(Close Window)
Topic: Cutting off the nose to spite the face?
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 23, 2004 05:14PM)
I've seen some posts by and about magicians who've stated that they're not gonna release any of their new stuff for fear of being ripped off.

What's the point?

Let's assume that when an item is copied the originator loses 50% in revenue (it's probably a lot less but let's take a high figure). Is that not far less than losing 100% because you haven't released it?

In actual fact, even when items are ripped off it's generally done when the original item has faded away into oblivion or the subconcious. By that time the creator isn't earning much on his item anyway, so what does he have to lose?

I'm NOT in ANY WAY condoning stealing someone's effect, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the reluctance of an inventor to release a new item.

Obviously when the item is a signature piece (ie. Statue of Liberty etc.) there exists another reason for not releasing it, but when the only reason is fear of eventually being undercut I don't think they've thought it through properly.
Message: Posted by: JimMaloney (Aug 23, 2004 05:28PM)
The financial aspect is only a small part of the equation.

A much greater part is the lack of respect shown to the creator.

-Jim
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 23, 2004 05:40PM)
How can you know what someone else is thinking unless they know themselves, and choose to tell you?
Message: Posted by: kregg (Aug 23, 2004 06:15PM)
If you want to keep a secret, publish it!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 23, 2004 06:30PM)
That worked fine with Aristotle's Ethics. Over a thousand years old and still unknown.
Message: Posted by: Sk8rDave (Aug 23, 2004 07:41PM)
[quote]
On 2004-08-23 19:30, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
That worked fine with Aristotle's Ethics. Over a thousand years old and still unknown.
[/quote]
Hehe, good point Jonathan but that particular work by Aristotle is a bit more difficult than your average magic text. I believe that Nicomachaean Ethics was cobbled together by editors from various writings and lectures by Aristotle which is why it seems muddled at times.

Dave
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 23, 2004 11:39PM)
OK so what would you think if I undercut you and started to do half of your shows? what's the big deal? Your still making half as much as you used to.
Hey what if I break into your house and take half your stuff? You ought to be fine with that as I've left half your stuff behind out of the goodness of my heart.
When I create a new effect I just don't reach into a drawer and pull it out. No I have to work out all the bugs, make prototypes rework details hone and polish the material. All the rip off artists have to do is send one off to China or India to have it knocked off.
I might be able to produce a small run of items that I have to sell at a high price point to recoop my costs while Mr. Ripoff can make thousands and sell them for a pittance. Your 50% loss estimate then becomes moot.
Why should I bother to do all this work and effort for a 50% return on my investment of time and creatvity?
Message: Posted by: Peter Marucci (Aug 24, 2004 06:21AM)
Meilechl writes: ". . .when the only reason is fear of eventually being undercut I don't think they've thought it through properly."

Agreed.

And Gregg has it right, too, when he says: "If you want to keep a secret, publish it!"

Far too many performers put far too high a price on their alleged "creativity".

Suppose I invent, manufacture, and sell an item for $100.

Where does that figure come from? All too often, off the top of my head. So what's the difference if I sell it for $50? That figure, too, came off the top of my head. And neither figure reflects the true cost and value of the trick, just as what one charges for a show rarely reflects the true cost and value of the show (it's more often related to what the going rate is!)

So here's a solution: If you are selling a trick or a show, think to youself that it is worth TWICE what you are currently charging; then cut that figure in half (you are basically "undercutting" yourself). You now have a figure that is the same as before but to YOU it looks like a bargain!
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 24, 2004 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2004-08-24 00:39, Payne wrote:
OK so what would you think if I undercut you and started to do half of your shows? what's the big deal? Your still making half as much as you used to.
[/quote]
I would think that that's disgusting but what I would NOT do is sit at home and collect unemployment. The point you're making is that it's very wrong and I agree to that. It still doesn't mean that it isn't wothwhile.

Let's take a recent example: how many people do you think were still buying Linking Lifesavers? How much was the creator making off them (at this time)? So even though he loses [b]some[/b] revenue now, was it not worth it for him to market LL? Bear in mind that the actual loss is nowhere near 50%.
Message: Posted by: JimMaloney (Aug 24, 2004 02:21PM)
[quote]
On 2004-08-24 15:07, meilechl wrote:
So even though he loses [b]some[/b] revenue now, was it not worth it for him to market LL? Bear in mind that the actual loss is nowhere near 50%.
[/quote]
Read my post above. Most creators, as far as I can tell, don't release their stuff to make money. Yes, some do, but you're not gonna get rich selling magic tricks (with a few exceptions).

Creators more often release their items because they feel that they have something worthwhile to contribute to the magic community at large. But why should they bother sharing these items when the same community they are hoping to benefit turns around and slaps them in the face by ripping off their items and selling inferior versions to the masses?

If you keep biting the hand that feeds you, expect to starve.

-Jim
Message: Posted by: Patrick Differ (Aug 24, 2004 02:41PM)
It's interesting how magicians' verbage is shifting to describe the action of ripping off someone else's creation. The verb is "to penguin."

Peter Marucci says, "Far too many performers put far too high a price on their alleged 'creativity.'"

This one has me thinking. Too high a price, or too much value? Is there a difference? I want to publish a method of handling a Stripper deck that I believe to be knock out. I want to charge $500 for the information and I'll even throw a Stripper deck in with the instructions. Is this too high a price? Have I overvalued my handling? What price will the market bear? (a clue...)

I'm glad I'm not looking for any new material anymore. I'd feel bad if I bought a knock-off product and the guy that devised it didn't get his due. I'd be irked with those that sold it if they said it was authorized by the creator.

The creative minds in this field have these issues. To release, or not to release...
To release and risk all? Or to not release and be safe...That is the question. Either way, I agree.

...Patrick
Message: Posted by: Peter Marucci (Aug 24, 2004 08:22PM)
MRD Friday writes: "Too high a price, or too much value? Is there a difference?"

There surely is!

Oscar Wilde refers to one of his characters as knowing "the price of everything and the value of nothing".

Price has very little to do with value, and vice versa.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 24, 2004 09:01PM)
Price is what you are willing to exchange for a thing. Value is what you attach to a thing.

In a free market, on average, most items find their supply/demand equilibrium positions. Sort of an large scale price/value match.

I try NOT to factor dollars or adulation into considerations of items. Mostly commitment and magical effect.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 27, 2004 12:40PM)
[quote]
"OK so what would you think if I undercut you and started to do half of your shows?"

