The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » How to publish your routine using Acidus Novus (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
Millard123
View Profile
Regular user
Millard Longman
170 Posts

Profile of Millard123
How to publish your routine using Acidus Novus

It seems that many mentalists want to publish their version of Acidus Novus and some even ask me for my permission to do so. I thank those that do and condemn those that do not.

In general, any method that peeks the info on a folded billet without unfolding the billet is using a variation of Acidus Novus. Holding the card with one hand, two hands, right side up, upside down, or sideways does not change what the peek is. Changing the fold to have more or less offset is also still the same peek. Giving the peek another name also does not change what it is!

I myself have detailed many variations of Acidus Novus in my own publication available from Loren Tindall and all use the same name. Note that the name is not Millard’s Billet or the Longman Billet!

I applaud those performers that come up with their own unique handling, but those handlings should be kept for themselves, not published to the world as “new” methods.

For the record I again am publishing my requirements to gain my permission to publish Acidus Novus in your own routine:

************************************************************************************
The best way to use Acidus Novus in your effect is to avoid explaining anything about the billet, but to send your customers to Loren Tindall at http://www.mevproshop.com to buy their own copy of my product: Thought Reading with Billets Volume One: Acidus Novus

If this is unappealing to you, then you can use the following option:

I generally grant permission to explain the basic Acidus Novus peek on six conditions:

1. You must be a legal owner of record of Thought Reading with Billets Volume One: Acidus Novus (this is available exclusively from Loren Tindall at http://www.mevproshop.com)
2. Only the basic lower right corner peek is explained as it was in Al Mann’s original book
3. A link to my product at Loren Tindall’s website (http://www.mevproshop.com) is included in your product
4. Your routine must be original and require the use of Acidus Novus to be effective
5. Your product is for sale at a fair and profitable price only – not posted anywhere at no charge nor sold too cheaply
6. I get a complimentary copy of your product

Please let me know which method you choose.
************************************************************************************

Please accept this as it is intended – a simple plea to keep my method within the ranks of the mentalism community.

Thank you,

Millard Longman
millard@psychic-skills.com
Millard Longman

See all my products at:
www.mevproshop.com
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcosa
10571 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
Kudos to you Millard!

Acidus Novus is amazing... and also, totally used by many - and ripped off like crazy.

I remember the first time I realized what Obsidian Oblique version 1 actually was...

Anyway, nice to see that you are a true gentleman of the art that shares in a way to promote mystery but not support scumbag rats.

Kindest regards,

Bruce
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
Camille L.
View Profile
New user
10 Posts

Profile of Camille L.
I do not agree at all with this point of view.

Do I have to buy all the work of Tamariz or Aronson and ask their permissions
to publish a routine which uses a cyclic stack ? Even if I use my personal stack, changing the order of the cards doesn't change what it is.

Do I have to buy all the work of Alex Emsley to publish a trick with an Emsley count ?

I have to credit those people certainly but that's all. To obtain the permission of the author to describe a technique is
certainly the right thing to do. If you do not have this permission you can still publish the routine (which is not sum up by a particular use of a tool)by mentionning the name of the technique used and where it is described.

The arguments against the variations are just unreal. The idea to obtain an information previously written on a piece of paper is as old as the mentalism. How many variations of the center tear are published ? The inventor of any of the variation of the center tear can argue (by following your reasonning) that peeking directly instead of tearing does not change what it is : a way to obtain an information.
If the variation is a real unpublished variation I do not see why it would be forbidden to publish it. This is how our art evolve.
Obviously, publishing the same technique with another name is just a steal.

I do not want to be rude but the aim of your post seem more to be the earning of as much money as possible than the protection and the evolution of our craft.
robwar0100
View Profile
Inner circle
Buy me some newspapers.Purchase for me 1 Gazette and
1748 Posts

Profile of robwar0100
Camille,

I guess you and I saw the post differently. It is difficult to protect intellectual property in general, and even more difficult to protect it within the magic community.

I have developed effects and routines using other people's methods, and I would not presume to think for one moment it was my incredible creativity that gave them birth. In reality, my effects and routines would not have come about without the foundational work done by others.

I had a conversation a few years ago with Dan Harlan about this very subject. He broke an effect down into three pieces: Method, presentation and (I believe) props. He said if you change any of the two, then you can claim the effect as your own. It seems with Acidus Novus, all you really can do is change the presentation.

I did not see that he was promoting his stuff. He was just saying, "This is my baby, and if you want to use it, then here are the requirements."

In order for him to protect the brand that is Acidus Novus, he must do this. Words like trampoline, zipper and videotape where once brand names that were not protected, thus they became generic words. I worked at a newspaper in Florida and one of our writers failed to capitalize the "s" in Styrofoam. We received a letter from the company's legal department about the misuse of the word and the ramifications if we did not correct it. The generic term for a Styrofoam cup is plastic foam.

