Phaedrus: I assure you that I have not missed your point. I simply disagree with it.

Jonathan: Your previous post seems to imply that using the words "right" or "wrong" are foolish or childish. I assure you sir, that I am neither a child nor a fool. I simply disagree with you as well. I am only too well aware that it is not "politically correct" to use such words, or to state that such principles as universal right and wrong exist. Yet I shall continue to stand by what I have said, regardless of whether you or others think I am childich or foolish. Legality aside, what is ethics other than a code of right and wrong? In point of fact, the American Heritage Dictionary defines ethic as: "A set of principles of RIGHT conduct." (emphasis mine)

My problem with "situation ethics" and "personal values" is that as humans, we can easily justify virtually anything as being "right for us at the time." Then, heaven forbid we should have to face any consequences for our actions! Further, the consequences of one's actions RARELY fail to reach beyond the scope of one's own person. Take for example, the person who decides to drive while intoxicated. MANY people have been killed as a result of being hit by a drunk driver--an accident that would not have occurred had the drunk not passed out at the wheel. In his own mind, he may have had every justification to drink and then drive, and he may well come out of the accident unharmed, but others had to pay the consequences of his WRONG behavior.

Jonathan, you are clearly upset about your fingertip coins across routine being appropriated or derivated or whatever term you want to use. You stated that you even asked people not to publish derivitave works on the routine. But if there is not a standard beyond "each person deciding what his value systme is," what is to stop someone from just publishing the exact routine outright? If he can make money off it to feed his family, surely that was the right thing for him to do at the time. But of course I would agree with you that it would not be the right thing for him to do at all, whether it is legal or not.

You have a problem with using the words right and wrong. I do not. Just because I disagree with you on the semantics does not make me childish. It makes me a bit stubborn perhaps, and it makes me a man who stands by what he said and who shall continue to do so.

Using the words right and wrong, are not a bad thing. They are a impossible thing to universally enforce. It is most certainly not childish to believe in right and wrong, but it is entirely foolish to assume anyone else will agree and follow an interpretation of such.

However on the subject of being stubborn, as I have read in another book: "The stiffest neck is the soonest broken". There is always room for the honing of our understanding.

I contend that religion itself is built apon situational ethics. "Thou shalt not kill".......... "And it must occur that the one escaping Hazael's sword, Jehu will put to death; And the one escaping from Jehu's sword, Elisha will put to death". Now if that isn't situational ethics I don't know what is.

Agreed. When, good sir, did I ever say that anyone had to agree with me? I said I didn't agree with the statement that right and wrong were opinion and law was fact, and I explained why I disagree with it. I said that true right and wrong were true right and wrong whether you or I agree with that truth--but not whether you agree with me. I never--not once, said anyone was foolish or childish or stupid if they didn't agree with me. I just said that I didn't buy that line of reasoning.

And sometimes stubborn is a good thing. If you're not at least a little bit stubborn, you will assuredly cave in at preesure or adversity. Great athletes, politicians, etc, stubbornly stayed the course in spite of difficult obstacles.

My whole point in this discussion is that, whether appropriating other's effects is legal or not, it isn't ethical--it is wrong, whether people justify it in their own minds or not. I have done wrong things plenty of times. (I don't claim to be above the fray or "holier than thou.") I have justified doing those wrong things. I have even had good reasons for doing them--to make enough money to pay the rent, to get out of trouble, etc. But they were still wrong, and I should not have done them.

We could get into a discussion regarding your statements as to the Bible, and I could go into some depth about the theological, contextual, hermeneutical and soteriological principles of the passages you have cited (including what the original Hebrew and Koine Greek stated--which in some cases has lost some meaning in translation), but this is not the time or place to do so. I made one statement referencing the 10 Commandments in passing. If that offended you, my apologies.

However, I stand by my statements and shall continue to do so until someone pursuades me otherwise. That is the whole purpose of debate, is it not? To pursuade? I have said that I simply do not buy the position that law supersedes right and wrong. I still don't.

First off--and please take this in the positive spirit in which it is intended--quoting the dictionary is not exactly the strongest rhetorical ploy on record.

Second, your argument against "situational ethics" doesn't address the point that I think Phaedrus was making. I doubt that he would even agree that he's advocating "situational ethics" at all (certainly not as you describe it!). But, I'm sure he (or she?) can answer for himself.

That the consequences of one's actions "reach beyond the scope of one's own person" is, I think, accepted by everybody here; what those consequences are is the issue here (one of them, anyways... ).

