talkmagic.co.uk

Anyone interested (I doubt it) in the peer review process should look at http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf.

Please note that I am not suggesting for a second that peer review is perfect (far from it) and that our community accept such a rigorous approach. I am suggesting that on the surface the community may have constructed a form of self regulation which at first glance follows in part the principles of peer review.

In outline:

1. We test our work amongst our immediate peer group.
2. We publish our work.
3. The community at large accepts (or not) the work, tests it and builds upon it.
4. Plagiarism is quickly identified, and the reputation of the producer is reduced.

Moral Code equals code of conduct is arguable

Moral code does not equal code of conduct. However, in terms of this discussion it may as well be. Accepting that moral code = conduct of conduct is not necessary. Codes of conduct are based on moral principals. For instance, it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary harm and most codes of conduct are based on that. You could create and arbitary code of conduct not based on moral principals and codes of conduct need not be universal.

If you come up with a method or sleight or effect, you will first show your peers. If you decide to publish, in whatever form, the community will absorb this and begin to extend your ideas.

Peer review will do nothing to stop magic ideas being stolen and resold and someone elses. Peer review in the academic world prevents ideas from being published, or makes it difficult. If I submit a paper to a Journal, the editors will subject it to peer review and reject if unfavourable comments come back.

If you want to sell magic you do not need to sell it through a magic publication. Putting it up for peer review would be entirely voluntary rather than a necessary hoop to jump through.

There are problems with Peer review. Because there is no need to be published, you are free to select your peers. Who do you choose? In what way does creating magical effects qualify you for commenting on the ethics of selling magical effects? What do you do if none of your peers agree? What if no-one wants to review your effects. Accepting material to review is tricky, many authors are advised by their lawyers not to do so.

Besides, anyone who is thinking about selling an effect passed off as their own, is not going to volunteer it for peer review. Once it is published, however, it will be subject it public review. If the effect is rubbish it will be slated in the magic forums, and if it is stolen it will be slated as well.

Will an effect slated for being a stolen idea be adversely effected by this review. Saying it's over-priced rubbish or takes 3 months to arrive will certainly harm sales - but will saying it's a stolen idea do the same? Perhaps a little.

At the moment there is no accepted and universal code of conduct for buying and selling magic. Different magic communities have their own codes. Products/effects that some believe are perfectly acceptable to release are slated by others. Look at the furore over James Biss' IMB on the Magic Cafe.

copyright wrote:Moral code does not equal code of conduct. However, in terms of this discussion it may as well be. Accepting that moral code = conduct of conduct is not necessary. Codes of conduct are based on moral principals. For instance, it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary harm and most codes of conduct are based on that. You could create and arbitary code of conduct not based on moral principals and codes of conduct need not be universal.

Can I remind you that you stated ...

A moral code is a code of conduct.

.... in order to construct your argument (not the other way around). Other than that, I don't think I have any disagreement with what you state above. Indeed it reflects much of what I stated in my previous reply.

Taking that into account do you still believe that:

copyright wrote:Gordon produces a book revealing some of his secrets ...

he can ask his readers to keep them to themselves ...

No-one would accuse you of being morally wrong for revealing that Ramsey adds a pinch of baking soda to his mashed potato.

No one?

copyright wrote:Peer review in the academic world prevents ideas from being published, or makes it difficult. If I submit a paper to a Journal, the editors will subject it to peer review and reject if unfavourable comments come back.

Agree with all of the above. The process is put in place to maintain qualitative as opposed to quantitive research. If your paper is rejected, then it isn't ready for publication. Any issues authors may have are not neccessarily with the process, but rather with its execution. Elitism being one of the primary concerns.

On your commentary regarding peer review in magic, please see quotes below.

pdjamez wrote:....scientific publication process was very similar to that of the magic community...

... I am suggesting that on the surface the community may have constructed a form of self regulation which at first glance follows in part the principles of peer review....

I am not suggesting that magic should use peer review. The application of an academic process into a commercial environment is of course unworkable. I am, however, attempting to construct a model of how magic commerce operates currently. In order to do this I am using peer review as a basis for exploration. An exploration you are plainly not interested in engaging in. I have been thinking about this for sometime and an alternative view is very much welcomed. But our discussion in its present form is far from constructive. If at any point you wish to suggest an alternative, more appropriate model, please feel free.

copyright wrote:At the moment there is no accepted and universal code of conduct for buying and selling magic. Different magic communities have their own codes. Products/effects that some believe are perfectly acceptable to release are slated by others. Look at the furore over James Biss' IMB on the Magic Cafe.

Yes, I know, I rather thought that was the problem we were trying to address. The magic community (and I don't mean a forum) operates in some form though, doesn't it. If copyright and patent law has little affect on the community at large then what restrictions are placed on its members, by themselves. Even laissez faire systems have rules, even though they may be unwritten.

pdjamez wrote:
Can I remind you that you stated ...

copyright wrote:A moral code is a code of conduct.

A moral code is a code of conduct but a code of conduct is not necessarily a moral code. So moral code does not = code of conduct. If you believe that a moral code is not a code of conduct would you mind telling me what moral code is?

pdjamez wrote:

copyright wrote:
Gordon produces a book revealing some of his secrets ...

he can ask his readers to keep them to themselves ...

No-one would accuse you of being morally wrong for revealing that Ramsey adds a pinch of baking soda to his mashed potato.

No one?

I can't see the point of contesting this. Someone could accuse me of anything. In order to do so successfully they'd have to show the moral 'rule' I'm breaking. I don't think anyone can, so I say no-one.

The question is: if it is acceptable to reveal the secrets of one book, why is it unacceptable in another?

pdjamez wrote:

copyright wrote:Peer review in the academic world prevents ideas from being published, or makes it difficult. If I submit a paper to a Journal, the editors will subject it to peer review and reject if unfavourable comments come back.

Agree with all of the above. The process is put in place to maintain qualitative as opposed to quantitive research. If your paper is rejected, then it isn't ready for publication. Any issues authors may have are not neccessarily with the process, but rather with its execution. Elitism being one of the primary concerns.

Peer review is not in place to maintain qualitative as opposed to quantitive research. They're just different ways of collecting data. Which method you used would depend on what you were researching. Papers get rejected because they are either not appriopriate for the journal or do not offer anything sufficiently new.

pdjamez wrote:I am not suggesting that magic should use peer review. The application of an academic process into a commercial environment is of course unworkable. I am, however, attempting to construct a model of how magic commerce operates currently. In order to do this I am using peer review as a basis for exploration. An exploration you are plainly not interested in engaging in.

I don't know how can you say that when I bothered to reply. I gave peer review consideration and gave you my comments, which were:

i. It is unclear who your peers are.
ii. It is unclear on what makes someone authorative on the ethics of selling magic.
iii. It is unlikely that a consensus can be achieved.
iv. It is not assured that anyone would volunteer to peer review your product.

pdjamez wrote:

copyright wrote:At the moment there is no accepted and universal code of conduct for buying and selling magic. Different magic communities have their own codes. Products/effects that some believe are perfectly acceptable to release are slated by others. Look at the furore over James Biss' IMB on the Magic Cafe.

Yes, I know, I rather thought that was the problem we were trying to address. The magic community (and I don't mean a forum) operates in some form though, doesn't it. If copyright and patent law has little affect on the community at large then what restrictions are placed on its members, by themselves. Even laissez faire systems have rules, even though they may be unwritten.

I know that this is the problem we are addressing, that's why I mentioned it last in my post. If I haven't spelled it out clearly enough, these are my thoughts:

1. In what way is releasing magic different to realising any other work?
1b. Why aren't the usual guidelines on reproducing and referencing other people's work applicable in the case of magic?

2. How does someone protect their magical creation so it is possible to make money from it and be properly credited as the author?
2b. To what extent is is [morally] acceptable to protect your published magic. What are reasonable expectations?

3. What kind of consensus can there reasonably be expected to occur on this issue in the wider magic community?

In your original post you said:

copyright wrote:Codes of conduct are based on moral principals.
....
You could create and arbitary code of conduct not based on moral principals.

I am attempting to understand your statement in full. But I am confused when you make statements as above. As I said in my previous post, you made these statements as part of your argument, not I. I freely accepted them, as part of my response.

Can I suggest that attempting to argue a point on which we already have agreement may be a waste of time.

copyight wrote:I can't see the point of contesting this. Someone could accuse me of anything. In order to do so successfully they'd have to show the moral 'rule' I'm breaking. I don't think anyone can, so I say no-one.

Somehow I think the cookbook analogy isn't working for us. In your original post you suggested that there was no legal or moral obligation to maintain the secret recipe. My contention is that since moral codes are not universal, it is entirely possible that an individual may feel a moral obligation to maintain the secret. Even though this may feel ridiculous to you, or me for that matter, whether their is a moral obligation is based on their own moral code not ours. At the very least the author must feel there is a moral obligation, or why suggest it in the first place.

copyight wrote:The question is: if it is acceptable to reveal the secrets of one book, why is it unacceptable in another?