I would think that that's disgusting [/quote]
I see, so it is disgusting when you get ripped off, and just business when someone else gets ripped off.

That I find disgusting.

So, if your living in magic went from $50,000 to $25,000 you would just keep plugging away and starving as the bills went unpaid; being happy to make $25,000?

These guys release their material to share it with us, get credit for the material, and maybe make a little money. When a rip off product tries to sell itself as the same product but the quality of the product and routine does not live up to the originator's standards, it steals from both the creator and the person who purchased it. More recently these rip off items start much sooner cutting into the product before the costs of research and development have been recouped.

But what the real problem is, and has shown to be backed by example in the case of the latest problem manufacturer and retailer, is that these actions are the tip of the iceburg as far as improper business ethics. You can check http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=79805&forum=96&84&start=60 to find greater, more unilaterally agreeable examples of ripping off creators.

It will continue and grow worse until the comunity rises up to expell the problem... and if you aren't part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.

Cheers,

Tom
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 28, 2004 04:17PM)
[quote]
On 2004-08-27 13:40, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]
"OK so what would you think if I undercut you and started to do half of your shows?"

I would think that that's disgusting [/quote]
I see, so it is disgusting when you get ripped off, and just business when someone else gets ripped off.

That I find disgusting.

So, if your living in magic went from $50,000 to $25,000 you would just keep plugging away and starving as the bills went unpaid; being happy to make $25,000?[/quote]

First of all I don't know where you got that from anythhing I 've said or written. I think it's disgusting when anyone does it to anyone.

Secondly, What would the other option be? Not to work at all and starve to death (as opposed to earning less and tightning my belt?

Also there's a great difference between working for nothing and earning less than expected for a creation. As long as the cost of the item is covered anything earned is profit. even if the profit is less than it should have been it ius still more than nothing.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 28, 2004 04:48PM)
If you think it is disgusting, then why are you searching to justify it. So you would just work for $25,000 and starve rather than look for another, more rewarding way to work. Suit yourself. Blind to you is the idea that these guys are stopping releasing their material to us but continue to perform for the public, the source of their real income. They aren't going on unemployment. They are just stopping their sharing ways. You know, like when your appartment gets broken into for the third time you put bars up. Or would you simply grin and bear it hoping that the guys who have your TV are enjoying all the great features and the hi-def technology.

Once the benefit of sharing their material is destroyed by those who do not respect the origintors, the creators will stop sharing openly. You simply wont see their work and they will remain busy working for the public.

You will be the only one who loses. You being the average guy who enjoys new material. It is your choice to destroy the flow of new, [b]tested[/b] material.

But as I said that disgusts me.

Cheers,

Tom
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 28, 2004 04:57PM)
Please read my original post.

[quote]
On 2004-08-23 18:14, meilechl wrote:
I'm NOT in ANY WAY condoning stealing someone's effect, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind the reluctance of an inventor to release a new item.
[/quote]

I'm not trying to justify it at all I'm just saying that it is still worth releasing effects.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 28, 2004 05:14PM)
Worth what? And to whom?

Unfortunately, there is no collective organism called 'the community', all connected via the internet and a strong set of ethics. In many ways this is good. The strength of our community is its very diversity. Some will study Roth, and some will study Ramsay, all the while others wills study Downs. In cards, some will study Hofzinser, and others will study Marlo, and others will study Paul Harris. Each will find and present material as they see fit. The problem we ALL face is the economics of distributing magic commercially. The legal protections of copyright and patent do not protect the material. Neither do the trade secrets acts nor similar existing tools. The economic cost/benefit for a suit to protect a work in magic is simply a lose/lose affair. Yet all the while, the extreme investment needed to make a NEW work performable, then manufactured... is very costly.

Those who invent the stuff are more than welcome to communicate with those who respect the inventions and those who both respect the inventions and also invent material.

The rest... seem to buy knock-offs which can effectively make offering stuff to the public via distributors less than interesting and very painful.

I would like to see the classic texts in print and readily available in consumer editions for the student, and also in collectors editions for the collector. Same for most of the works ever manufactured. We are probably in agreement about wanting things to be available. I just have a problem when those who wish to sell are not working with those who invent the stuff they want to sell.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 28, 2004 10:23PM)
[quote]
I'm just saying that it is still worth releasing effects.
[/quote]
And they (who actually create the effects) are telling you it is not. You lose.
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 29, 2004 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2004-08-28 23:23, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]
I'm just saying that it is still worth releasing effects.
[/quote]
And they (who actually create the effects) are telling you it is not. You lose.
[/quote]
What do I lose? Is it some kind of war or competition? All I did was ask a simple question while bringing the suporting facts. My question was 'What's the point?' If, like some pointed out, it's a case of respect I can understand the reasoning. But if the reasons are only financial I'd like to hear from someone who's done the actual mathematics of the deal and worked out that it's a loss.

Again, Tom, I'm asking a question - not attacking or condoning theft. Please, if you can, explain why it's not financially worth releasing an effect.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 29, 2004 01:23PM)
Nor is it worth discussing at this point. Enjoy the drought. The art will progress among those who put the art ahead of their vanity.

Honestly, how does it serve the art to enable many to dilute what little magic there is? Dollars can buy you stuff. The magic comes from somewhere else.

I think of this as deciding not to offer any more of my children to those who would in turn sell them on the streets.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 30, 2004 12:04AM)
[quote]
explain why it's not financially worth releasing an effect.
[/quote]
A. Research and development costs
B. Manufacturing costs
C. Packaging costs
D. Distribution costs
E. Advertising costs
F. Knowing it is becoming a matter of when, not if, you are going to be ripped off.

What do you lose? ...the material you will never know existed.
Message: Posted by: MagicalPirate (Aug 30, 2004 12:35AM)
It would appear then that we will have to create the material the old fashion way, ourselves. Do we have to depend on the creativity of others to express our art. Its not as if they are releasing new methods just reworking that which already existed. Perhaps if we were to spend as much time studying as we spend discussing then it wouldn't matter what the next big new release is.

Martin :pirate:
Message: Posted by: Bill Palmer (Aug 30, 2004 02:55AM)
I'll give you an example of where the problem lies. Viking has made the Lifesavers trick for several years now. I know what George Robinson has invested in a set of them, and he is not making a disproportionate profit when he charges what he charges. Now, a company comes through, buys one, sends it over to China and has it copied. This company gets them made very cheaply, with little precision at all. And they sell for a fraction of what it costs George to make his. So, many of his regular dealers have trouble selling George's, because the imported imitation sells for so little. Most of us know what the imitation costs, so the newbie and the fellow who can think only of his pocketbook purchase the cheap one.