I must say that I had the opposite reaction. Mine was one of appreciation that he has spelled out clearly what we need to do in order to gain his permission. Those effects and routines I mentioned above, well, I wrote the people who influenced my "creations," and I have never heard from them. Those routines remain unpublished.

Be good,

Bobby
"My definition of chance is my hands on the wheel," Greg Long.
dusty
View Profile
Veteran user
343 Posts

Profile of dusty
I have to thank Millard for his permission to include the basic handling in my Billet routine "Clue & A"
Although my routine will work for any billet routine, it was the Acidus Novus handling which inspired me to come up with a method for knowing what information was contained within a billet before the performer touches it. Being able to begin picking up information before the need to glimpse the contents takes much of the heat off the billet itself.
Regards,

Dusty

aka Max Gordon.
"Always give 100%, Unless you're a blood donor!"

Exclusive publications available from:

www.solutions.yolasite.com
Domino Magic
View Profile
Special user
999 Posts

Profile of Domino Magic
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 07:29, Camille L. wrote:
I do not agree at all with this point of view.


There's always got to be one!
Camille L.
View Profile
New user
10 Posts

Profile of Camille L.
Bobby, if I create a cup made in a new material that better isolate the heat than Styrofoam for instance do I have to obtain the permission from the company which own the legal right for the Styrofoam ? I do not think so because my product is an evolution.

Does the Styrofoam firm prohibits the production of all no Styrofoam cups because it's only a variation of their product ?

Claiming that any peek from a folded billet is necesseraly an evolution of the Acidus Novus that cannot be published is abusive.
How many variation of the pass or of the double lift are published ? The basic ideas for all those sleights are identical.

It's unfair to publish the description of the Acidus Novus without permission.
But you can publish any evolution of the sleight with proper credit to the original.
You can publish any routine using this move by just mentionning its name and directing the reader to the desciption in the published book.
Mark Timon
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of Mark Timon
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 10:05, Domino Magic wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 07:29, Camille L. wrote:
I do not agree at all with this point of view.


There's always got to be one!


I'm the second one who doesn't agree.
Camille ist completely right you like it or not.

Regards
TheGingerWizard
View Profile
Special user
611 Posts

Profile of TheGingerWizard
I can see both sides...........of the argument not the billet.
MindBrigade
View Profile
New user
99 Posts

Profile of MindBrigade
I understand both sides too but...
You can't copyright a way of unfolding or folding or whaterver a piece of paper, as you can't copyright a way of lacing your shoes juste because it's tighter than an other one.
There is no, mechanical,chemical or anything "invented" here, it"s just a way to use your hands for something and there is NO rights about that. Of course you can charge someone to teach them, as in any craft, but that s how far you can go with it. Do I need to pay my art teacher anytime I teach one of my children to draw perspective ? etc etc.
Of course ethically (dunno if the word exist cuz english is not my first language), it's always nice to credit and ask "permission", but really it's the only things you can request even less if it's a variation of you move, or maybe have a congressman friend who can vote a law about using hands to do something specific concerning handling a piece of paper.

Anyway still think that's acidus Novus is the best peek I know and all credits should be done to it.
Rebecca_Harris
View Profile
Veteran user
361 Posts

Profile of Rebecca_Harris
I think it's more a question of ethics. If you create a variation of any method in magic, of course you're legally free to publish it. But is that the right thing to do? When I published my Murder in Mind book, I changed one of the methods from the one that I use in performances because while not the same, it was quite close to a published method and I wasn't comfortable about publishing something that close to something owned by someone else. I think that if you're going to publish something, it's only polite to check with the original creator before doing so.

What you can do and what you should do are different things.
ElliottB
View Profile
Inner circle
2926 Posts

Profile of ElliottB
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 10:41, Camille L. wrote:
Claiming that any peek from a folded billet is necesseraly an evolution of the Acidus Novus that cannot be published is abusive.


Millard wrote “in general.” Of course, there are exceptions.

But, in so many cases to date, the “New” technique really was just a minor handling adjustment for Acidus Novus. Sometimes the “New” technique was even included as a variant handling in Millard’s comprehensive Acidus Novus manuscript. Which means, of course, that the inventor of the “new” technique did not even read Millard’s Acidus Novus e-book.

How can someone publish his “new” take on Acidus Novus, without first checking the Acidus Novus manuscript to see if it is already in there?

It is a matter of due diligence.
Christopher Taylor
View Profile
V.I.P.
British Columbia Canada
2149 Posts

Profile of Christopher Taylor
Quote:
it's always nice to credit and ask "permission",


Are you saying you are just being superficially polite when you ask permission and that you will proceed regardless of what the creator says? If you ask permission there is a chance it will not be granted. Period. There are MANY effects I have not proceeded with because of not obtaining permission from the originator. I have also had to sit by while others take my original ideas and reproduce them without even a nod in my direction. Mr. Miller has stipulated the conditions under which he grants permission and they are generous. Live with them or do not publish it and get on with creating something else. The air is full of fantastic ideas, many of which do not include snidely snatching someone else's creativity with no sense of gratitude for those who's shoulders you stand on.

