray. I tell you stealing is stealing, regardless of your attempts to find something deep down inside of you to make it "okay" in your book. Sorry...Bullsh*t.

I'm quite dissapointed that Blapsing_Beard wrote:not neccessarily - think of coin in bottle...ample methods out there. Is there only one original and the others are stealing? You cannae say that all creators out there never saw an original!

You think? Well, we'd have to study the methods out there to come to a conclusion specifically based on this idea, wouldn't we?

Far as I know, there is only ONE way to do this if you're using a glass bottle. However, the market has been inundated with all kinds of methods for doing this with our, newer, plastic bottles.

In fact, a method for the plastic bottles has been published in "Apocalypse." So, if you're dumb enough to pay $20.00+ to get someone's "newest" way of doing it, then so be it.

But that is the nature of magic now-a-days, isn't it? Come up with a different way to hold your pinky finger and publish your "new" way of doing something. Then, sell it to all the schmucks that are willing to buy it (in the words of George Carlin, "Nail two things together that have never been nailed together before and some schmuck will buy it").

But, you know what? Still doesn't make it right.

Mike.

Let me explain my thought process…

I see a demo with out the ending, I know the methods involved to recreate the effect.
The ending I don’t see but guess what it is,
They ask $200 for it with the bits, I have the bits or could knock them up cheaply.

Can I perform the effect with no guilt…

I ask the Talkmagic fraternity..

Michael Jay wrote:

Lawrence wrote:Thing is you're not buying to outcome are you? you'd be buying the method! and if you can come up with your own method of achieveing said outcome then kudos to you!
I like the idea that if you havn't bought their big magic secret method then you really shouldn't know what it is and therefor shouldn't be able to recreate it, therefore... anything you come up with without copying an actual method is your own work.

now, I challenge you to point out the flaws in that...

Let's see...In fact, let's change the circumstances around a little bit...Let's call the method "paint and brush." Let's call the outcome "The Mona Lisa."

is it still stealing if i make the mona lisa out of something else? perhaps in the style of Jackson Pollock? wouldn't that mean that pretty much everything Warhol did was stealing? oh dear

but just to clarify, i wasn't being 100% serious!

Blapsing_Beard wrote:

bmat wrote:There is the artist, and then there is the guy who paints by numbers and calls himself an artist. Choose.

My question becomes this. Did you see the demo and then think of how to do the effect yourself. Or did you think of the effect yourself and then see a demo for what you had already thought of? Based upon the way your post is written you saw the demo and decided to re-create it. That is stealing.

not neccessarily - think of coin in bottle...ample methods out there. Is there only one original and the others are stealing? You cannae say that all creators out there never saw an original!

If you can come up with something different then it is not stealing. I agree that if he didn't buy it, and has no real notion of the effect then chances are you are creating something new, or at least independantly. I have no argument with this. I have three hammers that all basically do the same thing but they are also all different, did one steal from the other? I don't think so. But when somebody comes up with a trick puts a demo of it so folks can decide if they like it or not before purchasing it, and then rather then purchases it just outright steals it then I have a problem, {granted it just may be my problem} but a problem non the less.

Lawrence wrote:is it still stealing if I make the mona lisa out of something else? perhaps in the style of Jackson Pollock?

Why not in the style of Lawrence? Why copy someone else's style? It simply makes you nothing more than a copy. You lose your unique, individualistic style.

Sure, making a painting that is remisniscent of The Mona Lisa is alright, but I'm not talking about that, and you know that, based on this statement that you made:

"...but just to clarify, I wasn't being 100% serious!"

Heh!

Mike.

SO… can I or can I not use the ending I never saw ??

FRK, you're going to do whatever it is that you please, regardless of what's been said above.

So, there's really no sense in asking, is there?

Mike.

[i wrote quite a bit here then deleted it after deciding there's no point putting a post up just to wind someone up]

While it is a moral issue, it is only that, even if someone had a proper patent/copyright/whatever over their trick then you need only make a minor change to it befor you can class it as a "different" trick. the madness.
I could be the lawyer for MagicMakers me!

What makes you say that?

If I had decided already I would not have posted this topic, of course I wanted a ‘yes you can’ but I also have respect for magicians and there livelihoods.

It’s hard to get good ideas yourself when you’re only a hobbyist as you don’t get the real world experiences of a professional. Likewise it’s hard to justify great expense for an effect which will only be shown to family and friends.