The dealers are stuck with merchandise, because the internet shoppers want to save a buck. George is stuck with merchandise. The dealers then purchase the cheap one. And guess what! THEY DON'T WORK! THE INSERTS FALL OUT AT THE LEAST PROVOCATION!

But the people who purchased the imitations have already blown it for the two people who watch them perform at school, so they don't want another one. And George is stuck with the good ones. He has already paid for them. Not only that, he has to pay county and city taxes on his merchandise at the end of the year, so he is stuck with that, as well.

And this is just one example.

I know of several items that will never be marketed because they are too easy to copy. The inventors figure a reasonable markup, but they don't have the connections to have these things made overseas. Or they don't want everyone and his cat to be doing the vanishing lifesavers or Badlands Bob.

So, a few years down the road, when the legit inventors have dried up and quit producing their stuff for the magic market, you will find an "underground" of people who will be doing stuff you will NEVER be able to perform.
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 30, 2004 01:48PM)
As usual Bill comes through with a thought out [b]factual[/b] reply. Bill, do you therefore feel that it's not worth for the creator or only for those who carry the stuff? Also, if it really isn't worth it, why do so many other creators release their products?

P.S. Contrary to what Tom (and maybe some others) thinks I'm just trying to understand the inventors' FINANCIAL point of view. I think it's TOTALLY WRONG to copy someone else's things.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Aug 30, 2004 02:31PM)
Of course it is worth releasing new effects, that's how a lot of magicians 'top up' their earnings. But what sort of effects are going to be released in the future?
Tricks/effects have always been under threat of being copied from day one, but today the marketplace is much bigger with the arrival of the Internet. With instant online purchasing a lot of damage is done before the 'owner' of an effect gets to even hear about it. The only 'protection' an inventor has is that 'the magazines' will not let a retailer advertise with them if they are found to be selling 'knock-off's'. Or so I was led to believe. I have found out since this is not the case. No such 'rule' exists. Maxwell openly and somewhat proudly, admits on the 'Genii' forum to selling knock-off's. Everyone knows the ethics (or lack of ethics) of Magic Makers and that they supply Penguin yet they still get advertising space in Genii and elsewhere. So as an inventor, In the words of Richard Kaufman himself 'You're on your own kid'.
Churn out the usual stuff for the kids but keep the good stuff for yourself or the close few who you trust.
It is, I'm afraid, as simple as that.
Message: Posted by: Kent Messmer (Aug 30, 2004 11:34PM)
Here's a question... How many of you purchase only Kleenex brand kleenex or the original creator of toothpaste or for that matter only the original of anything? If you don't you too are contributing to the "rip off" world.

The main difference between the above and the magic creations is that most of them took the legal steps to protect their items as long as they could.

I am not saying these knock offer's are right but I don't see any threads from other industries crying about this (and they are being knocked off too) let alone as many uneffected, uninvolved parties as in the magic world.

Just wondering
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Aug 31, 2004 08:39AM)
Yes, I am quite upset to have my effect 'ripped off'
as are 'Kleenex' etc. etc. But how many 'rip-off's' are being wrongly advertised as being 'authorised' by the originator? I can think of only one. This is the latest weapon being used to peddle copies. So if you want to only buy genuine effects and thereby support the original creator of that effect how will you know which are genuine and which are 'Knock-off's' if they are all 'Authorised'.
Message: Posted by: Kent Messmer (Aug 31, 2004 12:45PM)
You are absolutely right. In fact, since they are advertising the rip-offs as "authorised", when they are not, they are violating a "printed law" of false advertising and a suite like this could hold up in court. There could also be some mail fraud involved as the magazines are sent through the mail.

As far as the rip-offs being made to stop manufacturing and selling un-patented items there would not be a very good case.

Maybe the false advertising and mail fraud would be a good way to stop some of them.??

Kent
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Aug 31, 2004 02:07PM)
Colin, bear in mind (in light of the recent revelations) that in this instance they didn't knowingly rip you off. To the best of their knowledge it was an authorised version. So, at least in this case, the word authorised was not a new weapon but a mistake.

Anyway, why don't you release the China Wall trick? Are you [b]really[/b] afraid of getting ripped off (when? by whom?) or is it just a way of getting back? If that is the case, aren't you, too, losing out in sales? Hence the title of this thread.
Message: Posted by: Big Al Jnr (Aug 31, 2004 05:01PM)
Meilechl, I think you have it all wrong mate.

I bought Colin's linking Polos (lifesavers) effect direct from Colin and the gimmick is great. I happened to see it on the penguin site and mentioned this to Colin, he then told me this was a rip off of his effect. I was talking about this in the local magic shop one Saturday afternoon and someone who I've never seen before was in the shop and he said he had the effect and though it was poor, he didn't realise he had a rip off gimmick, until he'd heard me talking about it. He said the gimick was poor and it had split within a few performances. That guy thought the effect sucked because he didn't have the 'real' gimmick, he had a 'rip off'. that's THE POINT meilechl! Colin has lost out on sales because that guy told everyone that the gimmick was crap so they didn't even buy the rip off version, let alone the real version, it's simple! THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL LOSS COMES THROUGH THE KNOCK ON EFFECT, if you bought something that was crap and you saw another effect from the same inventor would you buy that? I doubt it, by association that's going to be crap aswell, therfore sales of the 'next' legitimate product will be reduced, affecting the financial viability of the product. If each and every product released is ripped of then eventually 'your name' becomes associated with them and no-one buys your products.

meilechl you're out on a branch on your own and sawing furiously, put the saw away man!
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Aug 31, 2004 06:58PM)
[quote]
in this instance they didn't knowingly rip you off. To the best of their knowledge it was an authorised version.
[/quote]
A'hem... and when they were told it was not authorized they waited almost a week to make the correction. They know exactly what they are doing.

But please, keep sawing. I'm sure you will cling to your branch, even as it plummits to the ground.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Aug 31, 2004 07:45PM)
[quote]
So, at least in this case, the word authorised was not a new weapon but a mistake.
[/quote]
[Firstly this was no mistake. Penguin never contacted me direct. They did the deal in my absence with Gerald of Magic City. I had no knowledge of the arrangement. And they never paid up. No mistake]

Anyway, why don't you release the China Wall trick? Are you [b]really[/b] afraid of getting ripped off (when? by whom?) or is it just a way of getting back? If that is the case, aren't you, too, losing out in sales? Hence the title of this thread.

I am not purlely in this for the money. I treat it as a sometimes paying hobby. I am not a magician. Other people may call me a magician after a performance, that is their choice. You are not a magician because you think you are, you are only a magician when your audience says you are.
You can be appear to be magician by buying 'stuff' from a web-site' or a 'magic shop' and demonstrating to other people how to do someone elses work, but that will become boring for you and everyone that knows you someday.
You have to put your mind into the way your audience sees you. For example : They are watching you now, but, lets say they have just left their computer having surfed the net, looked at web-cams with live pictures from the other side of the globe. Live! Micro-chip technology etc.etc. Instant everything. Wam! Bam! Thank-you mam!
They then go to a resturant for a meal and you show up and say 'pick a card'. Wow, that is gonna blow thier minds when you produce it in some fantastic fashion. I've seen this happen over and over and I STILL feel embarassed for the poor buggers! But maybe they are just starting, they don't know any other or better. Just like the young Penguin customers today, they don't know any better. That is why I bare no malice to anyone that has bought Magic Mints from Penguin. It is a 'good' effect and at that price I would have done the same if I was twelve. But although Maxwell does his bit for charity ( i.e. the bit about sick kids etc. on the Penguin site) A man with his lack of morals and ethics shouldn't be allowed anywhere near kids. He also 'ocasionally mentions' about his good work for the 'troops'.
Which side? There is only one lot of 'troops' that I know of at the moment that rob, cheat, steal and hurt people they have never known or met.

One of the oldest sayings that always stands true:- You will reap what you sow. (unless Daddy's got big enough pockets to buy you a stairway to heaven).
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Sep 1, 2004 02:28PM)
If you're not in it for the money why don't you release your effects free of charge? I know many magicians (including Hideo Kato, Alex Hui, Zach Allen, Florian Rago and myself, to name but a few) have released effects for nothing.

If I'd released something and it got ripped off I'd do anything legally possible (I can't guarantee the 'legally' part) to get back my money and at the thief. But, and this is where we differ, if I'd have any other effects I wouldn't hold them back as long as it'd be financially worthwhile to produce. What would I gain from holding back? Whom would I hurt other than myself?

And Big Al Jnr, it's you that has it wrong. I know that Colin lost out in sales. My point was that it'll still be worth his while to release other effects. I don't think I'm out on a limb with that - look at how many magicians release stuff and risk being ripped off. They all agree to me that it's worth it.
Message: Posted by: Big Al Jnr (Sep 1, 2004 04:40PM)
Tom you're so right, meilechl is merrily sawing away.

meilechl, re-read my posting above, ITS THE KNOCK ON EFFECT! The Knock On effect! Maybe that loses something in translation to American English, but in the UK, the Queens English, this means "What will happen in the future as a direct result of the actions which have preceeded." i.e. No-one will buy stuff if you're associated with crap, Q. E. D.

Regards

Al.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 1, 2004 04:44PM)
I will release effects. But I will be very, very careful in the future as to what I let go 'public' and what I sell or give away to a chosen few that I can trust. What you need to understand here is that this last fiasco with Penguin will not be felt by many magicians for a while. It will slowly become apparent when people begin to realise the absence of 'new' and 'worthwhile' effects in magic shops and on dealers tables. 'New' effects will still keep turning up of course they will, but will they be worthwhile buying/performing? They probably will only be suitable for wide eyed newcomers. Nothing wrong in that. I was once one of them. Weren't we all?
Message: Posted by: Kent Messmer (Sep 3, 2004 12:16PM)
Get a patent like the rest of the inventing/manufacturing world. At least then you can do something about it. Yes they cost a lot but in the long run you will win.

Lets figure this out. First let me say that no one in business for themselves ever gets paid what they are worth.

Lets take an item that will retail for $30.00. Most retailers have a 100% mark up so this item would cost them $15.00
Lets assume that the distributer has the same mark up so his cost is $7.50.
If the manufacturer also uses this percentage $3.75 would be his cost. (I use these figures because a product I have created ends up close the them)

Now again I know that a $3.75 profit is not much, especially if you try to count your time, but hear me out, the day will come.

The average patent will be about $8000.00.

If the “creator/inventor/manufacture” (because most likely until the cash starts coming in you will be all of these) sells exclusively the first batch it would look like this...

$30.00 less the $3.75 cost = $26.25 profit.

$8000.00 divided by $26.25 = about 305 units.

The magic Café has over 14000 members could you sell to half of them, a third or even twentyfive percent? That's 3500 people x (at this point you might hire them made) $7.50 = $26,250.00 - $9143.75 (your first 305 units) = over $17,000.00.

This gets you back all of your investment plus now you have a legal leg to stand on.

If a company “knocks off” your product. Your attorney sends them a letter telling them to cease and desist. If they do not treble damages can be awarded.

Hey just my 2¢ worth (again)
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 3, 2004 01:35PM)
Lets leave it at that then.
Message: Posted by: wayno (Sep 3, 2004 06:04PM)
Colin, I can appreciate your frustration with Genii. I tried to gain as much awareness of the situation out there for you.

As for Richard stopping the advertisments, and IBM, etc. I had initially supported that. And still do.

However, I can tell you that the LARGE majority of Penguin's customers have never heard of Genii Magazine, or Richard Kaufman. They have never heard of SAM or IBM. They have no clue what The Café is either.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 3, 2004 08:37PM)
That is one **** of a shirt! Talk about misdirection!

I am not talking about Penguin or Lifesavers or Magic bloody Mints anymore.
It's got like two bald men fighting over a comb.

See how mellow I am? The Prozac must have kicked in.
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Sep 4, 2004 06:16PM)
Hi Colin.
This whole thing must be really annoying!

Particularly when some people don't seem to care about the issue at all!

I hope this all works out for you.

