Folks have probably noticed the themes about IP and published material are hot-button items (for me at least).

To this end I am opening up a dialog about how to take the notion of IP and reset it here in magicdom even while the rest of our society takes its time to do the same.

On the negative side, we remember from Orwell's 1984 that the chief aims or desired means of control were knowing what people are thinking and also that of efficient mass destruction. I'd like to stick with the "what people are thinking" side of this discussion. My aim is to take the basic notion that "your thoughts are your own" and help extend the notion of property in this art/craft.

This process involves setting up a wall between what we call right and what we call wrong. As we learn about right and wrong we also sometimes face consequences. These are matters of sentiment and also financial matters. One is personal and internal, while the other is financial and has its own concerns.

I'm going to leave things open with two TINY provisos.

1) we are not going to grandfather ANYTHING. From the chop-chop cup to some other items, we are looking at what makes for the good and how we wish to maintain and protect that good.

2) we separate the emotional issues as regards hot-button items from the principles discussed. However we got where we are, it serves us to consider where we go from here. No sense in crying over spilled milk. However, what we do with our milk and our cows determines what sort of future we will have.

Any who feel disinclined to help build this moral wall around the secrets of inventors and by extension, of the craft of magic itself, are free to enjoy life outside the protection of such a moral and ethical code in magic.

What do you feel is right? What do you feel makes something right?

Heavy stuff here, Jonathan. Let's take a look at "not grandfathering anything." Let's take, for example, Scott's Discoverie of Witchcraft. Under copyright law this has long been in the public domain. Suppose I want to use the idea of the mechanical bodkin whose point disappears into the handle, against a spring so that the point will spring out again after I remove it from my sternum. I am legally entitled to make such a device, even to sell it. The idea is a very old one. The originator has long since returned to the clay from whence he came. There is no one to pay for the idea, or even to credit for it (it's not Scott's idea).

In this case, what makes it right is that the law on this piece of intellectual property is clear: this is in the public domain. If I wanted to be a real nice guy and send a little bit of money to the original inventor, or credit the original inventor, I can't. I think that I have made a case that we can grandfather this, not just because the time limit on copyright has run out, but also because there is no way to compensate the originator.

Look at some of the other things in Scott: basic palming of a ball or coin. No routines or jokes here, just the flour and sugar from which we can make our own confections.

So I have started with some of the easiest stuff here. Thanks for starting this discussion.

Yours,

Paul

The Scot book is probably a great place to start one's education in magic. Some knowledge of how old some ideas are, and of how things were written then offers a perspective upon what is today.

The "coloring book" item is there, complete with discussion of how to construct and and how to use. It sure couldn't hurt us to cite the book when offering a new version or routine for using the thing.

I agree that if I made and sold the bodkin, or wrote up a routine for publication, it would be right to cite the book. I would be wrong, and laughable, to claim that I invented it.

Yours,

Paul

If I do a trick that is completely new, for the sake of discussion, it blows the mind of other magician's. It is a certainty that no matter how specific it is to my style, it will be "reverse engineered" and used by the minion, if I don't cough up the method and market it first.

I have devised new moves only to find them buried between the pages of worm eaten books.

Not long ago, I attended a lecture in which each of the attendees were too perform a short routine. One kid took it a step beyond by donning the lecturer's apparel, mimicking his performance style and routine. I have seen this done so often (by the average magician), it is understandable why there are only a handful of magician's who become household names.

This was not the case in the environment in which I learned magic. As a student it was made VERY clear that some works are look-but-don't-touch and others are play-but-not-publish. Thanks to some mentors things went smoothly. The issue is purely ethical (or moral if you prefer Rome to Athens, Greece) and comes down to valuing relationships more than momentary prestige.

I believe we can do better and if we are going to progress as a community we need to set some lines about how we conduct ourselves. Where do you feel some lines might be drawn?

In a group that seeks to develop the talents of newer performers, there ought to be a high value placed upon originality. Perhaps in the beginning, it would be originality in presentation. Later, it might be originality in effects, perhaps even in the construction of unique props. In such a setting, taking the work of others for performance outside the group would be very destructive.

Unfortunately, performers that piece together performances from the scripts included in packet tricks with "laugh lines" lifted from people who lifted them from other people seem to make up the bulk of the magic-buying public.

But this discussion isn't about what we think it's right for other people to do, really, because the behavior of other people and its consequences for them are not our responsibility.

It is up to each of us to strive to create a unique performing persona and a collection of effects that can't be copied without looking like a pale imitation of something real.

Yours,

Paul

Let's discuss what we wish to consider right and wrong before we discuss consequences. Without consequences there are no rules, just words which may or may not correlate with behavior. What behavior do you wish to reward? What behavior do you wish to see extinguished or at least greatly reduced?

I recall a nice line about being ones brothers keeper in a good book somewhere.

