I'm totally confused here...

You say, "As for who or how many have learned magic from Valinto or any of the other sources considered "exposure" or "bad exposure" or whatever. I'm a little more concerned about the people who learn who weren't trying or intending to."

The people who saw the Fox show didn't "learn" magic... they found out how some of this stuff is done. And I'd guess (going by discussions here on audiences' attention spans these days) that the vast majority of them forgot about it the next day -- which also takes the term "learn" out of the equation.

I was "exposed" to a lot of stuff in high school and college, some of it repeatedly, and I still didn't learn it. For the life of me, I still can't remember when the Pelopponesian War happened, or some of the grammar in Latin or German, or some of the formulas in chemistry. And back then I was trying to learn this stuff, because my grades depended on it.

Then there's the issue of "the wrong hands" being those people "who are unlikely to perform an effect," or to do so "entertainingly." When somebody is putting a magic act together, and looking through books to find material -- knowing that he or she won't use over 99% of the material -- are they "the wrong hands?"

And how do we make sure that only people who will perform an effect "entertainingly" have access to it? Do we need to pre-screen them?

And how do we define "entertainingly?" Entertainingly to whom? Someone who loves to do card tricks will be far more entertained by some of the card stuff nowadays than a member of the general public who only sees a card go from here to there and doesn't know it's from Jack DVDini's latest offering.

Granted this all sounds like semantics, but we need to be clear on what some of these terms mean so we can all be on the same page; otherwise we'll all be making assumptions as to what the other guy thinks they mean. I see this happening more and more nowadays everywhere.

No, that doesn't sound like semantics. It "is" semantics. Your questions are frought with incorrect assumptions. Things you would have to work realy hard to infer from what I wrote.

You make it sound like the average person has no short or long term retention at all. I think if they watch the show, they will retain too much, no mattewr how bad their memory is.

As for the use of the phrase "Unlikely to perform". It is relative. We, as magicians only use 1% (I would have said 10%, but I'm not picking the details), however I don't think you will disagree that we are far far far more likely to use any one of the effects we learn, than the average person with no performance training what so ever. Not to mention, I don't have a problem with any human being on the planet learning how effects are executed, my problem is them learning them with no contextual education attached. Ergo "Here's how it's done" without any background that would allow them to meet the most basic criteria for performing it in their background.

There is a lot of grey area here, and you are attempting to pull the discussion apart there. There isn't a hard line. There is no clear boundry. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The idea is the err on the side of caution. Which I don't beilieve it can be disputed that anything being discribed as "bad exposure" is doing.

As for magic being entertaining. I'm not speaking of matters that are the subject of taste. I believe we can agree that a poorly executed, planned, rehersed, or scripted effect is not entertaining. The very few exceptions not withstanding, you can not learn an effect, practice it a few times, then entertain people with it. Anyone learning how an effect is executed, needs to have that concept presented to them in no uncertain terms.

When I speak of exposure. I'm not saying that it's "against the rules" to allow this person or that person to learn an effect. I'm saying that they learn it all, or they learn nothing, and they are shown that entering the world of conjouring comes with a heafty price, so that they may decide that they do, or do not wish to pay that price before they enter.

Well, I do believe I proved my point... I'm going by what I'm reading.

And I'm not trying to pull the discussion apart; I'm trying to clarify things in my own mind so I can understand them and focus on them.

Clarification is object. Diction is an imperative. Efforts and time spent achieving these aren't wasted. Shift the paradigm...if you have the cajones.

Share terms. Share diction. Agree on them. Then work.

A published work is an open invitation. Publish anything and you open doors and invite people in. Publish work and you put a sign up......OPEN HOUSE. Many don't publish simply because they don't want to invite the ENTIRE world into their house. A matter of choice.

Discuss these matters on simple, equal grounds. And have the cajones to keep it simple.

Or else wallow.

The meaning in a message is the response it elicits.

Semantics is one of the foundations of written language.

What is the difference between an advertisement for a magic trick in a muggle accessible medium and what we are calling exposure?

And a dandy way to take a debate somewhere it doesn't actualy need to go.

Well 1 difference is the ammount of effort required to actualy obtain the thing being advertised. You can read more about that in several posts in this thread. Ultimately, they aren't that different, and I'm no fan of those advertisements. What can be done about it, about the same thing as can be done about any exposure. Say that it is a bad thing. Don't give them your business. Have the debate. The number one, most important, bar none, thing that we as magicians should do to fight and prevent "Bad Exposure" is say that it is bad, often, and talk about it, and why it is bad. You need to be consistant, back it up with actions, but saying it does a lot.

In my opinion, that's where this discussion leads.

If a muggle can get it, it's exposed. Simple as that.

Here's my argument: Google and mail order make our secrets accessible for mere dollars. Muggles are in general quite capable of using the internet and dollars to obtain what they will. And by common law of property (the right to dispose) all are free to discuss, show, tell... as they see fit. Therefore any item one can buy on the open market is exposed.

Sometimes I get the feeling that handwashing, misdirected action and halfhearted apologies by unrepentant exhibitionists are not going to help us very much.

Of course I would prefer to be mistaken in my conclusions on this matter. What do you suggest?

As Bob Orben said many years ago in one of his books: "Some magicians are discovered. Others are found out."

There are two problems with that statement.

1 The who. Who exactly are these people you call muggles and why should they not have access to information concerning how effects are executed.

and

2. Anyone can obtain any information these days. There is absolutely nothing that can change that.

I actualy understand what you are saying, but I disagree, entirely, with the way you are saying it. You create an extremely vague and intangible guideline, with an unacomplishable goal. It may be true, but it isn't very constructive.

How would you phrase the ideas constructively?

Well, you can pretty much go through this thread and figure that out easily enough. I'm quite proud of "Exposure is allowing the executional workings of an effect or effects to be learned by those who are unlikely to perform them, and perform them entertainingly. Without the most remedial of attempts to prevent it." though I see room for improvement, like adding "It being either the learning or the poor performance, whichever is most practical, and likely to be successfull."

Jack:

When one releases an effect, book, or DVD, how do they keep those unlikely to perform them, or perform them entertainingly from getting the product? If a magic store does not restrict sales, are they guilty of exposure? Is the book publisher Dover guilty of exposure?

The short answer. Yes.

Do you not understand we are talking about a subject of variable sevarity?

Yes.

I mean, yes, I do understand that we are talking about a subject of "variable severity".

Remember folks it only took one smudge on the mirror to give that game away.

Think Jurasic Park and the complexity argument and we're back to "any item in the open market is exposed".

But it isn't about words or defenitions. It's about guidlines to maintain the integrity of our industry, without imposing undue hardships on our comunity.

Jack, as noble and well intended as that language sounds, I feel it is (sadly) inappropriate and almost inapplicable for this community and its associated commercial aspect at this time. We are watching our secrets flow into muggledom at the speed of cable downloads and watching our peers sell the secrets of their "friends" at an alarming rate as well. Any suggestions?

Start Lobying.

I have no interst in those who insist on selling magic to muggles.

Most muggles only get into magic looking for a shortcut path to seeming clever, or significant or somehow more valuable. Very few people in general understand how knowlege comes with responsibility and fewer still choose a path of knowlege.

When an audience member knows about the basic method for a trick, the magic is lost to them. That seems a sad thing.