I think that the concepts of right and wrong, in the context of morals and ethics and all that, are useful to us so long as we don't poke at them too much (JT's post of March 19 8:59am describes how). But even if we believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs that are somehow built into the fabric of the universe (and you can probably tell what I think of that idea), that doesn't get us any closer to knowing when it's okay to share an effect we learned from a magazine. <--clumsy attempt to steer conversation back towards the issue at hand... attempt continues:

There's no text you can consult to see if some supernatural force (of dubious significance/existence) has prohibited you from teaching your daughter an effect from a magic book you own. To find out if that's something you think you should do or not, you have to look somewhere else.

(As for myself, I would have no problem with that particular case of sharing, and it's hard to say why exactly. As I said before, I think these decisions are made intuitively, most of time (i.e. without consciously applying one's powers of reason, although the conclusions may be supportable by reason for as far as that usually goes).)

So, leaving aside questions of ultimate right and wrong (which, aside from being irrelevant, are well beyond the scope of this discussion), to help make ethical decisions it's important to have information about the possible effects of your actions. My intuitive sense is that there is no harm done by sharing an effect from a magic book with one's daughter, or from sharing the occasional effect from a magazine with a friend. I'd be very interested to hear somebody explain, in concrete terms, using real life examples, how people have been harmed by this kind of behavior.

And in the case of the daughter and the shared secret: considering the other elements involved, like the ethical example set by purchasing the book(s), the presumed bonding between family members caused by this kind of teaching, and the possibility of nurturing of a love for magic that will provide extra income for magic authors in the future (IMHO not more of a stretch than saying that the inventor of a trick published in a magazine is harmed by it being shared with someone who doesn't own the magazine... you know... if we're just asserting things ), I'd say that it was an entirely positive experience that no magic author should begrudge.

Of course, that's an easy one...

-Travis

My statements were based on this statement of yours. I was attempting to say that you were in no way childish or anything else. It may have came across otherwise, I do not always speak clearly, but always I try to speak with conviction.

However when you brought up the ten commandments as a basis, I perhaps incorrectly asserted my take on the subject. I have unfortunately been beaten with the bible (after a fasion), and have a personal bias on the subject. I should have held my tongue.

I did not mean to say you were making a statement against anyone. Only it is difficult to impossible to expect anyone else to hold your beliefs, regardless of their value.

I am sorry if I offended you, I will increase my medication.

Posted: Mar 20, 2005 3:48am
And nothing offends me. So don't worry about it.

P.S. As an example of a time when referring to the dictionary is justified ( ): a very fair explanation of "begging the ......onfusion.

But is there anyone who really believes I should buy a new copy of Bobo's, just to teach my son the palming of coins?

Posted: Mar 20, 2005 3:52am
Travisb; I read that, and my head hurts. I wish I were smarter.

Travis, I'm not trying to use "ploys," rhetorical or otherwise. I'm just trying to have a conversation. We were debating about semantics. Words mean things. I was simply defining a word. What better authority to use for that than the dictionary?

Josh, the quote to which you refer was directed specifically to Jonathan, who said tyhat my use of the words "right" and "wrong" were childish and who further said he would not be using them. They were not directed to you. I further want to make it clear that I am not easily offended, either, and that, while I take issue with some of Jonathan's comments, I am not offended by them, nor do I bear him any ill will or think any less of him.

One more thing: I'm not saying that EVERY issue in the history of mankind has a moral absolute--like what I have for dinner or what time I go to bed, or if I walk two miles instead of three. But I am saying that moral absolutes DO exist. To say that because EVERY issue doesn't have a moral absolute means that NO issues do would, in fact, be "begging the question."

Back to the magazine/book business. As it relates to a family living in the same home, I don't think there is a moral absolute here. If you buy a chair, the whole family can sit in it. They can all use a computer program--you don't have to buy duplicate programs for the same computer. I would not say that every member of the household would have to buy books, videos and magzines, used to the exclusion of all other family members. I don't think, say in a family of five where three are into magic, you have tto have three separate magic libraries. However, I do think it would be wrong to say, make photocopies a book or burn copies of a DVD for all your kids friends, and even worse to sell them. Unauthorized duplication is different from family use.

Now here's a question to stoke the flames: what about books/videos/magazines that are out of print, or the copyright has expired, or the author and his heirs have died? Many older books are "public domain," and being published by different companies/individuals simultaneously. Stanyon's Magic compilation comes to mind--Kaufman and L&L both republished it. Is there an ethical dilemma there? Or photocopying an out of print book for a friend? If it's no longer available, the author/publisher isn't losing money on it, right? So is that OK or not?