Christopher Taylor
Christopher Taylor

Member P.E.A.

www.taylorimagineering.com

MAKING MENTALISM MORE IMPOSSIBLE
mormonyoyoman
View Profile
Inner circle
I dug 5,000 postholes, but I have only
2439 Posts

Profile of mormonyoyoman
It looks like a question of ethics. If you have ethics, you'll work with Millard. If you don't, you feel you have the right to the products of someone else's brain.

*jeep! and God Bless!
--Grandpa Chet
#ShareGoodness #ldsconf
duanebarry
View Profile
Special user
883 Posts

Profile of duanebarry
Since sleights are not patentable we in our field generally use social protocols instead of legal measures to protect our creators.

However, patents only last for 17 years. The patent bargain is: publish your method to add to the general knowledge, and you control its use for 17 years. After that, it's in the public domain and everyone can freely use it or build on it to advance the art. The alternative is to keep it secret, but if someone else figures it out, you can't control its use. As noted, patents don't apply to sleights, so our protocols are substituted instead. But protocols are a little fuzzy.

Wasn't the basic Acidus Novus published in 1979? That's 32 years ago.

Question: For how long should should our social protocols consider the creator as having exclusive control?

(Note that I'm not talking about copyright, which legally applies and lasts far longer. Nobody is free to copy verbatim Millard's words describing the move -- that text is protected by copyright. I'm talking about freely employing and redescribing the sleight in freshly composed words without the creator's express permission, more than 17 years after its publication.)

(And of course I'm not questioning the need to credit. We need to honor our creators, and know and preserve our history.)
mormonyoyoman
View Profile
Inner circle
I dug 5,000 postholes, but I have only
2439 Posts

Profile of mormonyoyoman
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 12:28, duanebarry wrote:
However, patents only last for 17 years.


That would be 20 years, not 17. You're probably factoring in at least three years for FDA delaying release of medicines after the patent is granted. (see various patents on different types of insulin) There can be various types of exceptions for medicines or (in insulin's case) hormones, but that can work against the inventor(s) as well.

*jeep! and God Bless!
--Grandpa
#ShareGoodness #ldsconf
TheGingerWizard
View Profile
Special user
611 Posts

Profile of TheGingerWizard
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 11:28, Rebecca_Harris wrote:
What you can do and what you should do are different things.


In a nutshell!!
duanebarry
View Profile
Special user
883 Posts

Profile of duanebarry
> 20 years

You're correct; I'm a little out of date. Previously the (US) patent term was 17 years from the date the patent was granted; now the term is 20 years from the date of application, with the duration of the approval process now counting against the longer term length.

Whichever number is used, 32 years is still significantly longer.


> What you can do and what you should do are different things

Right, that's what is in question: what one should do.

Initially I was wondering whether a creator should seek to control a move 32 years after publication.

But this opens up many other questions:

- Should the community grant a creator exclusive control of a published move?
- If so, to what extent and for what duration?
- What impact does such a grant of control have on further advancement of techniques in the art? How does the duration affect that impact?
- What if a creator publishes for the sole purpose of blocking everyone else from _ever_ using the move (or at least for the duration of whatever period the community decides it should defer to creators)?
- What if the person publishing didn't actually invent the move, but published it without permission after (a) reverse-engineering it (the Hugard-Braue Expert Card Technique scenario), or (b) being shown it by its creator (the Frank Garcia scenario)?
ElliottB
View Profile
Inner circle
2926 Posts

Profile of ElliottB
“Should the community grant a creator exclusive control of a published move?”

I would say, Yes.

“- If so, to what extent and for what duration?”

I don’t know. Certainly no more than the life of the creator. Otherwise, we would all be looking for Anneman’s long lost nephew, so we can ask him for permissions. If it will help, I heard he works as a janitor for McDonalds (OK. I made that up.)


“- What impact does such a grant of control have on further advancement of techniques in the art?”

It encourages people to publish their original material.

“How does the duration affect that impact?”

Good question. I don’t know.

“What if a creator publishes for the sole purpose of blocking everyone else from _ever_ using the move (or at least for the duration of whatever period the community decides it should defer to creators)? “

If you buy it, of course you can use it. We are talking selling other people’s techniques; not using stuff we bought.


“What if the person publishing didn't actually invent the move, but published it without permission after (a) reverse-engineering it (the Hugard-Braue Expert Card Technique scenario), or (b) being shown it by its creator (the Frank Garcia scenario)?”

What do you think?
mormonyoyoman
View Profile
Inner circle
I dug 5,000 postholes, but I have only
2439 Posts

Profile of mormonyoyoman
Quote:
On 2011-01-18 14:13, duanebarry wrote:

- Should the community grant a creator exclusive control of a published move?


Why not?

So far, the arguments against creators having ownership of their creations seem to come down to "He made it, but I want it!"

*jeep! and God Bless!
--Grandpa Chet
#ShareGoodness #ldsconf
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » How to publish your routine using Acidus Novus (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.41 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL