talkmagic.co.uk

Most magic DVD's are produced in a one-off fee anyway. The original creator gets paid a lump sum and that's it.Only individual producers selling their own material get money for each sale.

TonyB wrote:My view is that if you work out the method someone uses for a trick you are quite entitled to use that method. However if you use his presentation as well, you have stepped over a line you shouldn't cross.

It's like the car example; nothing to stop me making my own cars. But if I copy the body work of a Ferrari, and the specifications, etc, then I am stealing. If I copy their exact engine, I am stealing.

Some of us reinvent the wheel. I came up with a great way of getting someone's star sign using Progressive Anagrams. Then I discovered about six published methods. I came up with a procedure for getting three star signs of random people in an audience. Richard Osterlind had brought something similar out a few months before I came up with my method. I can perform both effects - in my way - but I believe I would be in the wrong if I tried to publish them as something new and unique to me.

Keep in mind that you can only copyright presentation. You cannot copyright method.

DL is a method: The performance in which it is used is not a method and copying that perfomance is theft.
Same thing with writing a book, you cannot copyright writing or letters or words, it is only the presentation, in this case the story.

If you are making an ethical or moral argument, that is another story.

If I was to go to the library and borrow a book on magic, learn to DL and then perform a DL at a paid gig, is that theft?

I stand by what I said before, if you release a trick/effect into the public domain, then that's EXACTLY what you are doing. Releasing it into the open. It's up for grabs by anyone. This point of view may annoy people but it's a FACT! that's what happens in the real world. Maybe in the past there used to be a certain honour among magicians but the newer breed ( and I guess I'm part of that ) has the Internet which can share a brand new release with Zimbabwe if it so wishes. Annoying for the creator? Yes but does anyone really think the method won't be 'shared'?

Alec

kobain wrote:Maybe in the past there used to be a certain honour among magicians but the newer breed ( and I guess I'm part of that ) has the Internet which can share a brand new release with Zimbabwe if it so wishes. Annoying for the creator? Yes but does anyone really think the method won't be 'shared'?

Some good points there Alec, and I appreciate your honesty. Personally I wouldnt do this but I suppose it all just comes down to individual choice - perhaps Im just old fashioned.

This has turned out to be an interesting thread, with many different points of view. And thankfully, no arguements

jim

kobain wrote:If I was to go to the library and borrow a book on magic, learn to DL and then perform a DL at a paid gig, is that theft?

I stand by what I said before, if you release a trick/effect into the public domain, then that's EXACTLY what you are doing. Releasing it into the open. It's up for grabs by anyone. This point of view may annoy people but it's a FACT! that's what happens in the real world. Maybe in the past there used to be a certain honour among magicians but the newer breed ( and I guess I'm part of that ) has the Internet which can share a brand new release with Zimbabwe if it so wishes. Annoying for the creator? Yes but does anyone really think the method won't be 'shared'?

Alec

First you can go ahead and perform a DL, not sure why you would unless you are just showing off skill because a DL is a method. And I've yet to meet a magician who performs method.

But I understand what you mean. If you purchase a book you are in essence also purchasing the the rights to perform the effect. I believe the same is true if you borrow from a library. If the creator wanted to keep it a secret then why put it in print.

The issue comes down to when you see something performed is it stealing to then go out and perform what you saw without permission?

The answer is no it is not okay. Does this mean you won't? Nope it probably means that you, or somebody will. This does not make it right or legal.

Just because you can do something, does not mean that you should. Perhaps in this instance the problem lies in the Ethics of today's youth. I know we have gone throught the age of enlightenment. It seems now we are going through the age of 'entitlement'

There are a few thoughts to keep in mind.
1) How would you feel if you created something, performed it, and then without permission somebody else started doing it, and took credit for it. Note you did not 'release' it to the public. It wasn't for sale or lend. Some lazy moron just thought it cute and stole it verbatim.
2) You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
3 ) You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

4) And this may be the biggest point. You may go out and steal a routine but you know what. The guy you stole it from is always going to be the crator, the innovator, the leader in the field. The thief is always going to be a thief. You can choose which you want to be.

I agree Kobain!! The techniques we use, did all of us purchased a book, DVD, or other type of media for everything we use? Who could honestly say yes?