Right and wrong... for whom and where?

What is right for a tiger is not even useful for an ant. Waht looks good in your living room will not likely serve you well in your car. What made sense to folks long ago about ethnic issues is likely to seem horrific to most of us today. What was right need not still be right. What is right for some need not be right for all. We need better language for those ideas. The contextual approach is workable so long as one can admit and discuss context and one also agrees not to generalize principles out of applicable context. There are some ideas, such as the "golden rule" which are context free, seem to make great sense, and yet have NO historical precident as regards our culture and its interactions within and between other cultures. Nice idea though.

This is why the words serve children yet distract adults. Using such language . without specifying context, in adult conversation is (sorry to say) childish. It amounts to attempting to take one's parochial beliefs and imposing them on people and things ouside of their demonstrated context of applicability. Wishful thinking, arrogant and usually less than constructive.

As to my "issue" about folks doing something private of mine, and the community being indifferent to my wishes about the matter.... Such merely reinforces a low opinion of those in the community. Given a clear choice between honor and short term gratification the majority of the community has chosen short term gratification. Worse still is the rationalizatoin about derivitive works of something "borrowed" being somehow respectible. Such is another parellel to childish behavior. What is right for a child is to grab and take and cry when threatened with a loss. And there we have an example of the consequences of using that sort of language in an adult situation. If it acts like a child, is it a child? If so, where are the parents and who is responsible for their behavior?

* Written before my first cup of coffee. Hope this is cogent.

Scott:

To a certain extent, I think we are talking about different things here. You have mentioned several times that it's wrong to take an effect created by someone else and sell it as your own, which I completely agree with. However, that was not the original point of this thread, which was whether or not it's acceptable to share magical knowledge.



Fair enough. However, I think that it's also fair to ask exactly what part of what I have written you disagree with. I can respect that people have a different opinion than mine, but only if they can explain their reasons for what they believe. Just saying "Because I say so" or "That's what I believe and I don't have to justify it" implies that your opinions are neither well-considered nor logically consistent, which I don't respect. As you yourself said:



Yes, indeed. However, in order to persuade, you need to clearly state your reasons for believing in a certain position. I have tried to do that here, at length, and I'm sad that you haven't extended me the same courtesy.

You wrote:


I understand that you believe there are absolute principles of right and wrong. However, you have made no attempt to tell us what they are. If these principles actually exist, then you should be able to tell us what they are. The fact that you haven't identified these absolute principles of right and wrong makes it difficult to have any sort of debate: if you are merely going to state, "They exist, and that's all I need to say," then you are shutting communication down cold, which is the opposite of what you claim to want.



This is absolutely true if one doesn't have clearly extablished values, which is why I absolutely don't believe in situational ethics. However, this is a problem of having opinions and beliefs without being able to express the underlying value supporting that belief. That is why people can believe abortion is wrong but killing abortion doctors is justified: there isn't a consistent value system in place behind the beliefs. In fact, this is even more likely to happen with people who believe that there are universal values of right and wrong: you can justify anything you want simply by pointing to something as being universally recognized as right, and you don't even need to explain your actions.

For example, you still haven't answered my question about Peter Marucci. There are people who claim that Peter is violating universally recognized principles of right and wrong because he works in the field of bizarre magic. How would you respond to someone who would condemn Peter because what he is doing is self-evidently wrong? If we accept your premise that there are absolute principles of right and wrong, then anyone can justify anything, simply by choosing the principles that they consider to be universal.



Nor do I. However, in order to know whether or not a law is right or wrong, you need to have a clear idea of what right and wrong are. Until you explicitly explain that to us, this doesn't help further the debate.



The problem here is that it's difficult to tell from what you have written exactly what you mean by "appropriate." If by this word you mean the action of taking someone else's creation and passing it off as one's own for personal gain, then of course I agree with you. But that wasn't the issue being discussed here. If you consider sharing magical knowledge with family and friends to be "appropriating," then I'm afraid I have to disagree with your premise. Here's why:

If you are selling the work of someone else, then your actions are motivated by greed, which I have already said I don't respect. If you are representing someone else's work as your own, then you are perpetuating a kind of fraud, which in turn is a form of lying, which I also don't respect. However, this is vastly different from sharing with someone knowledge that you have gained legitimately. The first is rooted solely in personal gain, the second is an attempt to further the field of magic.

