This may have been discussed somewhere in the Magic Café before, but if so,I think it's worth considering again. I placed it in "Inner Thoughts" because the recent post on "Time Machine" in here got me thinking. Perhaps it will need to be moved to another thread, as I'm sure my thoughts will move around to all types of magic, not just mentalism effects.

About 12 years ago I purchased "Perfect Time" by Collector's Workshop. I believe it cost me close to $400. The cost kept it out of the hands of the simply inquisitive and it appeared to me that I had a bit of a "corner" on this powerful effect.

Now one is able to buy the same effect ("Time Machine") for considerably less. It appears that many who visit the Magic Café perform it. This week I have seen two "Perfect Times" on the auction block and I don't believe they will go for $250 because of the cheaper (and possibly better?) versions now on the market.

Having stated all that, allow me to construct my question.

Most of the contributors to the Magic Café have problems with those who "rip off" (build and or sell without the inventor's consent) illusions. My question is, "Does a product like 'Time Machine' infringe on 'Perfect Time'?" While asking this, I admit I do not know all the facts about the creation of the two effects, and perhaps someone can fill me in.

Is there only concern when someone copies effect and method, or is there a reason to be upset with someone who comes out with the same effect but a different method, or a different method but the same effect. Please keep in mind that I am talking about marketing it here, not just performing a different version of "The Four Aces." (Of course, we seem to get upset about someone who builds and performs their own copy of someone's trademark illusion or "borrows" someone else's routine).

Let's take the now popular "body through a fan" illusion. There are numerous ways and different looking props. But let's say someone takes a prop that looks the same as another performer but uses a different method. Or what about the same method but a little different look? Does that make it OK? Perhaps Fred Kap's "Floating Cork" history is appropriate here?

If you readers can make sense of this rambling, I'm interested in any and all thoughts on this!

Terry

As I understand it, the gentlemanly thing to do is NOT copy anothers work.

Unfortunately, often this happens a couple of years after an item is first released. Another example would be the John Cornelius Bendable Pen that Penguin Magic have recently ripped off.

Personally I do not buy from someone I know has stolen the work of someone else.

With regard to Perfect Time, was this an original (i.e. the first wrist-watch version of the effect)?
If so, then I believe that Time Machine is a rip-off version. If not, then perhaps when purchasing Perfect Time you were purchasing a rip-off when you purchased it. Also, did the makers of Time Machine get permission to release this from the original creators? And if so, was giving this permission ethical (for example the original producers may have sold the original at a high cost based upon an agreed limited production quantity).

However, surely a $400 investment in this effect 12 years ago has more than paid for itself some time ago? I wish a $400 investment in other non-magical areas lasted so long (computers, cars etc.).

I think the main thrust of your questions is should "the effect" be protected and not just the method?

Usually when a new method/routine is devised/released, then the original is credited. Hopefully in most instances this also means that permission to release a new version of the effect was sought and granted...?

It's a very difficult area to analyse really. After all, what is the effect of Perfect Time?

Is it a prediction? Is it mind control? Is it telepathy? And if so who is telepathic, performer or participant?

If the effect of perfect time is said to be a prediction of a spectators choices, then this surely isn't enough to protect it or release it in the first instance, after all that effect is acheivable by many means. Therefore, the "effect" is the full and complete presentation, routine, method and any props.

So, if someone was to devise a new method of acheiving the exact same effect (no switches or funny moves etc.), this would mean that because perfect time is so clean looking that it would probably have to be a different watch (or rather a watch utilising a different method - and not just a variation) to be acheivable. Even then, this is probably unethical in my opinion (unless permission is granted) as it is a "duplication" or "copy" of the original effect.

I think the key is that we all (performers and manufacturers alike) should behave as gentlemanly as possible.

One last thought...

What happens if someone devises and releases a new prop, sells it for a few years and then stops and disappears?
Should someone else be able to just start making their versions of the prop?
In my opinion, no. Not for a very good few years, and anyway, usually if someone tried to locate the originator they would be able to especially in this day and age what with useful places like The Magic Café.

Terry,

If pushed, I might be able to make a distinction between making an identical duplicate of a device/gimmick/prop and "making" a different item ("method-wise" only).

In no event should a person identically duplicate a device/gimmick/prop and sell it as his own. However, when discussing "same effect but different method" items, this is a close question and seems to vary depending on the uniqueness of the effect.

For instance, I can see a distinction between developing a different 4-coin matrix effect (O.K.) and developing another Linking Coathanger routine or gimmick (not O.K.). With the former, the effect's originator is "lost in time" (I think); with the latter both the originator and the gimmick itself are just too recent and are both "known". Additionally, the Linking Coathanger routine is just too original to be copied. Perhaps, the Linking Coathanger is not the best example to use--but I hope you get the picture of what I'm trying to say.