:)
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 4, 2004 09:59PM)
I know I am not following the thread here but I would like to ask a question. I cannot ask it on the 'Genii' forum as I have been 'kicked off and barred. I apparently ask to many awkward questions. The reason I ask them is because I get e.mails from people with some of the answers, but I am told not to paste or post them, so I ask the same questions in public for them to re-answer but before they can, Richard deletes them or ends the topic. Each time I ask him why, I get a reply full of abuse.
Words like 'Pathetic'and'Juvenile'. Sometimes all in that same order. I have never met him, I have never called him anything, but I haven't. I could have done, but I haven't.
So, can anyone answer this. Richard Kaufman states that he cannot refuse adverts from Penguin 'because the magazine needs the revenue'. He cannot 'police' advertiser's and their effects. Fair enough. So if I wanted to place, say, a two page full colour advert for toys would he refuse? Has he got he right to prevent me from 'fair trade'? Well, yes I would have thought so, as toys have got no place in a 'magic' magazine. So, if he respects 'magic' as much as he professes and dosn't agree with their ethics, (or lack of) why let a self confessed 'knock -off' merchant/businessman place adverts for his type of wares? Surely they have no 'rightful' place in magic magazine also?
Message: Posted by: mormonyoyoman (Sep 4, 2004 11:28PM)
Colin, I suppose the answer could be given from scripture -- but it's much funnier when paraphrased from a Star Trek movie:

"The needs of the money outweigh the needs of the few."
Message: Posted by: Sammy Haydn (Sep 5, 2004 04:00AM)
Isn't there something you can steal from Penguin in retaliation? Market that and advertise it.That should soon get their attention.
Anyway that is what I would do in a nanosecond.
I got this idea from Harry Stanley (who claimed that he never did it himself). He stated that the rule was "if they steal one of yours steal three of theirs in retaliation"
Cheaper than sueing them anyway.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 5, 2004 05:25AM)
I won't do as you suggest as I am not a thief. I am not in this for the money. I have recently refused to supply Magic City with their last order of 'Lifesavers'.
I just wanted to find a way to stop the rip-off merchants from getting away with it. Again.
Just because 'this sort of thing has gone on for a humdred years' dosen't mean it has to continue for another hundred does it? If you have a web-site how do you get people to look at it? Ans. You still have to advertise the fact that 'it's' there in a place where your potential customers already look. If they were not allowed to advertise in the mags, far less people would know it existed. Simple. Then maybe, when the 'magic' world had cleaned up it's act and instilled a few advertising rules, Penguin etc. would only sell effects that were legally theirs to sell. Anyone with something 'new' they wished to sell, no matter how simple it was to copy, could do so without fear of it being stolen and instantly sold on a 'global scale'. I know we would see more new items on the market. That is surely the way forward. Patents are simply useless for the majority of effects, as when you get your 'Patent' it is published by the patent office on the internet for all to see, method, working and necessary 'Gaffs'.
If I wanted to steal from Penguin, which effects would I steal? I would only be stealing from someone else like myself as I cannot imagine 'Maxwell Murphy' or anyone associated with Penguin has had an original idea of their own. Ever.
Now, I am being driven close to insanity by the mundane pointlessness of it all and will finish by simply saying 'if things don't alter, they will stay the same'. So, please no more private mail asking me to 'fill in the gaps'about Penguin, Magic City etc. I can't. If you really need to fill in the gaps
contact any or all of them yourselves.Good luck.
Message: Posted by: Big Al Jnr (Sep 5, 2004 01:50PM)
Hi Colin
I fear it's a case of "Big Bad Boy" having deeper pockets, they can risk that even if they do rip off an item the inventor probably cannot afford to challenge it legally, and if they do, they have deeper pockets to drag it on and on and on and on, you get my drift.

I e-mailed penguin and requested to be removed from their e-mail list. I got a reply saying it had been done but then they went into a sales pitch about upcomming new products, check out our site etc etc, then two days later another e-mail from them telling me about their latest offers etc, Unbelieveable!?!
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 5, 2004 02:24PM)
Nope, very believable, and Thank you for your support.
You can use that line if you wish though I shudder to to think why you would want to....

How can I have backed out of a deal I knew nothing about? I suggest you read a bit more than you have done. Your earlier quote about 'omg have you just given the secret away for nothing' Come on. The trick is about linking two objects. The 'gimmick' involved has been exposed from day one in reviews, refered to many times on this and other forums. So lets spell it out to you. Two objects... there's a 'gimmick involved'...yes.. Are you following?....Maybe one of the ojects isn't real????
mmmmmmmm... think about it..... penny dropped yet?
AND as I said before I have no argument with the others about them selling a rip off of my effect, the way magic works today is, if you release an effect and it is good enough it will get copied. That is something we, as inventors, have to accept. My grudge with Penguin is that they used my name without my permission and for a while continued to do so and then claimed to have paid me for it. [b]I have received nothing. ask Gerald at magic city if he ever received the check that 'Maxwell' states he posted to them.[/b]
The Lifesaver/magic mints episode is over for my part. I am 'flogging a dead horse'. I just think we could do better. We obviously won't, but I thought we could. Please post on here where you have got you last piece of 'information' from.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Sep 5, 2004 08:40PM)
Yes, Penguinites, please ask Magic City about that "infamous check" and while you are at it ask Penguin to present proof of same. To date they have not, nor would it appear they have any intention (or ability) to attempt to. Draw your own conclusions but first on the hit parade is "IT DOESN'T EXIST!".

Gee, was it all just more smoke and mirrors on the part of Penguin. I am concerned that is the case. Only they can prove otherwise but given their track record I'd say it is highly unlikely any such check ever existed.

Any "deal" was struck with people who had no authority, that is admitted by Penguin, or should I say, by their ignorance, because if they thought a distributor had the right to deal on behalf of an inventor, well they need to close up the business and go back to business school.

By what right do you procalim that Penguin had Colin's permission? Is it by the heresay of Penguin that they sent a check which they have not produced and which Magic City has told Colin they never saw? History proves that Penguin has backed down from the heresay which they swore to in the past, so why the sudden delusion of faith?

I say let Penguin belly up to the bar. Bring some proof to the table. There are several "mock notables" on the internet running around saying they know more than others, yet the "more" they know they can not/will not share. How convenient. How convenient to relax in the comfort of being dupe by the tuxedoed one. History will bear out who is right and wrong. It may be quietly, but it will be borne out.

Invisible "evidence" is as invalid as it is invisible. Until someone steps up to the table with physical proof otherwise, I am going to let Penguin's history of inpropriety speak for itself for now. Maybe you can't teach an old penguin new tricks.

Cheers,

Tom
Message: Posted by: Bill Hallahan (Sep 5, 2004 09:58PM)
[quote]
Here's a question... How many of you purchase only Kleenex brand Kleenex or the original creator of toothpaste or for that matter only the original of anything? If you don't you too are contributing to the "rip off" world.

The main difference between the above and the magic creations is that most of them took the legal steps to protect their items as long as they could.
[/quote]
I do believe that it would financially benefit [b]some[/b] magicians if they got a patent before going to market. It would also provide advertisers a legal reason to turn manufacturers away without fear of being sued. Advertisers have been sued for turning clients away while accepting other clients. Since magician's ethics aren’t legally binding, advertisers find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

But, as pointed out, many creators are not in it for the money.

Also, a patent is a major obstacle for many. It’s not that expensive to obtain a patent, but it does cost something. If a magician has a limited market, or he or she wishes to limit his market, then a patent isn’t a viable option. There’s also the issue that a patent requires that the secret is made public. Some creators don’t want to release the secret and that’s their right. This could also greatly reduce the market for a product, as many will just use the patent to produce the item instead of purchasing it. Lastly, patents eventually expire.

[b]But I see the main difference between items in industry and magic creations is that these latter items/ideas are performance pieces, and they require the permission of the creator to perform them.[/b] I have no problem with industry copying anything that’s not patented if it’s not related to a performance piece. I’m not running an original IBM PC here (and IBM didn’t even make the first public personal computer anyway), and I purchase the least expensive tissues I can find that meet my quality standards. But these are not secret items nor are they performance pieces.

Another issue is that many of the customers who purchase from unethical outfits are not even aware of these ethical issues. They regard magic items the way they regard items in industry. I’m not so naïve I think that education would completely solve the problem, but every bit would help. How to reach and educate this market segment is a real challenge. This topic is one such avenue, but it’s not enough.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 5, 2004 10:07PM)
"There is nothing further to say unless Penguin wishes to back up their claims. Until that time I have better things to do than argue with those who are not involved in the dispute. Penguin's utter lack of answers shall suffice as their answer to these concerns."
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Sep 6, 2004 01:33PM)
[url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_post.php?topic=79805&forum=96&post=3785697]This[/url] is the proof. I posted the link once already but for some reason my whole post was removed. The story that appears from both Maxwell and Gerald is thus.

Magic Makers approached Penguin with a new(?) item called Magic Mints. Penguin, not knowing there was a problem with it, started selling it. Magic City (Gerald) found out about it and contacted Maxwell, who then appologised and offered to reimburse Colin and try to reach an agreement. Barring that, he agreed to take it off the shelves. Gerald discussed it with Colin and together they worked out an agreement. Maxwell continued selling it [b]rightfully[/b] calling it an authorised version.

[i]Here's where the controversy started.[/i] Colin decided that he wants out of the deal and started badmouthing Penguin on the Genii forums, claiming to be a victim of [b]Penguin[/b] piracy (never a word was mentioned about MM who manufactured it or The Magic Warehouse who also sell it). After it became clear that there is no [b]further[/b] agreement, Penguin took it off their list.

About the original agreement, both Maxwell and Gerald claim it was while Colin denies it. Someone is obviously lying. If it's Maxwell, why would Gerald back him. I'm not saying Colin lied - I think most people would be intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

Lastly, this thread was about releasing effects despite the risk of them being copied. It was only after Colin hijacked it and made it a Penguin bashing thread that I post my views.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 6, 2004 03:28PM)
Sorry to have hijacked your topic but you asked a question and to give you an honest opinion I had to explain the situation I have found myself in. So I am going against Gerald of Magic City's wishes and posting an e.mail he sent to me a couple of weeks ago. Please read carefully and you will see that a deal was done without my knowledge. Gerald thought he was doing the right thing for me, without consulting me at all. I still do not know why.
Martin told me about the alledged 'damages' I didn't agree entirely but Martin persuaded me that it was in my interest as it was a very unreputable company that he/gerald/magic city were dealing with, therefore I should accept the check when it arrives and if Penguin continued to sell magic mints we would take the matter further. He also ordered another fifty 'Lifesavers'. There was no mention of the $1000 being for my authorisation of magic mints and it was definately not a 'pay-off'. Martin then phoned me 2/3 days later to cancel the order of Lifesavers as Penguin were continuing to sell magic mints and now apparently with my 'authorisation'. He told me to contact the relevant magazines etc. etc. etc.
You will also see where Gerald states that the Check never arrived from Maxwell. The check he states on the 'Genii' forum that he posted to Magic City.
I aplogise now to Gerald for going against his wishes but I did ask him to re-send another e.mail which I could post but he declined. Recent events and 'revelations' have forced my hand. Here it is:

Hello Colin,

I have never not replyed to you. This is the first email you asked me a question. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. But let me start from the begining.

I heard that Penguin was selling your trick as "Magic Mints" I was able to stop him, but I have no legal right to do so. I was able to talk him into $1000 to you. He did not have to pay you anything and I was surprized he agreed. Next I see you bad mouthing the guy, fine. I don't care if you do or don't. At that point he is not going to pay you anything.

I was just trying to get you some money for this thing, I see now I should not have got involved, but I hope you understand that he did buy the rest of our stock and wants more. I still need more and have never stopped my order and need more. I don't agree with Magic Makers making your item, but other dealers are carrying "magic Mints". Penquin was the only ones to stand up and try and help out. I would sudjest that we lower the price down to $20-$25 retail. I think people would rather buy yours and not the knock-off Even better- price it at $15.00 and kill the sales of "magic mints" all together. One good thing about this is Linking Livesavors is selling again. We had not sold any in awhile.

to answer your questions- No check, so I did not forward. You are not the bad guy in this, but your the one that looses. It sucks, that's why I tried to get you the money.

This email is for your eyes only and not to be placed online or forward to anyone. It is not well thought out and full of errors.

What follows is a message and my relpy to Meilchel earlier this evening.
meilechl

Loyal user
Posted: Mon, Sep 6th, 2004 - 5:59 PM (EST)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't want to ask this on the forums as I didn't want to start a fight over Penguin. There're a couple of things I don't understand. First of all, when did you first become aware of the deal between Gerald and Maxwell? Secondly, if' as Gerald said, Penguin was the only one to agree to any sort of compensation, why did you announce that you'd become the victim of 'Penguin' piracy?

Thanks,

Eli.
Colin Gilbert

New user
Posted: Mon, Sep 6th, 2004 - 7:50 PM (EST)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I became aware of the deal when I got the phone call from Martin Breese. No date of any deal was actually mentioned as I recall but I gathered it had been done quite a while before the phone conversation with Martin as he was shocked himself to have 'only just found out' about it all. He seemed furios.
There was no mention of Magic Makers etc. at that point and, until well into the forums, no-one actually new/told me that it was Magic Makers that were actually making them. I have already explained why I have not gone after Magic Makers or the other retailers of M.Mints or whatever brand. Penguin used my name to promote their item even after I had told them not to. If The $1000 dollars was for my authorisation Why wasn't I informed by M.City.? Gerald had never contacted me until you read the e.mail I have already posted. This was way into trying to fill the gaps. Then he told me not to use it.??! what good is that?
I know it appears I had an agreement with someone and backed out, but that is [b]totally incorrect[/b]. I have been dumped on, but we are to far apart for you to smell it. So even though I have done nothing wrong, I have to prove my innocence?
I have received nothing from Maxwell. Maxwell states he sent a cheque, so everyone assumes that he must have done so because as you say 'Gerald backs him up'.
I wouldn't have agreed to any deal if I had Known. I didn't want my effect to be eventually sold in 'Joke' shops. But It was far too late by the time I got to know.
So please believe me when I say 'I am not in it for the money' What I mean by that is, not this issue or topic. Linking Lifesaver has no monetary value for me. I want to sell other effects for money of course I do but this 'going after Penguin' was purely an attempt to try and bring the magic world into some sort of reputable pastime/hobby/business, wherever you play your part. It was intended to be for the good of everyone involved, be you a magician,dealer and especially of course, an inventor. That was all.
If I wanted to be called names and be accused of being a liar etc. I would go and sit with the wife.
Honestly mate at the end of the day, I am about 4000 miles away, so I can only tell you what I know I have been told. The choice is yours of who to believe. Thank you for your concern, Colin.


So my reason for pasting it on here is once and for all to put an end to this sordid affair. I am going to get nowhere with my plight to bring magic up to any form of reputable level. I know it was a big hill to climb, but one step at a time, maybe we could have got there, but there are too many people throwing marbles under our feet to even get started. I invent 'Tricks', I recently tried to invent a way of making magic a more 'honest/sivilised' occupation/hobby but that idea didn't sell very well. (glad I didn't Patent it)! Anyway, Suffice to say, As I have never recieved anything from Maxwell Murphy and he like to 'do his bit for charity' I suggest he donates the $1000 to a charity of his choice.(No, not 'send Richard K.' up the Amazon fund) But something just as good that would benefit magic.
Seriously though, A magicians benevolent fund if there is one, but some charity somewhere. Surely the man can do that. After all it isn't really his money he is donating. But I would like him to publish the reciepts on this forum as proof, then for my part it would put an end to all this worthless arguing and he could go back to selling Magic Mints. (Still without my blessing, but as has been pointed out, I can't stop him). Life really is to short. So come on Maxwell, put your money where you say your heart is.

Could someone please paste the above request on the other forums so Maxwell will find it? I, for obvious reasons I am unable to. I tried to contact R.K. but apparently he had gone off to buy a wet suit.
Message: Posted by: Big Al Jnr (Sep 7, 2004 07:53AM)
Meilechl, your post is as if you are the P.R. rep for Penguin. Where is your info from? Please post the source so we can all read it. I think Colin's posting of the e-mail from Gerald says a lot. Colin obviously knew nothing of the 'endorsement deal'.

Colin, your suggestion to donate the money to a charity is noble and to be applauded. You keep saying it's not about the money it's about ethics but I think some people don't see that. If Maxwell has not sent the check because he didn't feel obliged to after the bad PR Penguin got then he should at least feel a twinge of guilt now and send it to a charity as suggested.

Just my 2 pence worth.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 7, 2004 11:57AM)
[quote]
On 2004-08-28 17:48, Tom Cutts wrote:
If you think it is disgusting, then why are you searching to justify it. So you would just work for $25,000 and starve rather than look for another, more rewarding way to work. Suit yourself. Blind to you is the idea that these guys are stopping releasing their material to us but continue to perform for the public, the source of their real income. They aren't going on unemployment. They are just stopping their sharing ways. You know, like when your appartment gets broken into for the third time you put bars up. Or would you simply grin and bear it hoping that the guys who have your TV are enjoying all the great features and the hi-def technology.

Once the benefit of sharing their material is destroyed by those who do not respect the origintors, the creators will stop sharing openly. You simply wont see their work and they will remain busy working for the public.

You will be the only one who loses. You being the average guy who enjoys new material. It is your choice to destroy the flow of new, [b]tested[/b] material.

But as I said that disgusts me.

Cheers,

Tom
[/quote]

Am I missing something or are you talking about "performing" whereas everyone else on this thread is talking about "publishing" or "releasing" (new items). You could decide never to publish or release anything new you've created and still go out and perform your own stuff!
Message: Posted by: meilechl (Sep 7, 2004 01:32PM)
[quote]
On 2004-09-07 08:53, Big Al Jnr wrote:
Meilechl, your post is as if you are the P.R. rep for Penguin. Where is your info from? Please post the source so we can all read it.
[/quote]

I'm assuming that you're incapable of clicking on a link, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question. I'll quote the entire post be Gerald.

[quote]Hello, my name is Gerald Kirchner. I work for Magic City, an L.A. based magic distributor.
http://www.magicity.com

I recently became aware of this thread, and would like to make some comments. I might be able to shed light on the subject. A week or so ago, I was informed Penguin Magic was selling an item that we distribute, "Linking Lifesavers," retitled "Magic Mints."

I called Maxwell, the owner of Penguin Magic, to ask what was up. Maxwell said he didn't know there was a debate with this item. I explained that we distribute Linking Lifesavers for Martin Breese and Collin Gilbert and that Magic Mints was clearly the same trick published later. Maxwell wanted to fix the problem and agreed to remove Magic Mints from his site until we could reach an accord. Maxwell later agreed to pay Collin a sum of money, to include his name in the Magic Mints product description, and sell both tricks.

Shortly after that initial contact, I e-mailed Martin Breese about the deal and he talked with Collin. Martin wrote back and agreed to the terms. Maxwell placed the item back on his web site conforming to the agreement and bought the remaining stock of Linking Lifesavers.

In the meantime, Martin and Collin discussed the matter further, and Collin decided that he didn't like the deal. As of now, there is no agreement between Collin and Penguin. Penguin has marked Magic Mints out of stock on their web site.

I see this happen all the time, and knew Collin wouldn't be able to legally protect Linking Lifesavers. I was trying to get him some money as I figured he deserved as much compensation as possible. Penguin was the only company to stand up and offer Collin money, when in fact other stores carry Magic Mints too.

I don't know about the other problems discussed here regarding Penguin, but I felt the need to make these few comments to try and clear up an otherwise murky issue. I do not condone the actions of Magic Makers - the manufacturer of Magic Mints.

Best wishes,

Gerald Kirchner [/quote]

[quote]
On 2004-09-06 20:56, Colin Gilbert wrote:
What follows is a message and my relpy to Meilchel earlier this evening.
meilechl
[/quote]

I first read it in my pm inbox, so I'll just copy/paste my reply.

[quote]I've read your reply thouroughly and I emphasize with you. It must feel awful to be "dumped" upon and not be able to do a d*** thing about it. I do appologise for my tone of voice (metaphorically speaking, of course). In my defence, it partly brought on by having Tom Cutts jump down my neck for trying to civily discuss a financial subject. I do believe, however, that Maxwell did not set out to wrong you, and when he used your name he did so with the belief that you agree. Perhaps I'm wrong. Who knows?

Anyway, I wish you lots of success in all your endeavours and esp. if and when you decide to release any subsequent effects.

Cheers,

Eli (meilechl)
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Sep 7, 2004 02:49PM)
Meilechl,

The basis of your assumptions has already been proven to be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect; as evidenced in this thread. Why are you still clinging to it?

Maxwell Murphy's "Illusive Check" has never surfaced. Not to the intended recipient, not to the assumed intermediary, and not in Murphy's hands either. He appears to never have paid for anything, which is in direct contradiction to the claims he and others have made here.

Cheers

Tom
Message: Posted by: Big Al Jnr (Sep 7, 2004 04:10PM)
Appologies meilechl, I had not seen the link on 'This' in your posting, however having read the original posting as part of the thread it was in I'm not convinced. As Tom says... "Where's the cheque?"

Anyone can say anyone has said anything but to say you sent a cheque and not be able (apparently) to back that up, which would be the only 'tangible proof' of the deal, leaves a funny smell for me.
Message: Posted by: Colin Gilbert (Sep 7, 2004 08:22PM)
Posted: Tue, Sep 7th, 2004 - 2:10 PM (EST)
I've read your reply thouroughly and I emphasize with you. It must feel awful to be "dumped" upon and not be able to do a *** thing about it. I do appologise for my tone of voice (metaphorically speaking, of course). In my defence, it partly brought on by having the Cutts schmuck jump down my neck for trying to civily discuss a financial subject. I do believe, however, that Maxwell did not set out to wrong you, and when he used your name he did so with the belief that you agree. Perhaps I'm wrong. Who knows? Anyway, I wish you lots of success in all your endeavours and esp. if and when you decide to release any subsequent effects. Cheers, Eli (meilechl) Ps. Between us, did you really lose money over this mess or did it actually boost sales because of all the publicity? Not that it makes it any less wrong, I'm just curious.

Colin Gilbert New user Posted: Tue, Sep 7th, 2004 - 2:37 PM (EST)
Hi, your first question about Max, My honest answer to that is, I simply do not know. I just wasn't consulted at all and when I did find out from Martin in the first instance, he wasn't aware of the 'agreement' made between Gerald and Max. But max was in the wrong for not replying to me after he found out my contact add. (which Gerald could have given him straight away anyway) and for continuing to sell them with my 'authorisation' even after he realised (if he 'was' in the clear) that something wasn't right. I only 'bad mouthed' Maxwell long after I realised that no check was on it's way and he continued to ignore me and carry on as if I had never complained at all. To your second question I can only say this, I have lost money as I have turned down any more orders from Magic City. They were the only place I sent them to. For some reason they still want them, I don't know why. Guilt perhaps? I do not know. But what other dealer in his right mind would want to stock it anyway after all this? Fancy a go at being an importer? No, I thought not! All the best, Colin


Well he nearly posted everything.

But that is the last straw. I get a public flogging from Meilcehl and then a ‘private’ apology. Then he only post’s the bits he wants you to see!

So that is it. I am finished with forums. I do not mean that in any way derogatory, what I mean is, I have nothing to give to them. I just don’t ‘feel at home’ on here, and on the ‘Genii’ forum I was made as welcome as a Penguin in a fish farm.
I have only recently realised that I have been ‘into’ a totally different world of magic than I thought I was ‘involved’ in. My knowledge of the ‘magic world’ is miniscule compared to what is really going on out there. (about the size of ‘‘cowboy4evers’’ brain or to put it another way, not enough to plug the hole in a lifesaver).
I mostly perform ‘my own’ magic, that way I know my audience have probably never ‘seen it done before’. So forums haven’t really been my ‘thing’.
I cannot ‘join in’ a topic for instance where a couple of magicians are discussing the latest DVD from whoever. I haven’t got it. And at that time wouldn’t know where to buy it. (or weather it was a genuine copy). So I only joined this forum as the topic did concern me after all.
This topic, however, has been referred to, as being ‘better than any soap’, and that is all it has become. Well this particular ‘‘soap’’ is dropping character, but don’t worry there will be another along shortly. Didn’t someone mention that penguin had got some ‘new’ releases? If one of them has the ‘Great wall of china’ in the title, it is probably a rip-off. (Just a guess).
So it looks at last, that we may see a conclusion. Weather you see proof of a check is another matter. But, for future reference, the next time, and I am sure there will be one, the next time Maxwell says that he has done nothing wrong and his conscience is clear, remember this, NOTHING IS AS ‘‘FISHY’’ AS A GREEDY PENGUIN.
My very best to you all, good, bad or ugly,
Colin Gilbert.
Message: Posted by: Peter Loughran (Sep 8, 2004 04:14PM)
I don'y quite understand this...Infact Im quite confused...Can someone help me understand this mess...is this still being sold by Penguin under Magic Mints? If so why?

If its becasue Collin and Co. were forced into a deal or offered some cash that was supposed to be an act of generousity or out of respect because there was nothing they could do to stop them from selling it leagally, then that is just wrong!

If Penguin now knows its a knock off after they bought it, then they should return the stock back to Rob & Stiffya for a refund and sell the linking lifesavers under proper authorization, and be done with it. There shouldn't even be an issue here! Loose Magic Mints! Whats the confusion here? It seems pretty simple to me! I amoung others refuse to sell to dealers that carry MagicMaker's line. The good news is that more and more are following suit. Perhaps one day it might make a difference.

Collin I feel for ya man!

P.
Message: Posted by: wayno (Sep 13, 2004 12:16AM)
This response stems with a page I read on Bazar de Magia's website today. Not to mention all the discussions that have been going on about them for the past few months.

I currently deal with Magic Makers in my own shop. I have lot of their stock on hand. But I am going to eat those losses. I am yanking their product line from my shelves this week.

8)