When I buy a book, tape or DVD on magic, I own not only the physical media it comes on, but the information as well. This is a well-recognized principle when it comes to intellectual property, and the only ones who seem to have trouble with it are magicians. When I learn something, I am free to use that information in any way I want. Consider it this way: if someone has a trick, effect or technique that they want kept secret, the answer is simple: don't publish it. However, as soon as someone accepts my money in exchange for a product, they have lost any moral or legal claim on that information. They sold that information for personal gain, and to claim that they still retain "ethical" rights to the material is nothing more than greed.

As you have pointed out, sharing information is not the same as reproducing a given work:



Not only is it wrong, it's illegal as well; copyright protects the expression of ideas, and makes it illegal to copy or sell unauthorized copies of a work. However, that doesn't help us in the debate about right or wrong; as you pointed out, legality doesn't necessarily indicate that something is right.

As I have repeatedly said, I have a problem when people claim something is unethical simply because they disagree with it. If I know something, I have a legal and moral right to share that information with other people; that is the essence of free speech. Unfortunately, magicians have twisted what is nothing more than a professional courtesy and tried to mold it into an absolute moral imperative. Take the prohibition against revealing secrets to laypeople; there is absolutely no legal or moral rule that prohibits it. If you reveal magic secrets, there are no "magic police" that are going to arrest you and toss you in a dungeon under the Magic Castle. So what's the big deal? Well, I'll try to give my take on it.

Instead of hysterically pointing fingers and making accusations about people being unethical, morally suspect, or just plain wrong, I think it would be much better to frame the issue as what is best for magic. Revealing secrets is bad for magic because it undermines the sense of wonder that magicians are trying to create. You can do it, but you are harming the very art that you claim to represent. If you talk about sharing as a matter of respect, rather than of right and wrong, then you can argue coherently about the need to support the creators of magic.

I think of being a magician as belonging to a loose-knit organization with its own set of customs and traditions. If you want to be part of that community, then you need to respect those traditions, even if there are no penalties attached to not doing so. But we shouldn't think of those traditions as having the force of law or moral regulations; they are simply courtesies that everyone who claims to love the art have agreed are in the best interest of that art. At the same time, any field of human endeavor requires infusions of new ideas and new talent to keep it healthy and moving forward. Any force attempting to prevent that is actually doing harm to the art. If I share ideas and information with people who neither appreciate or respect the art, then I am harming magic. If I help nurture and develop people in the art by sharing what I know, then I am furthering magic. Whether or not someone benefitted monetarily is a question of commerce, not art.

In conclusion, I think that this is an issue of respect for the art of magic, not a question of absolute right or wrong. I wouldn't go so far as to say that using such terms makes you childish or foolish, but if you can't define in absolute terms what right and wrong are, then you aren't actually contributing anything to the discussion.

[quote]On 2005-03-20 04:10, Scott F. Guinn wrote:


I never said anything remotely like that--are you suggesting that I did?

And I'm glad you don't think that every issue is abolutely right or wrong. I still don't think that it's relevant to the discussion, but like Phaedrus I'm very curious to know how you decide which is which. (BTW, I hope that the question of absolute right and wrong can stay a side issue.)

-Travis

P.S. The "begging the question" bit was directed at Tom Cutts, and the way that I read your dictionary bit, it seemed to me like you were trying to defend the use of the words "right" and "wrong" by showing that the dictionary used them to define a word. Hence the highlighting of the word "right." Although upon rereading it's not totally clear what you were trying to say, it still reads that way to me, since the thrust of the paragraph is defending the use of those words. If I'm wrong, then why did you quote your dictionary's definition of ethics?

Posted: Mar 20, 2005 9:30pm
Quote:

On 2005-03-20 14:26, Phaedrus wrote:
... However, that was not the original point of this thread, which was whether or not it's acceptable to share magical knowledge.

...

In conclusion, I think that this is an issue of respect for the art of magic, not a question of absolute right or wrong. ...

Someone said in a recent book review in a magazine that the reason one doesn't expose secrets is not because of some ethical code, but rather out of respect for the audience (since magic secrets are often crude and inelegant). This seems to me to be a much more rational way of looking at that subject. So maybe "respect for the art of magic" should be considered one of the most important criteria when making ethical decisions about sharing material.