Question: Are Perfect Time and Time Machine identical in METHOD or are they substantially indentical only in EFFECT? If the effect was not originated by CW, I would lean towards the view that your purchase of Perfect Time did not also grant you exclusivity of the effect.

Additionally, I can understand why you might be kind of "ticked off" to have spent $395.00 for a prop and effect that can now be essentially (if not identically) duplicated for less than $100.00. Part of the decision to spend the $395.00 was in the hopes that such a steep price would be justified by the very price "guaranteeing" some sort of exclusivity or uniquness of performance of such an effect.

However, this raises another point: Should Banachek be castigated for putting out a "low-tech low cost" version of Perfect Time (i.e. His Psychokeinetic Time routine)? That is, should a magician be castigated for not being able or willing to purchase the Collector's Workshop expensive prop and, instead, working out a cheap alternative? Part of the answer lies in determining just exactly what it was that you purchased when you bought the Perect Time watch. Did you buy a device that now allows you to "easily" accomplish/perform an original effect? Did you buy both the device and the effect's performing rights? Or, had the effect had been performed (using other means) prior to the high-tech Perfect Time device having been "invented"?

I don't know if there is an absolute answer to your question. I do know that for some effects, I feel that the effect are in the "public domain" and for others I feel that the effect and any necessary devices are not. Additionally, I feel that some effects/routines are so unique or are so related to (or identified with) one performer that performance of such an effect by me would make me feel "uncomfortable" or "sleezy" and/or would degrade me in my own mind.

Hope this helps and does not merely muddy the waters.

Mike

P.S. Coincidentally, recently I had approached a well-known mentalist about purchasing his Perfect Time watch from him and he advised that he'd sell it to me if I insisted, but he recommended that I purchase Banachek's Psychokinetic Time manuscript instead!! He emphasized that the effect was the thing and he believed that the $20.00 manuscript was a better investment than the expensive prop since, in the audience's mind, the resulting effect was indistinguishable. Up until that point, I had never heard of this Banachek manuscript/routine. Parenthetically, his asking price for Perfect Time was $250.00.

A quick note of clarification: Perfect Time has the same plot as Time Machine, but not the same method. In both, an exact time thought of by a participant is found to have been set beforehand on the performer's timepiece. The effect is either that of a prediction or of thought reception on the part of the participant.

Psychokinetic Time does not have the same plot as either of the above: a participant's timepiece is shown to have the correct time and held tightly in his hand. The performer than uses his mental powers to turn back the time on the watch by a number of minutes called out by an audience member. The effect is that of psychokinesis/telekinesis.

Just a clarification. PK time is very different from Perfect time.

In perfect time, you remove you watch and set the time to an unknown time, someone names a time that means something to them, you show you had set or predicted the same time.

In PK time (my manuscript) you BORROW a watch, they look a the time, you set in THIER hand face down. Ask them to name a number (not a time) and you move the hands that many minutes.

With my effect you CAN NOT have the watch state a specific time. However the strength is in the fact you psychokinetically move the watch a certain amount of minutes.

I understand the initial confusion if you do not have both, but they are very, very different effects altogether.

Great questions though.

Also, as the two watches are different in the workings, I can't say what or why as that is why Gerry McCambridge was booted off here. He gave too much detail as to the workings of the watches and complained when the post was removed.

So other than say that they use different methods in the workings, I can say the routines are the same in Perfect time, Time Machine, Blown Away and also Watch and Wear. And even a few of these have the same mechanism. Years ago that was the big blow up about Blown Away and Perfect Time. The only different was the gimmick was in the pen for one and in a dollar bill for the other.

Necromancer and Banachek,

Thanks for the clarifications.

BTW, with Perfect Time, Time Machine, Watch and Wear,etc. being the same effect but using different methods, we are back to square one in attempting to answer Terry's initial question. Would you two gentlemen care to take a crack at addressing his question and concerns?

Personally, since they all use different method than Perfect Time, I'm more inclined to cut them slack and say that they are ethically O.K. My only lingering concern is whether or not the EFFECT achieved in Perfect Time was also original with them. If so, we get back into the muddied waters stirred up by Terry. In the event that the effect was also original with Perfect Time, I am uncomfortable advocating either side of this issue. I can see the pros and cons of each position and I am having difficulty resolving the conflict.

Insight from both Neil and Steve (and others) would be appreciated.

Mike

This is really a much more difficult question than it seems at first. Of course we're all against stealing and selling someone else's ideas. (I hope we're all against it.)

But if doing the same effect with a different method is a rip-off, then lots of folks are in trouble. Developing a new way of doing the same effect is a large part of magic. If we allowed only one method per effect, magic dealers' shelves would be very empty.

And using someone else's method for a different effect is another major part of magic. That's where most new tricks come from.

What bothers me is when someone steals both method and effect (perhaps modifying it only slightly) and selling it.

And let's remember this problem is certainly not limited to magic props. A quick stroll past the sidewalk vendors of any big city will confirm that. I'm telling my age here, but I remember when Kodak came out with an instant print camera. Polaroid took them to court and won (because they showed that Kodak was using Polaroid's methods). Kodak had to discontinue making their camera. I don't think even the biggest of magic manufacturers can't afford to pursue thieves in court, even if they took the very rare step of copyrighting or patenting their trick in the first place. Of course, the magic thieves don't have the resources to fight.

Rip-offs are not limited to illusions and watches. There is an even bigger rip-off problem with low-priced effects because they are easier to manufacture.

Maybe it's just me, but I've been bothered by B'wave and Twisted Sisters ever since I saw both of them. And now there's a new one called Nervous Breakdown. And they all have big names attached to them -- not some lowlife copycat.

Even if we can come up with some definitive answers to Terry's questions, the real issue is "What are we going do about it? What can we do?"

We're all looking for a bargain, not just in magic props. We want to buy everything cheaper. If someone is selling almost the same thing for less, many of us will buy the cheaper one. Raise your hand if you've bought the "house brand" of something instead of the "brand name." Why should it be different in magic? Magicians are just a sub-set of everyone else. Even if we want to do the right thing and not buy knock-offs, the problem is compounded for us because we deal in secrets. Often we don't really know what the differences are. Look at the posts from folks who don't know whether Perfect Time and Time Machine used different methods. I'm sure lots of Time Machine buyers didn't even know there was a Perfect Time or a Watch & Wear.

If someone can make and sell it cheaper, he will. And if someone can slap a new label on something from the hardware store and jack up the price, he will. If I can buy "Roughing Fluid" from my local hobby shop for a third the price a magic dealer charges, I'm going to do it. And by extension, if I can buy a Time Machine for a third the price of Perfect Time, I'm going to do that. (Not me personally. I'm just trying to make a point about shopping for the cheapest.) As long as price is a factor, rip-offs will be a problem.

BTW, I believe the origins of 4-coin matrix effects are not lost in time. I'm pretty sure I've read about the originator of that effect, although I can't tell you who it was or where I read it. Assuming I'm correct, would it change Turk's opinion on it's okay-ness? Should it?

Just my thoughts.

My head is spinning on this deep line of conversation.

I'm reminder of the "hammer" case law. How many different kinds of hammers are they? Where's the line... feel, weight, design, function, etc.? On technical terms any change and definitely not called the same, one could legally justify it as different, therefore a "new Product".

Ethically...Now that's a whole new area. It really is a personal choice. For instance, the India version of What's Next has the compete duplicate cover of the original but the card is black and the pits are pink. To me it is an inferior product, and I won't buy that version. What about the India made Change bag for $15? One would save at least $25-50 for a duel sides with zippered center bag.

Also it is possible that two people can come up with the same idea, who's idea is it...the one who markets it first or the one who mass markets it the best.

The real answer is in the costly judicial system. Getting official copyrights, patents, and trademarks are important to establish ownership. If the law says it's yours, then shame on the other designer not taking the correct steps to protect his work.

We, on the Café, can only made observations and opinions, and establish our own personal ethical code, and that's it. If a dealer is selling several rip-off products, then I can choose to buy elsewhere. It becomes a personal choice at best.

There are no simple answers to this complex issue.

trickiewillie,
Nope, it wouldn't change my opinion. I was just using the 4-coin matrix as an example of a "generic" type of effect. Even if the 4-coin routine's originiator is not "lost in time" and is still well-known, I believe my point is still valid. Namely, some effects are so well-known and utilized that they become "generic". Sort of like the "find the four aces", the "ambitious card", the "find the spectator's card", the "cut and restored rope", the "card-to-wallet" and the "cups and balls" types of effects. Add to that list the numerous coin (and other object) vanishes, appearances and transpositions types of effects.

Compare those types of effects to effects such as "d'lites", "Misprint", "Free Fall", "Healed and Sealed", etc. In other words, effects that are not merely a permutation of a "generic" effect but which are somehow unique in prop or presentation.

And, I apologize in advance if any of the above four listed effects (d'lites, Misprint, Free Fall, Healed and Sealed) are, in fact, not original effects but are also "take-offs" on some other original effect. I am using these four examples only to try to illustrate a point...and not to definitively declare that these four effects are, in fact, originals. (I think they are but....?)

Hope that helps.

Mike