Actually, that isn't a question I'm interest in, and I'm not sure how it relates to the task at hand. I know that sounds glib, but I am trying to stay focussed.

copyright wrote:Peer review is not in place to maintain qualitative as opposed to quantitive research. They're just different ways of collecting data. Which method you used would depend on what you were researching. Papers get rejected because they are either not appriopriate for the journal or do not offer anything sufficiently new.

You misunderstand my statement. When I used the term research it was at a higher level than you took it to be. Let me clarify the point: The quality of scientific research (worldwide) is maintainted by the peer review process. As you correctly point out papers are rejected for a range of different reasons, reducing the quantity of published research, and therefore, for the most part, maintaining the quality. I was not as you suggest referring to methods of collecting data.

copyright wrote:I don't know how can you say that when I bothered to reply.

Agreed, that was uncalled for on my part. However, we do need to move this argument along.

copyright wrote:I gave peer review consideration and gave you my comments, which were.....

I am attempting to understand how the magic community operates now with respect to its publication process. It strikes me that the creative element of the community acts very much like a research community. It does so with respect to extension of work, copyright issues and referencing, (building extensive libraries ). It is also embedded in the language: "such and such is doing work on". As I actively create magic effects and have in a past life been a postgrad RA I can state that the techniques used in both research disciplines are similar. As to the peer group, there are a number of ways in which you can validate your work. One of which is contributing to forums like this, magic clubs/associations and of course conferences. If you require specific help from a professional magician, most are happy to answer any questions you may have for them. At the point of publication, market forces take over as this is after all a commercial environment. Magic publishers may not accept your work for a number of reasons. It is not appropriate for them, or your work does not offer anything sufficiently new. Finally, once in the market, others may take up your work and extend it, it may be proven to be useless or worst (somebody elses work).

Now, this isn't peer review; I never contended that it was. But the essential, research, review, test, extend cycle is there.

copyright wrote:I know that this is the problem we are addressing, that's why I mentioned it last in my post. If I haven't spelled it out clearly enough, these are my thoughts:

1. In what way is releasing magic different to realising any other work?
1b. Why aren't the usual guidelines on reproducing and referencing other people's work applicable in the case of magic?

2. How does someone protect their magical creation so it is possible to make money from it and be properly credited as the author?
2b. To what extent is is [morally] acceptable to protect your published magic. What are reasonable expectations?

3. What kind of consensus can there reasonably be expected to occur on this issue in the wider magic community?

I appreciate you spelling these out explicitly. You have clearly articulated the challenges which I am interested in discussing.

Shall we get on with it then. Can I suggest you open with point 1?

I guess its your turn copyright!

This post is basically an explanation of the following statement.

If we are going to accuse someone who releases a magic trick of being unethical we need to be able to show that s/he has contravened a universal moral principal

There is no real reason to read the rest of the post. If you accept the statement above, skip to the next post.

------------------------------------

Okay, let me try to clarify the moral issue. The reason I'm discussing it is that people refer to the ethics involved in publishing magic. Let's briefly define ethics:

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

And a definition of morality

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
i. some other group, such as a religion, or
ii. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Consider James Biss' IMB

Background. James Biss released his IMB and at first a lot people said it was great, a good mentalism tool, and so on. Then people started to come out of the woodwork suggesting that the idea behind the IMB had already been released with a previous device called a BUMA. Thus began the argument.

Several times Biss was accused of being unethical some accusers meant that he should have done more research before releasing, and others suggested he had stolen the idea. Most of the time 'unethical' was used to mean 'morally wrong' or 'bad'. This is an incorrect use of the term.

What transpired his that there were two codes of ethics confronting each other. Two different codes of ethics can share the same moral principal.

For example: You may believe that life is sacred and you are morally bound to pay it the highest respect. Two different people can believe this to be a fundamental moral principal but have diametrically opposed ethics. One might say, because life is sacred we must never take life and therefore oppose the death penalty. Another might argue that because life is sacred we must punish people that needlessly take it, and the only appriopriate way is by death penalty. Both people may think that the other is wrong but they can not accuse each other of being unethical.

Someone is unethical if they do something that is in contradiction with their ethical code.

pdjamez wrote:In your original post you suggested that there was no legal or moral obligation to maintain the secret recipe. My contention is that since moral codes are not universal, it is entirely possible that an individual may feel a moral obligation to maintain the secret.