As for the selling of books or dvd's that I purchased who's to tell me that I may or may not sell the original item second handed or purchase it that way! I am not selling copies of the original or leaking the information contained within to anyone who could not purchase it new.

I am not talking in the regard to any manuscripts that are given to only a few trusted people and then sold by a few of those people. That is theft pure and simple.

I have purchased hundreds of books since the age of 13 or so and they were each a investment.
Not all of them had material that was suitable for my style so if I want to see a partial return on my personal investment then nobody is going to convince me of the poor ethicality of selling it.

Very true Bmat. But he was was speaking it seems to me of method. If you copy someone performance then yes you are a artless thief. That is unless to have permission or purchased the rights to do so. Still why do so even if you have the right? Are we not artists? Not if all you strive to be is someone else and not yourself! I do a card effect that is the same in method as a David Acer effect and another that is from The Card Classics of Ken Krenzel. Though in both these the methodology is the same as the effects in each my presentations are completely different. Why would anyone want to steal (for thats what their doing) anyones personal presentation for any reason. If your that un creative then find another hobby or profession you're staining my art form!!!!!!

So... you guys who feel copyright law is a question of 'personal ethics'. You feel you have the right to dispose of copyrighted material you have purchased as you see fit. So if you are OK with selling it on, it is only logical that you must also be OK with giving it away for free if you want? What exactly is the difference between second hand sales and file sharing?

Erwin wrote:So... you guys who feel copyright law is a question of 'personal ethics'. You feel you have the right to dispose of copyrighted material you have purchased as you see fit. So if you are OK with selling it on, it is only logical that you must also be OK with giving it away for free if you want? What exactly is the difference between second hand sales and file sharing?

I have stayed out of this this far as my views dont match many, but will say this. Selling a magic book is different to file sharing. Giving away the book for free is not illegal. By filesharing you are this creating duplicate copies. Selling a DVD of inception on eBay is not illegal. Pirate copies, however, are. You won't be put in prison for selling a DVD, you will for torrenting. There is a difference.

Selling a Harry potter book isn't that different to selling a magic book. Either way, although you don't have the manuscript in front of you, you still, in both cases, have knowledge of the contents.

And with relation to what was said earlier, I've made up and performed stuff which I haven't published. Hell, I haven't published any of my creations. I've seen people nick my ideas. It doesn't bother me. People wanna steal it? Meh. Fine. It's only a trick.

It's only a trick! There are more important things in life. I go out and perform more than most out there. I have only come across one person who has seen something that I do somewhere else. Easy way around that? I do it better. Simple. I'm sure as hell good enough. Sure as hell better than a lot of the cr@p out there that I've seen.

Thanks Beardy, it seems all these years I have been misinterpreting:

"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

It will take months to empty my library on to eBay

And it doesn't prohibit re-sale on video/DVD copyright notices either? Good grief.

Are we really going to be so anal about this?

In that case are you going to say that you have never ever brought a book second hand, or sold one? Never brought a dvd second hand, or sold one?

Or better yet, are you saying that you have never in your entire life borrowed a dvd from a mate? Ever? Or ever lent a dvd out to a friend?

Bloody hell, you should run for the role of Jesus!

Oh, and just to throw this quote into the mix. You may have seen it...

"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

Sound familiar?

Let me highlight a bit for you:

"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

Boom. You can re-sell, just not duplicate.

Point.

Beardy wrote:"This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser."

This is a very relevant point that many people miss.

It does say that it CAN'T be re sold without the consent of the owner.

I hope that we can keep this discussion sensible rather than once again falling foul to our aggression.

The post script that has been used as above Is probably only ever enforced if something is happening on a large scale. ie mass copying!

Let's be honest, EVERYONE of us has broken the copyright law in our lives havnt we?!

kobain wrote:It does say that it CAN'T be re sold without the consent of the owner.

Respectfully, it doesn't say that. It says that you require the consent of the owner if you want to republish it in another form.

Ted wrote:

kobain wrote:It does say that it CAN'T be re sold without the consent of the owner.

Respectfully, it doesn't say that. It says that you require the consent of the owner if you want to republish it in another form.

I read that wrong. Many thanks for pointing that out Ted. So by this, we can say that it's even ok by the publisher to sell the product on! Is this the end of the discussion then? Lol

Alec