The Ancient Golden Rule Of Confucius guides my actions and thoughts as well as prepares me for any consequences and repercussions. Very simple stuff with vast meaning in all arenas.


I once bought an effect from Peter Loughran. In fooling around with it, I came up with a drastically altered presentation and prop system which in the resulting piece had an element of Peter's original idea but was none the less quite different in actual performance.

It is The Xmosis Effect...which I came up with for just myself to use...but when someone saw it, I realized how strong it could be and had thoughts of selling it.

I called Peter and explained it all to him and Peter (being Peter) gave it his blessing with no strings attached.

Now I could do three things.

Sell it as an idea and routine 'based' on Peter's original.

Put together the Props and sell it as a turn key working effect with a Peter Loughran acknowledgement.

or

Make the idea and presentation available to anyone who asks...no strings attached.

Doug being Doug would just offer it to whoever asked, since after all Peter didn't require payment or anything for the original spark.

The Golden Rule.

BUT

In so doing, I would then be exposing Peter's Original method/gimmick which would be improper.

So the question becomes 'Where does Acknowledgement become overridden by Exposure of an earlier secret?"

I think the proper thing to do would be to offer it to anyone who had purchased Peter's system.

In one of his books, Johnny Brown published his repeat version of the Gene Anderson Newspaper Tear. Many magicians who purchased the book criticised him heavily for this, because they felt it was unfair to Gene Anderson. However, you still had to purchase the Anderson routine to construct the paper and know how to tear it. And Johnny had done so with full consent of the owner of the routine -- Magic, Inc.


Posted: Aug 11, 2005 4:34pm
----------------------------------------------
Here are some thoughts on this very subject from David Devant in Secrets of My Magic.

Setting policies that protect and respect IP is a noble cause. Said policies should be kept as simple as possible. Considering that policies that are built on the good/bad dichotomy tend to complicate matters (hot-buttons), I suggest that the policies be structured on successful/unsuccessful definitions. Any policy that is successful in protecting the IP is maintained. Those that are unsuccessful are changed.

We may want to consider logistics also. To ask today's community to subscribe to a new (or maybe old...) set of rules that they would perceive as restricting would be an object lesson in futility because members of the community have wandered so far astray of the "look-don't-touch" and any other policies that have worked. Simply stated, it won't work in this society. The radical change (or return...) would be rejected by most. Any and all changes in this direction would be slow, if ever.

So, what to do...what to do...

1. Keep fighting the good fight. Slow change is better than no change.

2. Create an entirely new community with a new set of rules. BUT, this is another huge logistical consideration, one that I won't get into here as I believe it is best discussed in private. I only offer it as food for thought.

Well put Jonathan.

When Jeff McBride did his coin pail (years back), I asked him if he would mind if I used one of the moves he used in his act (the move was an adapted variation)?

He said, "I'd rather you didn't."

And I never have.

I'd like to reward originality.

There are many behaviors that I'd like to see sputter out. In the context of this discussion, I'd like to see people stop using other people's scripts. Among manufacturers, I'd like to see the worst of the rip-off guys change their ways or go out of business.

Yours,

Paul

I was in Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago. I went to see a magician who will remain nameless. One of the routines he performed was the Invisible Deck. He did this almost line for line the way Don Alan did it. The lines that weren't Don Alan's were Harry Blackstone, Jr's.

It was interesting to see how far that routine had migrated.

Bill Palmer said:

Bingo! Total agreement IF I was to release it at all.

If so, then comes the honor system as to who actually bought Peter's effect or I guess at the very least could describe in detail its workings and basic routine.

I like being on the same page Bill...except for Amsterdam...I got to the mail box this week.

It can be very difficult to determine who has what. One way is to take the instruction sheet and find a word on it that nobody could possibly know without having the original instructions.

Then use that word as a password for the modification.

Does anyone know if Paul Curry gave his blessing to any of the OOTW variations? Or did someone else originate that effect?

As of 76, I bought the thing in an envelope at Tannen's. I can't say I recall seeing any comment from him about an variations. Harry published OOTU in one of his books. The "variations" in print seemed few till recently.

I've been trying to find out the status of Paul Curry. I should know this, but I don't. Is he still among the living? I know that he originally published OOTW sometime around 1953. That was long before it appeared in Magician's Magic.

To tell the truth, I haven't seen a version of it yet that really surpasses the original for its impact on a lay person. Certainly, there are some versions that have appeared recently that use various special cards, etc., that eliminate some perceived weaknesses in the original handling, but the original works just fine.

This is especially true when you are in one of those spots where someone says "Do something," and you don't have any cards with you. If you can borrow a deck of cards, you can do this thing. And once you have done it, you don't really need to do anything else, because it is such a strong piece.

A new community established with a constitution built on successes is still bouncing around in my head, but school is starting and I'm busier that a one-legged man with all that stuff. Still, it sounds better and better. I've always admired pilgrims. Lots of nerve.