No one has to punish him, or make him pay or give him publicity. All it takes is for 100 magicians to phone him up and say "Hey Dave - I think what you are doing is crappy and I'd really like you to stop doing it. "

It will cost you a couple of bucks at most and he will get the message in a way that emails and websites can never do.

The internet is impersonal, the clubs are impotent and the hosting sites don't care.

All that is left is for US, the magicians of the world to call Dave up an ask him to do the right thing.

Josh, funny you should mention Penn and Teller since David responds to Tim that he feels it is ok because he see's guys like Penn and Teller doing the same thing on TV. This guy isn't out there to teach people, do you think someone is going to build effects from David Copperfield?

People are trying to build Copperfield effects. When I would come here often, there would always be the inevitable "DC effect How-to" thread in the Secret Sessions.

This, even though DC would/could sue the thief.

As far as calling him; Nick, I like you. I respect you, but putting his phone number on the Internet was very callous and dangerous. The Predatory populace should not have that kind of access. If he put that information there himself, I might call his mother to tell her to change her # and remove her sons PC.... for their safety alone. Who cares about magic that much?


I wouldn't dare invade their privacy that way. If someone were to do that to me or my son, wife, daughter, god help 'em if I found 'em.

What do I know, I've given up all expectations of reason on Internet forums.

Haha Josh, that is the very same thing that Daivd was preaching about! Free software, Free Tricks, Free information, Free personal data!

On a serious note, that is not a good idea to post something like that whether we agree with him or not.

Day 13

And while we are focused on this one...

... last night I just happened to "run the channels" and ran smack into a whole hour of prime time exposure. The masked idiot exposed about everything he could think of! Now there is misdirection.

I think Josh has made some points worth serious consideratiion and I, for one, am going re-evaluate the magic I perform and kick it up a few notches if I can. I think I will end up better for it, because I feel a good bit of the magic that is exposed is what I would call "lazy magic".

Now, to work...

Josh,

Dave J Castle is not a kid, and calling his Mum and telling her to take his phone number off the net is not going to work.

He's a 28 year old MAN who lives with his Mum.

His phone number is on the net, posted by him, in order that he will get bookings to perform his magic show in Michigan.

http://www.michiganmagician.com/

Nicholas is not acting irresponsibly, he is offering a practical suggestion as to what can be done to stop THIS SPECIFIC CASE of exposure.

If Timothy Drake is right and the clubs "turn a blind eye", then Nicholas is the only one who's come up with anything pro-active.

Everyone else seems to be saying either "Ignore him, it doesn't matter, presentation is the real secret..." or "Change the tricks you're doing." or "He's not exposing anything I do, so who cares".

Speaking with Marc de Sousa he said that the Ethics Committee has tried to contact Dave J Castle to ask him to stop exposing our secrets, but with no success... so far!

They are continuing to try, and so should we.

Yes Mandarin, a lot of secrets are exposed by the performance of "lazy magic" and we should try to combat that and make sure we are not guilty of that ourselves. Good point. But we should also try to guide other magicians who either don't understand or choose to ignore the basic rule of magic: DON'T EXPOSE SECRETS.

By the way, I would prefer that people hunt around the internet for hours looking for secrets, but with Dave J Castle's exposure site they don't need to. Among the 12 video clips he added today are:

HOW TO MAKE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY DISAPPEAR
HOW DOES DAVID Copperfield FLY
THE SECRET OF 'HOLLOW'
THE COIN THROUGH DECK OF CARDS
THE SECRET OF 'TORN'
AND A PENGUIN TUTORIAL CLIP EXPLAINING 'STARRY EYED SURPRISE'

Yes, it's bad enough that people feel the need to explain how tricks are done, but most of these people seem to think they're doing the right thing. After all, some magician shared a secret with them, they're sharing a secret with everyone else. They think that's what magicians do... why? BECAUSE NO-ONE HAS TOLD THEM OTHERWISE.

Dave J Castle is ENCOURAGING them to post secrets, he's praising them and thanking them for exposure as he adds the clips to his site.

If people share Josh's attitude that "we are only responsible for ourselves" then we are all fools for not doing what Dave J Castle does. We should ALL be attracting people to our websites by offering the secrets of magic "magicians don't want you to know!". We should ALL be selling ebooks explaining other people's secrets. After all, it doesn't affect us, as long as they're not secrets of tricks we do... but even if it is, as long as we perform them well it won't matter... AND we'll be making extra income!

"We are only responsible for ourselves" is an attitude also known as "selfishness".

Josh - as others have mention, his number is on the internet and is his business number. He is a grown man who lives with his mother.

If IBM or SAM or you local magic shop started giving out secrets for free it would be fine to call them.

So call Dave on his business number and get him to do the right thing.

So if he jumped off a bridge would you do that too. I mean he did it, so therefore..... I suppose if a grown man were to put pictures/addresses, phone numbers of his daughter on the Internet we would be able to distribute links to these at our own discretion? If you believe that his actions make any action on your part acceptable, to the possible detriment of people who are not involved, are you better than him? Nope. You are him.






