|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Robert P. Special user Kansas 632 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, Blindside785 wrote: Are you getting that from this thread? I don't see anyone here advocating teaching something that belongs to someone else without their permission. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, Robert P. wrote: Well, except for the notion of "owning" an idea, but yes, teaching someonthing someone else discovered or came up with, without their permission, is sleezy.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, Al Desmond wrote: Al, first off, everyone in the thread is advocating getting "permission" from the creators, even me. Second, you're question is FAR from simple. You're also begging the question, as you're begining with the pressumption of "intellectual property" itself. An actual simple question, do you, or anyone else, have a right to voluntarily associate with whomever they wish? Another question, do said people also have freedom of speech? Third question, if someone has the RIGHT to do something, does that neccessarily make it the "right" thing for them to do?
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
J-Mac Inner circle Ridley Park, PA 5338 Posts |
My comment above is about the fact that since Michael Ammar, Diamond Jim Tyler, Rich Ferguson and others have appeared on Scam School and "exposed" their own - and others' - effects, why do so many members here only bash Brian Brushwood and not those "name" magicians? As well as other magicians who have given their permission to him to teach their effects? What gives them a "get out of jail free" card?
Definitely a one-way street here! If you're gonna kick one you gotta kick the other too! Oh - and comparing this to murder?! Really?? Getting silly now. Jim |
|||||||||
DynaMix Inner circle 1146 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, Blindside785 wrote: He says in the video if the person is alive he always gets permission. I am taking him at his word. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as we all think. It's hard to know whether he is inspiring a new generation or if people are just looking for secrets. I myself can't say but I feel his well thought out video was worth listening to. At the very least it made me see youtube differently. |
|||||||||
Al Desmond Inner circle Secret Mountain Lair in Conifer, Co 1511 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, gdw wrote: I thought so. No more needs to be said. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, Al Desmond wrote: I answered your question, would you be so kind as to answer mine, rather than just a dismissing "I thought so."
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
Al Desmond Inner circle Secret Mountain Lair in Conifer, Co 1511 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2014, gdw wrote: Nope. I got all the info I needed from you. |
|||||||||
gdw Inner circle 4884 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2014, Al Desmond wrote: Wow, what an arogant and condescending response. Clearly you did NOT get all the information needed, otherwise you wouldn't be dismissing my position as the infitile strawman you sound to have made out of it.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
I won't forget you Robert. |
|||||||||
1KJ Inner circle Warning: We will run out of new tricks in 4388 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, J-Mac wrote: IF Michael Ammar, Diamond Jim Tyler, Rich Ferguson, or anyone else is exposing something they don't own, IMO, they are equally guilty. It is SIMPLY WRONG. If you don't own it, don't expose it! KJ |
|||||||||
Wilktone Loyal user Asheville, NC 258 Posts |
Sorry to resurrect a topic that seems to elicit such strong emotions, but after reading through this I have some questions and comments about the ethics involved in this topic.
First, a disclaimer. As an amateur magician just getting back into magic from a long layoff, I found Scam School to be a good resource for simple tricks that I could learn to ease me back into performing things that required time to practice. From what I can tell, Brushwood got permission from the creators of any trick he teaches, assuming "there's a single living person who owns the rights, we get permission directly from them," so I've not realized that what he does is controversial. The closest thing in my experience I can relate to this situation are sales of sheet music, recordings, and performing. For example, as a composer I have a handful of compositions that are published. When a band purchases that music they have the right to perform it, but technically speaking I should be earning royalties on performances or recordings. The performers either pay the royalty fees or the venue may pay a blanket fee to ASCAP or BMI to take care of paying the royalties to the composers. To make matters more confusing, it's not uncommon for musicians to learn music from recordings and never purchase the sheet music. Performing or recording that music can still be legally done, but royalties are still owed to the copyright owner and in some cases permission needs to be obtained. Realistically, this system doesn't always work as intended. However, magic tricks can't be copyrighted. Pantomimes can, however, and I noticed that Teller successfully sued a magician for posting a performance very similar to his "Shadows" routine. All that said, I would like to learn more about everyone's thoughts about the ethics behind learning, teaching, and performing magic. With music, there are pieces that are in the public domain and can be performed without getting permission or requiring royalties. It sounds as if there are some magic tricks that may be similarly considered "public domain." What determines if a magic trick fits this category? What about sleights? Is it ethically sound for a magician to post a video on YouTube teaching the Herman Pass or the Bobo Switch? What determines what we can consider "public domain" in magic? Scholarly "fair use" is another area that makes this issue murky. While there are legal limits, if I write a scholarly paper and publish it in an academic journal it is considered ethical for me to describe someone else's published work and even directly quote a portion of it, provided I cite my sources. Would it be ethical for someone to publish a paper in a theater journal that exposes the method of a published trick or routine for the sake of academic discourse? What if the exposed methods are considered "public domain?" What makes this hypothetical example different from posting about it on the internet? I think most of us, if not all, agree that exposing tricks without a creator's permission is wrong and warrants criticism. But if permission was obtained or the effect falls within the public domain or what we would consider fair use is it wrong to teach the method online? Is it more a question of accessibility? It's so easy to find exposures of tricks on the internet, whereas a visit to the library takes just enough effort that it's OK for public libraries to allow people to check out books on magic that expose tricks for free? Brushwood's stance on this seems to be that since you can't put this genie back in the bottle, then it falls onto those who truly love the art of magic and want to hold to high standards to make use of the internet in a way that sets a good example. Regardless of what you think of what Brushwood teaches and how it does it, it seems that all of us having this conversation would agree with this part of his argument - simply based on the medium we're using to have it. Thanks, Dave |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Ethics of teaching on Youtube. Not sure which forum this belongs in. (26 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |