Oops. I missed the fact that Larry Becker actually came up with the idea of using coins. That really makes the crediting/permission issue sticky, doesn't it?

Since my name was mentioned here, I'll chime in. First of all, to the best of my knowledge, the precursor of the plot is "Heads or Tails" by Larry Becker in "Mentalism for Magicians."

As to how I found out about the routine: A friend of mine bought this, remembered seeing the method somewhere, and wanted to know if I knew where it was. I gave him a reference I knew of: Karl Fulves' book, "The Magic Book" (copyright 1977)on page 173, "How to Predict the Super Bowl." Another friend had some concerns about crediting. He contacted me. I told him my opinion. Then I contacted another friend who had purchased the effect and asked him what he thought--he, too had some concerns.

I contacted John and voiced some of those concerns (primarily crediting), and also stated that I thought by naming the routine "ultimate" he was denigrating every other version out there, including Max's, and my own. I also stated that I thought the method was a step or two backward from the original, in that it lost the impromptu properties of the effect, added more props/components, and didn't end as cleanly--certainly others may disagree with that opinion. I had the same issues with John's other release.

Whether or not someone else who corresponded with me sent something I wrote to them along to John, I don't know--I have no reason to doubt John about that.

At that point, John seemed to think I had a vendetta against him. I don't know Karl Fulves and have never met or corresponded with him. I don't know Christopher Carey, either--never heard of him until a day or two ago. We share some of the same opinions regarding this particular issue, but otherwise, I couldn't tell you anything about the man that you don't know from reading this topic.

Here's my point: Let's say you just bought UPN. You decide to change nothing except what is said on the prediction. Instead of heads or tails, let's say you predict whether a card will be face up or face down. You release that effect for sale on the market. I'd be willing to bet you'd get some angry messages from John--yet that is exactly what he has done here. The effect from the Fulves book used the identical method (published 32 years ago) to predict which team would win the Super Bowl. Now you tell me: in the mind of the average spectator, what is more impressive, predicting the flip of a coin or predicting who will win the Super Bowl?

I know nothing else about John, and I don't think he's a bad guy. I just had some issues with this release, as listed above.

And just for the record, I contacted Max before I published my version of this effect. He said he thought it was good and that he'd never heard of anyone using the method with it.

John has accused me of ulterior motives: because I sell a version, I'm trying to hurt his sales of his version. This is simply not the case. Carl Andrews has a table-hopping C&B routine on the market. So do I. I have no issues with Carl's version. Whit Haydn has a version of Red Hot Mama out. So do I. I've never had an issue with Whit's version. I don't know Whit or Carl. My only issues are with the routine as explained above, not with John himself. I have no desire to hurt him--I don't know the man.

When you put something on the market, you're always taking the risk that some people won't like it. They have a right to say so. I've received good reviews and bad reviews for stuff I sell. If you only want positive comments, just sell the thing to your friends and family.

Lumberjohn, thank you for your detailed reply. I think I understand your reasoning here and I would agree with you, that Max's original effect is based on older ideas. However, Max, as he always does, properly credited the originators of the EFFECT. Mr. Cesta did not. And as you pointed out, Mr. Cesta used Max's title without permission.

Let me paint the exact same scenario (pretend) with different products and see how you feel about it. I have invented an effect called ULTIMATE B'WAVE. It's exactly like Max Maven's, only it uses a method by Michael Weber. I contacted Michael and he said I have his blessing to use and publish his method. I don't add anything to the handling, script, effect or methodology. I simply publish it as is on my website and sell it for $100.00. Should everyone, including Max Maven, be "cool" with this?

Lumberjohn, I really appreciate your posts. You're the only one who has the effect and who's taken the time to intelligently respond about it. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts. Thanks.
Elliott, with all due respect, what's odd about the thread? Could you be more specific? As you mentioned, you don't have John Cesta's version, so I'm not sure how you can comment on my criticism of it. It's only $11.77.

I don't really care about the other versions out there that I HAVEN'T purchased, Elliott. Are you seriously suggesting that I purchase and read every version of POSITIVE NEGATIVE out there, take all of those creators to task and THEN I can criticize John Cesta's effect?

I am a customer of John Cesta's. That's where this started. I purchased a product from him. I had a problem with it. I emailed him weeks ago and questioned the ethics of selling the product. I didn't cry and whine and demand a refund. I gave John an opportunity, in private, do address my concerns as his customer! He blew me off. When I brought it to a public forum, what did he do? He accused me of having a secret agenda and STILL didn't address my concerns.

Elliott, you sell products. You tell me, if someone emailed you and questioned whether you had the permission to sell an effect, would you reply sincerely or would you simply blow them off?

As far as Bryce Kuhlman's effect is concerned, Bryce did receive permission from Max Maven to add his "improvement" to the effect. John Cesta did NOT. John Cesta doesn't credit anyone, except Max Maven for the plot. If you're going to hold me to the standard of crediting Larry Becker in order to criticize John's effect, then you have to hold John Cesta to that standard as well.

You're welcome. I felt your post merited an informed response.

To answer your question, I've already made myself clear that I would not agree with calling the effect "Ultimate B'Wave" without permission from Max. But as for employing another method for the basic B'Wave effect, I would have no problem with that. In fact, there are numerous examples currently on the market, including Duplicity and Twisted Sisters by John Bannon, Entourage by Gordon Bean, and Alpha to Omega by Stephen Tucker. Any of these could be seen as "updates" to B'Wave using different methods, but in none of these cases do I feel that the creators acted unethically in releasing these products without the explicit endorsement of Max Maven (assuming that he was the first to publish this plot, which is something I don't know).

What’s odd is that you seem to be a man with an agenda. Looking at this thread and another one gives the impression that nearly 40% of your Café Activity has been spent criticizing John Cesta.


In fact, I think it is highly unethical and unfair to publicly criticize John’s ethics and good name on a searchable forum, while completely ignoring the fact that this very effect has already been rehashed countless times over the years with similar or inferior crediting. Lack of research on the matter does not excuse singling out John and dragging his name through the mud.


I do hold John to that standard. If John wants to (hypothetically speaking) criticize Bryce for not getting permission from Larry, then he better well get permission, himself. Otherwise he would be a complete hypocrite. The same applies to your criticism of John’s ethics and simultaneous praise of another version, where permission from Larry was apparently not obtained.

IMHO you can't go too far wrong by seeking the basic theme and look/feel of a piece, what makes it different from other works in the field, and then finding out who's the first person to explore it in the published record - and seeking permissions from there.

Not true. First, Those on the Café that know me, know this isn't true. I didn't blow you off. I answered your question. Second, I credited Max and Rick Maue. Maybe you haven't read the document. Read it again!

And, I still say you have an agenda, reread your post from the first one in the PDF section. You didn't criticize my general effect in your email. You never stated you didn't like it. You had a tone and I answered your email as best I could without taking a chance that you would post my answer on a public forum, which you then did! Bingo! I was right.

You can go on with your rant. I feel in good company of others that have good products and reviews (about 50) of praise with exception of maybe one or two those which are they didn't like: 1) the name I assigned to my product and 2) The fact that I sold it for $11.77

I am sorry that you have nothing else to do with your life. You create a thread, no response so you create another then you post a response and you answer it yourself or beg others to answer it. It's really sad.

You act as a "bullfighter" of this thread.



J



Uh, where exactly did I accuse you of that Scott? Show me.

The reason I brought you up is because CC mentioned TWO other reviewers that were unhappy with my products. How did CC know? The two unhappy people PM'd me privately.


j

Many variations aren't.

I think a good rule of thumb is if your 'new idea' requires you to describe someone elses 'old idea' then you need to get permission.

I have a ruse for PN that I explained in my notes. I did not however explain anything other than the ruse. To do so would be to profit off Max's work and I did not want to.

A few years ago a friend came up with a much better ending for the rubber band effect pinnacle. He shot his routine for sale. Of course, the first two phases were from Pinnacle.

Even though his ending was a great improvement, he had no right to teach someone else's material without permission. I advised him to pull the product and he did.

There is a creative leap in discovering tricks that pair well together. But by the logic I think some are using here, I should be able to fully teach Garcia's Torn and Kosby's Raise Rise on my own dvd just because I came up with a clever story that links them together well.

That would be wrong. Sure, I could sell my story - but if I want to teach someone else's trick, I must get permission.

Not sure if that applies here, but I think it's a good rule to follow.

And-on a personal note-i never understand why people don't ask permission. Its such an easy thing to do. My guess is deep down they know their variation really isn't.

Brad Henderson

In the topic on your other effect, you certainly implied, if not outright stated it. Something along the lines of "Why don't you tell us the real reason why you're posting..."

If I read motive into that which was not intended, John, then I apologize and retract the accusation, but that's certainly how it came across to me.