Ted and Mindpunisher:

Do you have James' books?

- entity

Um, yes. I have his first book and I know first hand the creators of some of the effects and they are not James Biss'.

First this posting is not to defend James Biss, I only want to share this with all that are interested. As you can read in previous posts and topics I´m 100% against revealing to laymen, especially on YouTube or TV.

That´s why I contacted James and asked him why he did this FOR LAYMEN, and literally wrote: how the **** these video´s could be posted on YouTube. He answered me within two hours with the e-mail that is posted above. But a few minutes later he also send me a copy of all e-mails he corresponded with CFI about the video´s, 8 (long) e-mails to be exactly.

To be short: James wrote to CFI that they were never allowed to make these video´s public and demanded to take them of the internet as a torrent and in a later e-mail from YouTube. CFI promised James to do everything they can to do this, they did as promised and remove the video´s. Today after receiving my e-mail James immediately contacted CFI again to complain that the video´s where posted on YouTube again with the question if they want to remove at least video´s 8 to 10 once again. In a reply the lady promised James to take down the video´s from YouTube, this was her exact reply (without the full names):

-----------------------------------
“Hi James,

Are they up on the youtube site? I'm really sorry that this keeps happening. I know you didn't want the videos up in any way, whatsoever.

I've copied this message to P… (the new me, at CFI), D… (who deals with the media things) and J… (who I'm sure you remember). One of these three can ensure that your videos are taken down and never put online or used publicly again. I hope that they can also get the message out about respecting your intellectual property and requests. I'm positive one of them will confirm with you that this has been done, shortly.

I hope you are well! Take care,

K…”
-----------------------------------


My opinion is that it was wrong to explain the effects to laymen after the show, I still think these people were laymen!

I also believe that this lecture could have been just as much fun without the explanations and so I also told this to James.

It does make a difference for me that it was never his intention to put these video´s in the open and to see that he does take action to get the video´s down a.s.a.p.

What did I learn from all this:

Never trust a magician!


No that was a poor joke, (Dutch humor ) But for real: Take care nobody is filming explanations if you do a lecture, or put something on paper and let them sign for it that if the video or parts of it get out in the open (in any way or form) they have to pay big money. I don´t mind if it´s paid to a charity but put it on paper!


I hope someone with better English than me and some knowledge of the law can post an example of such letter for us here at the forum. Thanks already!



Best,
John

James Biss is out spoon feeding the hard work efforts of other to the skeptics and acting like it is his to give away. Wrong. It is very sad though, I imagine he will sell his 666 books to them.
If the skeptics work at finding out things they will appreciate a bit of the the effort, money, time and skills involved and not just be exposing because they can for their ego. Such people as the skeptics say the work is to prevent fraud, but they are being exposed to top class performance pieces, not fraud techniques.

Biss needs to make sure this stuff is removed from youtube.
Rationalizing any type of exposure to non-magician/mentalists let alone allowing it to be videotaped I don't understand at all.
I am surprised, outraged and majorly disappointed at this whole exposure episode.

What was Biss thinking? Shame on you Mr. Biss.

You couldn't stack the money high enough for me to do such an thing.

Kevin

Entity, no I don't have any of his books. Actually this will be funny I was about to buy one but I decided not to because of all the accusatioms on the Café lol.

It appears the links have been taken down. Let's all breathe a sigh of relief that relatively few people saw it.

substantiate means provide accurate proof.

I have his first book lying around somewhere I can't remember everything that was in it but I do know there are a few classics in there that don't belong to him. including sneak thief.

He also stole the 7th Sense and claimed the manufacturer had cheated us both. The truth was that he asked the manufacturer to modify his sex toy but he wouldn't because he was told I already had an agreement with him. So he bought the toys with no modification and sold them to murphies kowing he was stealing.

Also one of his close friends and acomplices was asking me about 7th sense a few months before he released it. Its a pity the videos didn't stay up as a reminder to everyone what sleazebag he really is. The way he talks about "magicians" on the video sums up his attitude.

Not surprised by this at all. It is irrelevant if the videos were put up or not when it comes to the actions of exposing to non-magic groups and exposing items that are not yours to expose. "***, if only that camera was not there when I murdered that man, nobody would have cared and it would have been okay."

It is better to teach a skeptic group you can be fooled rather than how you can be fooled, otherwise you set them up for failure. I often have about 10 ways to accomplish any one thing. If someone thinks they know how an effect is done, it makes it easier to convince them I am real by using a different method.

Exposing secrets for non-magic groups is catering to the lowest form of the wanting to know for the sake of wanting to know. It is the easy road to take when you do not know how to teach critical thinking and it is just plain wrong. You would think Biss would know better having been a teacher.

But looks like he does not care that much since in his reply he spent more time trying to sell his other goods.

To attach Randi to this is irresponsible and maybe even actionable? He is just hoping that those who don't like the JREF will come to his defense. I hope not as these are two different issues and a technique that James loves to use. He loves to deflect any blame to others and to spread and soften the blow directed to him by including others. Even if he did think it was a "Randi group" (He knows better) what does this have to do with his actions at all? This issue is about what he did and not about what anyone else did or has done.

Happy to see you weigh in on this, Steve.

Just in case, I checked with Randi, re: the videos. This was his response to James Biss' claim that Randi's Foundation had posted the videos:


<<a) CFI Canada has nothing to do with us, nor with me. I know nothing about it.

(b) We gave no permission to Biss – who I’d never heard of until now.

(c) What “videos on YouTube” are you referring to?

James Randi.>>

I explained the situation to Randi and apologized for wasting his time.

- entity

BTW I don't think Banacheck goes by Steve anymore I think he prefers Banachek much more than Steve.

Can I poýnt out that James Býss has the legal rýght to remove thýs from youtube. I work on remove ALOT of exposure videos from Youtube, and its suprisingly easy.

Since the publication of his first book, James has demonstrated his lack of interest in respecting the work of others.

It is so sad that a person with a some original ideas and presentations continues to expose the ideas and methods of others. And for what purpose?

I don't care who is speaking to, if you didn't create it (or gain permission to use/teach it) ... it is STEALING.

Chuck Hickok

If I go in front of an audience and read out the works of some playwright without permission. I'd get sued.

If I published a book that was Harry Potter under another name, I'd get sued.

Steve

If I published a book that was Harry Potter I'd be billionaire.

Touche


Steve

Don't Mentalists and Magicians copyright their material? If not then someone will rip it off sooner or later. And yes sueing someone is a big hassle, but profitable in the end I believe.

Having said that I know nothing about law

I think it is worse to explain MOAB to magicians than laypeople. The lay will forget, but magicians will remember the secret

Ted,

I disagree. There is this old myth that goes around in magic clubs.

But this is another thing that magicians around the world have created "ad arte" to delude themselves.

The fact some (many?) magicians believe that, does not make it true.

In my life I've met a great deal of people and the most amazing memories came from laymen who were showed once the method for Zig-Zag Girl or the old Center Tear and they remembered vividly the HOW TO even after many years.

Sure there will be some laymen who will forget a method they learned (but that's true for magicians too) and I don't think it has to do with being a magician or not, at least, only partially so.

It has more to do with the kind of mind and memory one has.

Plus, there is always the "recall by association" factor. Even if I forget how Moabt works, first time I see someone replicate the same thing with the book, that alone will trigger my recall (or it should).