-Travis

[NOTE: The following was written in response to a private message; Scott has given me permission to reproduce it here]

Scott:

If I made the issue sound personal, I apologize to you. I am a person who greatly enjoys a vigorous debate, and who relishes the opportunity to share arguments and to learn something from people who might hold a different opinion. As you might have gathered, I am also a person with strong convictions, but I also think it's important to test those convictions, and the best way I have found to do that is to debate them with other people; there have been many occasions when people with different opinions than mine have brought up a point I hadn't considered, causing me to rethink what I believe, or at the very least to refine what I believe in light of the new idea. Unfortunately, the nature of written communication often causes situations like the one we find ourselves in; in real life, we could discuss the issue, agree to disagree, laugh about it, and I could invite you to a beer. Written dialogs are necessarily more formal, and can often sound more adversarial than intended. I never meant for the discussion to become personal, and if you felt that it became so, I apologize.

As to my last line being harsh and unfair, I am chagrined to admit that you are correct. To be honest, I felt that you were deliberately avoiding answering my question, but I now understand that you were merely respecting the guidelines of the Magic Café about not discussing topics such as religion. I'm relatively new here, and I haven't yet gotten a sense of what is acceptable discourse and what is not (indeed, I was reprimanded myself for my post concerning the Ten Commandments; lesson learned and not to be repeated). For the record, I don't believe that you are deliberately ducking the issue, nor that you are not intellectually up to the task. On the contrary, even though I don't know you personally, my sense is that you are an intelligent, articulate, and decent person with a great deal of personal integrity.

On a personal note, I try to live my life in an honorable way. I work hard, pay taxes, take care of my family, contribute to my community, and am passionate about magic. So I was very shaken when I was accused of being unethical, simply because I taught my daughter a trick that I learned from a book. I have paid for every book, tape and DVD that I own, but I have also shared what I have learned with my daughter and others who are equally committed to the art of magic, and I have tried very hard to understand why people might think that I am morally reprehensible for doing so. I still can't agree that what I have done is wrong, but I will continue to explore the issue and consider what others are saying.

In any event, I want you to know that I absolutely do not think any less of you, nor have you offended me in any way. As I mentioned in a previous post, I have a great deal of respect for you and your work, and particularly your generosity in sharing your effects with the magic community. I regret putting you in an impossible position, even if unintentionally, and in the future I will try to be more careful to avoid making my posts sound like personal attacks. This was a great learning experience for me, and I would like to thank you for that. I wish you and your family good luck, and hope that we will have the opportunity to share ideas again in a less restrictive forum.

Sincerely,

Phaedrus

First, thank you Phaedrus. I appreciate your remarks. I have no hard feelings toward you nor anyone else here.

Second, Travis, no I'm not saying you said that no issues have moral absolutes. My apologies if it seemed that I was. I used the dictionary definition of ethic simply because we were discussing ethics and I thought it might be a good idea to post a definition so that we could all be on the same page. That's all.

This is my last post in this topic. I am restrained by the rules of comportment of The Magic Café from answering the questions some have asked me. I apologize to any I've offended and for bringing the the discussion off topic. Neither was my intent. I hope the discussion can continue unimpeded.

Regards,

Scott

I too am curious about how we integrate faith based propositions with historical or physical observations of behavior. As Scott points out above, we need to have this kind of discussion outside the Café. What we can do is respect each other's personal and institutional definitions of "good" and "right".

My position on what is the greatest good for our community (buy the magazine) and what constitutes personal or interpersonal good ( give or lend the issue of the magazine ) stands. As to offering new teaching works that incorporate the IP offered in the magazine... I have truly mixed feelings. If the inventor wishes to write... it marginally devalues the magazine. If another person chooses to write without express permission of the inventor, it devalues any further capitalization of the IP. From here I suggest reading a nice book titled Capital and considering the notions set forth by Marx and Engles.

So, from accepting that what we put on lamb (mint sauce) is different than what we put on duck (orange sauce) we can atleast agree to enjoy our meals and be nice to eachother at the Café.

I'm struck by how negative and hurtful some of these posts are, especially by those who advocate that we do not share with others.

We have gotten to the point where greed and fear are being paraded around as ethics. Its such a shame. I'll continue to share what I've learned with deserving collegues, as is the ETHICAL thing to do.

Please consider this: I can remember when I was about 14, an older gentleman came into a club meeting with a huge box of magazines and invited the younger members to "help themselves." That, my friends, was an act of GENEROSITY, not of copywrite infringements. I will try myself to always be so kind and generous.

How do you decide who is "deserving"?

How would you feel is one or more or them scanned the material to PDF and posted it on the internet?

Who are deserving? What is fair? What is sharing? When does it stop? How does it stop? Where is the line? IS there a line? What are the definitions of "good" and "right"? I wish I could find the universally accepted answers to these questions. I would publish the book. Unfortunately many folk would photocopy it and trade it with their freinds. I can say that were I in the position of the people who come up with the material we are speaking about at present, I would certainly have a harder view.

It's like a bomb shelter in a nuclear war. The people inside probably have a different take on the situation than the people who want to get in.

It's nice to see other opinions/beliefs, I don't know about anyone else, but it really helps me to sharpen and mold my own. Thanks all.

In a word, betrayed.

An act of kindness (giving knowledge to younger magi in a club) to carelessly giving to anyone (with a search engine capable of finding the download site).

This is a subject of degrees.

Everyone in magic that had the support of older more knowledgeable magicians around them has experienced some form of generosity. Maybe it wasn't giving you the most recent magazine, it might have been as simple as telling you where to look for a particular routine.


I am not meaning to make this another 3fly thread but using it as a situation. Mr. Townsend, you had the pleasure of contemporaries that you shared certain ideas and routines with, would that be a correct statement?

If your answer is in the affirmative then I pose this question... Curtis Kam admittedly has an early write up of your coins across effect. What qualifications did he exhibit that made him eligible to share something with that the rest of the community was/is not privy to? what about others in your circle? By what qualifications are any friend or confidant chosen?
Just trying to clarify things.

Hmmm let's see. Curtis has LOTS of my ideas, methods, experiments and musing in it's first written form.

In over twenty years, NONE of it has leaked out. I felt he made a good decision to do some show/tell about my coins across on his first video. He was careful not to tip any of the Edge Grip Mechanics material, and even got Kainoa Harbottle to discuss his Coins On Edge material with me before that went to print. I'm happy to have shown him my take on the twentyone cent trick, and to see Curtis has taken the trick in his own direction.

Likewise, back in the 1970s Geoff Latta demonstrated some of his works, and I have kept his stuff quiet. The critera... was look but don't touch. If I wanted to discuss a routine I saw him do, it would be up to him about the discussion and on the condition that I don't show the trick to magicians and especially not to those who put things into print or gossip. The ONLY thing that I know I've "touched" of Geoff's is the IDEA for a db2db coin exchange. My version fell out of the work making a copenetro effect happen without apparatus. Then again, my approach is like the eg2eg so it's coming from the same aesthetic place, AND I make no claim of being the first on that idea. Oh, and my sleight is not in print, or shown around to magicians. Got it? The rest of the goodies he performed back then are well remembered and just not open for discussion. You can find my posts here on the café and on genii about when two of his ideas/sleights were taken into print without permission. He gets first shot at Kenner for lifting the French Pop and the way he presented the thing.

How do I select peers for discussion about my private works? Great question. First, they have to have their OWN aesthetic on magic and sleights. That means they don't do what they see or simply act out what they read. They interpret what they know to serve the needs of their presentation and visual goals. Second criteria is that they are not ego involved with the methods and have given up any interest in browbeating other magicians. Sure it's one thing to offer a fellow magician a surprise and perhaps a mystery. It's another thing to take pleasure from their discomfort. The second of my criteria is that they understand that the magic is not about the performer but instead, FOR the audience.

Third criteria is that they have their own goals. I can get much better feedback from someone who has their own performing objectives than from someone who simply wants to know stuff. We can discuss how a thing or idea moves a routine toward a goal.

And there you have my criteria. IF they can watch a thing for fun, great. If they can follow their own path through the sea of material to work from... even better. If they know who the magic is for... even better. Such people can provide great feedback about audience perspective and performing options. All that without the need to get involved in something just because they saw it and it looks impressive.

I hope you build a supportive peer group in your area. I found one in high school and also at the magic shop and at the Saturday gatherings.

Josh - your point is well taken. The line on all this stuff is going to be different for everyone. I was hoping that we could come to some sort of general conclusion that magic which is given to the magazines is in more of a public domain than say, magic shown in private or magic published in book or DVD form.

On the "how would you feel if it was your effect" question, I could only find on this thread one person who said they had submitted something to a magazine - and they seemed quite fine with the concept of it being shared with other magicians. As 14allinall41 stated, such submissions are usually done as a GIFT to the magic community, to help market a book or DVD, and/or as a reputation builder. Appropriate sharing with others only STRENGHENS these goals for the creator(and promotes the magazine at the same time.)