This is true if you believe it responsible behavior to do the above. So, do you? If not your personal responsibility should cause you not too. Understand the concept of responsibility, and the point I was making (which would mean reading my post, not just looking for loopholes to argue), it should be obvious.



No, rather your belief that you somehow have moral authority over everyone else who may believe or act differently, and therefore have some intrinsic right to control is typical of people, but wrong.

Selfishness is saying: I want (X), and you can't have (X)
I am saying:(X) is yours, You worry about your own (X), I couldn't force (X) on you anyway.
You are saying: I want (X), and you should do (X)

This is all rudimentary and hardly worth more of my time in arguing. and I don't feel like defending an exposers methods (Which I disagree with) against people who won't understand the reality of this situation.


There is a middle ground, it is rarely trodden.

That kind of blows me away. Someone who uses exposure telling us that we are whiny jerks. David Castle even relates to Penn and offers that as an excuse. Hey if a leader in Magic does it why can't I?



True, as an inventor I would be upset. Having my invention or idea given away. I am not talking about the guys who just republish public domain items/ideas.

Now how I feel. If I consider any exposure to bo ok then I feel I am not doing my part. If someone wants to create a learning site there are others ways to go about it. While people don't usually cruise for secrets all it takes is for one person to link it to another.

"Hey Bill, look at this site. Ever wonder how that guy makes the Liberty disappear?", "Frank, thanks for the link I sent it to Joe, he wanted to know if you saw the trick that fooled Houdini?.","Naw, I didn't see that one, but Chris sent me a link to some illusion called zig-zag, haha never thought that one". "oh ya? Send that one to me, I found some others I will send ya."

To these people it looks like cheap tricks who don't realize everything that has gone into the making or the performance of them. It is MY opinion that the ordinary Joe should not have such easy access. I understand that there will always be some exposure, but I will not condone it.

As I've mentioned on Tim's blog I really think that by association getting into a tizzy with Dave Castle (a 28 year old living with his mum and doing demos from his conservatory)sort of makes us look ridiculous.

I also wonder whether IBM and SAM might express a view on the fact that this wilful exposure is occurring because magicians are selling these secrets to any body with a dollar bill in their hot sweaty little hand.

If you are in the business of selling tricks to kids then you deserve all you get. So instead of blaming Dave J Castle and his mass of kiddie fans perhaps you should look closely on how these secrets fell into the hands of folk who then treat them irresponsibly.

Ok Gilgamesh, I have often heard the argument "If you sell a trick, then don't be surprised if people who buy it give it away free."

In fact, Dave J Castle makes that very same point.

So, if you sell a gun, don't be surprised if someone uses it to kill someone.

I guess those people who want magicians to stop selling secrets because purchasers will expose them, also agree that guns should not be sold because purchasers might commit crimes with them.

Oh no, comes the cry, Tim you're going too far!

When magic tricks are sold, there is either an inherent, implicit, or agreed statement that the purchaser will NOT reveal the secret.

Just as purchasers of gun are not expected to commit crimes with them.

So - it it Menny Linfield's fault that Dave J Castle has a video on his site exposing the secret of Menny's 'Hollow' trick?

You seem to think it is: "If you are in the business of selling tricks to kids then you deserve all you get."

So, what about all the secrets on Dave J Castle's site that AREN'T marketed effects?

Copperfield's Flying.
Criss Angel walking on water.
Statue of Liberty vanish.

Who is to blame for exposing those secrets?

Posted: Mar 14, 2008 6:50pm
Josh: "No, rather your belief that you somehow have moral authority over everyone else who may believe or act differently, and therefore have some intrinsic right to control is typical of people, but wrong."

Here is my statement again:

1 - As magicians, we agree to not reveal our secrets, and to oppose the wilful exposure of secrets.
2 - Dave J Castle is wilfully exposing our secrets.
3 - I am opposing him.

You seem to think that this is very wrong of me. I should not try to inflict my moral code of Dave J Castle.

If I understand you correctly, moral codes are great for the individual, but we shouldn't for our moral codes on others?

In other words, do whatever you want.

If exposing other people's secrets sits well with me, I should do it. And if other people get upset, they have no right to be? Or is it that they just have no right to do anything about it - such as try to get me to change, because then they'd be forcing me to adhere to their moral code?

Isn't that a form of "anarchy"?

Let's try applying that to another situation.

You develop a great, original magic act. I feel well within my sense of morals to copy it word for word, move for move. It's not illegal to do so. I start working your area for 50% of your fee with your act, and gradually all your work starts drying up. You come up with a new act, I copy that too.

Are you saying that you wouldn't ask me to STOP copying your act? If you did, you'd be trying to force your moral code on to me.

And yes, if Dave J Castle puts his phone number up on the web to try to get people to call him, yes, he is letting the world know that he is open to be called. As Nicholas says, feel free to call him and tell him you're not happy with what he is doing. Just as you might call a colleague to ask permission to use a trick or to compliment them on a show.

Of course the fact is that anyone who sells his magic in any format to anyone with the money to purchase it are exposers. The only difference is Internet exposers are not selling it, they are giving it away. Since we want to use bizarre references to prove our points: A prostitute sells his/her wares, A bar skank just gives it away. A married (Or single partner person as the case may be) gives it free to someone she can trust, with one might assume some sort of mutual arrangement that is beneficial to both parties.

Now let's liken this to the dubious gun connection.

If I sell a gun, I must assume it's intended purpose is to kill something. Now he may not kill anything, he may never use it or just target practice. However the purpose of a gun is to kill. Now should you be surprised if he kills a person with it? Unless you knew this person intimately, how can you assume to know what he's going to do? You cannot, his ethics and personal responsibility will make that decision.... Although that can't be anymore obvious, and did not need my explanation. As the gun seller, you must decide if your conscience will allow you to take that risk !!! The only way you can be certain no one will use a gun you sell for murder is to not sell it!!!

So, you don't want random people taking our secrets and throwing it out there to other random people for free Do not sell it to random people

Do not blame me for your mistakes, do not ask me to feel sorry for poor judgement of others. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. This has been complained about ad nauseum for the many years I have been on magic forums and it's always the same complaint with different products.

You can accomplish nothing complaining, you can accomplish everything being selective to who you sell.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears, which is why I haven't visited this place for a while, and intend to go back to the bliss of reasonable conversations elsewhere.

Have fun calling this guys mom, It'll make magicians seem really great! Maybe you could visit her house. Maybe take some pictures of him in the shower and post that, I mean he is exposing our secrets...... Oh, and for the record, take a peak at some of the magic shows on T.V. I'd like you to see how many of our secrets they expose there and no one complains. No one ever complains when a popular magician exposes. Know why, cause too many of you are hypocrites. Look through some of the past threads talking about exposure by popular magicians, Hah! I stood against the exposure and several people on this board who really hate exposure were defending them like their own children.

Blah!

Well Josh, if nothing else at least you and I agree on gun control.

But it's odd that you propose "the middle ground" while recommending that magic inventors don't sell their secrets... or to be more precise, "be selective in who they sell their secrets too".

It still doesn't address the issue of non-marketed effects being promoted on Dave J Castle's website.

You still haven't addressed my example of personal morals (ie: me copying your act... should you have the right to do anything about it).

Although you've stated Nicholas Johnson is wrong for telling people Dave J Castle's phone number, you still haven't given us your thoughts on Dave J Castle publishing pics of other people's kids on his blog.

And I really don't think your suggestion of publishing pics of Dave J Castle in the shower will impress anyone or achieve anything.

Dave J Castle is a joke!!

Wasnt he in saved by the bell!!!

And unlike magic, that's why there's strict laws of private sales of guns, usually involving a background check and transfer of ownership... not a good analogy, at all!!!

Tim,

I can't get into the specifics of every piece of exposure on Castles site and I don't abrogate him of responsibility but I am saying that 98% of the info that is on there comes about from selling magic tricks to anyone who will pay for them.

Your gun argument is spurious at best and for the record I wouldn't sell a gun to anybody.

The constant other factors that you throw in like posting kids on the internet are desperate...these kids probably have or would have posted without Castle , he's just linked it all together. And what is posting a fake advert of his image on a thong going to do to further your cause


But I am not going to argue side issues with you as there is an obvious fixation here that you are going to justify to death to continue talking about Dave J Castle and what a bad person he is. I just don't think he's worth my time because, in the end if you shut him down, all the dealers will continue to sell to the other Dave Castles in the world and you and I know that there are already 5 or 6 other links I could put on here to similar sites.

You can only stop this thing at the source but of course that would mean a loss of revenue to dealers and the genie is out of the bottle already so just adapt and get on with life.

But isn't that what Josh is suggesting? Being careful with who we share our secrets instead of selling them to just anybody with cash?

But then, look at how effective the "strict laws" and "background checks" have been with guns...

My point is, people do NOT sell guns with the expectation they will be used to kill, nor should we expect that people we sell our secrets to will expose them.

Josh - At no time of I suggest we harass David or his mother. I am saying that if we call David on his business line and tell him in a polite way what we think of magical
exposure that it will have more of an effect then sitting around here talking it up. If his mother answers his business line, you can explain to her the reason for your call.

If you agree that David J Castle should not be doing this then call him and let him know.

Lets move away from the gun issue so that we don't cloud things and just focus on the magic. The simple principle here is that the more people you share a secret with , the less of a secret it is.

By selling magic in a totally uncontrolled way you are starting the exposure cycle and people like Dave Castle are just a part of it. Sort out the source.

Josh and Gilgamesh, you guys are 100% correct. Man, how many times have I said the same thing?

... yes lets move away from the gun issue. But to acknowledge Tim's question



Yes!



Tim, would you knowingly sell magic to David or me?