People have different ethical beliefs. Some doctors think it is acceptable to end life to avoid unnecessary suffering and some doctors don't. However, these ethical decisions are not arbitrary, they are based on fundamental moral principals. There is no fundamental moral principal that can be broken by revealling the secrets of a cookery book. Anyone who says that they think it is morally wrong, needs to explain why it is wrong, which they won't be able to do because it doesn't break a moral principal. You can not just invent fundamental moral principals.

This is important to the current discussion. To refer back to Biss' IMB many people said they thought that he was morally wrong for releasing it in the way he did. However, no-one explained how it was morally wrong.

NOTE: When we talk about universal morality we mean that the moral principal applies to everyone at all times. So if we say that it is fundamentally morally wrong to kill someone for fun, we mean it's is always wrong no matter who does it or when they do it. To claim that morality is not universal is to claim that some moral principals do not apply to everyone.

To Clarify

If we are going to accuse someone who releases a magic trick of being unethical we need to be able to show that s/he has contravened a universal moral principal

pdjamez wrote:

copyright wrote:The question is: if it is acceptable to reveal the secrets of one book, why is it unacceptable in another?

Actually, that isn't a question I'm interest in, and I'm not sure how it relates to the task at hand. I know that sounds glib, but I am trying to stay focussed.

The point is that people who accuse people of selling magic unethically, are condemning them for what is considered acceptable in other fields. If we are to devise a code of conduct, or ethics, of releasing magic, we need to know what it is about magic in particular that makes certain kinds of publishing incompatible with accepted moral principals.

I won't pretend to know the answers to these questions. But I will share some thoughts and hope that they won't be confused with a firm position.

1. In what way is releasing magic different to realising any other work?
1b. Why aren't the usual guidelines on reproducing and referencing other people's work applicable in the case of magic?

1. Often when you sell magic, you are selling the 'secret'. With instant downloads, the deal is usually: Here's the effect, give me $X and I'll tell you how it's done. With books and dvds you are paying for a more detailed instruction and often more than one effect. Sometimes you are buying, not only the secret but essential props needed to perform the effect.

In the majority of cases, the difference between the secrets in a magic book and the secrets in a cookery book, for example, is that the author of the magic book wants the reader to keep the secret.

1b. If you read Annemann's Practical Mental Magic you'll find that the book is no different in reproduction and reference to, say, a chess book. Annemann credits his own effects as his own, and the effects of others to the particular author. Also, like a chess book, PMM was sitting on the bookshelf of a local bookshop where anyone who wanted could browse through it. The same applies for The Secrets of Houdini by J. C. Cannell, and Magician's Magic by Paul Curry.

copyright wrote:If we are going to accuse someone who releases a magic trick of being unethical we need to be able to show that s/he has contravened a universal moral principal

Let us look at Your definition of universal moral principal [sic].

copyright wrote:NOTE: When we talk about universal morality we mean that the moral principal applies to everyone at all times. So if we say that it is fundamentally morally wrong to kill someone for fun, we mean it's is always wrong no matter who does it or when they do it. To claim that morality is not universal is to claim that some moral principals do not apply to everyone.

What a wonderful world that would be. No murder, no theft, no endless arguments on forums. Either you are saying that, we all hold the same moral principles or that one groups principles can override anothers (freewill?).

If it is the former then your key question quoted above is nonsense, as it creates a paradox. If it is the latter then we should return to my original question.

pdjamez wrote:Whose moral code are we talking about here? ... Gordons ... Yours ... Mine ... the average citizen ...

And how does that individual or group enforce universal morality. It can't be with reference to the law, because you originally separated the obligations into moral and legal.

copyright wrote:Gordon produces a book revealing some of his secrets. These secrets are no longer secret he can ask his readers to keep them to themselves (so he sells more books) but they are under no obligation (moral or legal) to do so.

oh, and its principle not principal.

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I continue to contend that the moral obligation in the example above is a case of individual choice.

copyright wrote:The point is that people who accuse people of selling magic unethically, are condemning them for what is considered acceptable in other fields. If we are to devise a code of conduct, or ethics, of releasing magic, we need to know what it is about magic in particular that makes certain kinds of publishing incompatible with accepted moral principals.

With regards to the above statement, I am in agreement. Although I would prefer the term best practise or guidelines. If at all possible I would prefer not to open an ethical can of worms. Although from our discussion thus far ...

copyright wrote:The question is: if it is acceptable to reveal the secrets of one book, why is it unacceptable in another?

Again, I contend that this is not an appropriate issue for discussion. There are other threads on this forum which discuss the issue of exposure. As you yourself have already said, once a subject has been published it is by definition public domain.