On this occasion I had a problem because I did not see the final reveal I just guessed at it, I might have been wrong and came up with a great ending all by myself or maybe struck the method first go, this was the reason for the post.

I love watching magic and watching demos is a great way to see good performances of new and favourite effects and in turn its also hard not to take away things you see in performance and method.

I should so let this go, I tell myself, "self, stop typing now" but do I listen? Noooo.

I'm not going to tell you what you should or should not do. But on a seperate point, or not so seperate point and I touch on it because it is an interesting point you bring up.

The only difference between a professional and an amature is money in the strictest sense of the word and creative abilities are not dependant on your status, I can see an argument for experience but to say you are 'just' a hobbiest is selling yourself way short. I know a lot of hobbiests who are more experienced then some professionals.

2nd lets assume you are stealing, and in no way am I saying that you are. but lets assume for the sake of an argument that in this case it is stealing. Your words imply that you can justify stealing if you are just showing something to a few people, or if the price of what you are stealing is out of a person's price range?

Just because you can justify something to yourself doesn't make it right. And I know my words are going to be upsetting and I may be entirely wrong here, but the fact that you are asking the question tells me you are having guilt about it already. Just something to ask yourself.

If it were me, I'd go with my gut. But then I won't even download music off the internet unless I've paid for it. And I can't think of a reason why I shouldn't with the price of CD's at 14 dollars when it only costs pennies to make and the artist has made up the money before I even get to the store. Yet I can't bring myself to do it.

Yes, yes you can!

http://www.magicshop.co.uk/product_info ... ts_id=2295


this is the one ...

Use it and don't feel guilty. It seems to me the method is obvious and uses standard props.
You pick a card and I reveal it. Thats a trick and how many methods are there, and have there been on the market over the years that are nothing more than that.
Magic, like Science progresses because other people's ideas are taken, used, built upon and hopefully improved.
If we weren't allowed to do that, there would only be a handful of magic tricks on the market to buy.
If you are still in doubt, just make up the effect for yourself, as long as you are not intending to market an alternate version I don't see the problem.

Michael Jay wrote:

Lawrence wrote:is it still stealing if I make the mona lisa out of something else? perhaps in the style of Jackson Pollock?

Why not in the style of Lawrence? Why copy someone else's style? It simply makes you nothing more than a copy. You lose your unique, individualistic style.

Sure, making a painting that is remisniscent of The Mona Lisa is alright, but I'm not talking about that, and you know that, based on this statement that you made:

"...but just to clarify, I wasn't being 100% serious!"

Heh!

Mike.

While I have a strong respect for intellectual property rights, I don't think the situation is necessarily as cut and dried as has been suggested. I think it partly depends on what, specifically, we're talking about, but take, for instance, an ambitious card routine. The initial question pertained to seeing an effect, and coming up with a (possibly? probably?) way to duplicate the effect. Let's say the first person to come up with the routine only used Tilt, over and over. Does that mean nobody should be able to use an ambitious routine, not only with Tilt, but with any other method? No Ambitious Card with a pass, no pop-up finale, no signing the card, etc.? If the position is really that the first person to come up with a plot owns the exclusive right to not only the method he used, but any other method that anyone can figure out for accomplishing the same plot, the art, in general suffers.

That's why patents are temporary in nature; the idea is to partially reward the creator, but also partly to encourage disclosure of ideas so that other methods and products are developed. I don't offer a clear response to the initial question, I realize, but I'm not trying to; rather, I suggest that it's a complex issue.

Interesting thread!

I think at the end of the day FRK already knows the answer to this question, as he took the time to ask the magic community about it in the first place. Something made him stop for a moment and question his actions, and that may well have been his conscience.

Even if he feels that taking the routine and copying it, without purchasing the props or giving the creator a royalty for the routine, is not a form of stealing, something made him want a public 'sanction' for an action. That suggests deep down he is not comfortable with it.

Its really easy to justify most actions if you feel you will benifit from it, but if deep down, you feel a conflict, then the right answer is often not the most convenient one, in my humble experience.

FRK shows a good moral standard, as he could just steal it, and not question is actions, but his hesitation is admirable.

In my own experience. if I was at a booking with another magician, and I saw that they were using a copy of a fellow magicians routine and commercial item, My estimation of that persons professionalism and their trustworthyness would reduce. I don't think that would be a deliberate reaction, but its hard not to judge a man by his actions.