On Feb 5, 2023, Wravyn wrote:
I agree with you. If it is published, they own the rights.
published
adjective
1.
(of a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) prepared and issued for public sale or readership.
"the collection includes the complete published works of Benjamin Britten"
2.
(of information) printed or made available online so as to be generally known.

Is sharing it in a private, members only group considered published?

On Feb 6, 2023, Sudo Nimh wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 6, 2023, dirtyfoucault wrote:
Brent Braun saying he won't carry EDCeipt at Bricks and Mortar until 3 criteria met...

"People are asking me about my take on Craig Petty's EDCeipt.

There has been more than enough posted about this other places if you need to get up to speed. I don’t see a reason we need to rehash any of that here as it’s not the intent of this group.

That being said I believe strongly that when a creator creates and publishes a method they own the rights to that method and that anyone using it in a product should at the very minimum credit the original creator and have added something original to the basic effect.

Simply adding 1 hour or even 6 hours of content doesn’t allow you to use a method that doesn’t belong to you.

I have yet to hear Craig’s say that his method is different. He has instead said that he didn’t know about the original release and that he has added more content to the this project.

I also haven’t seen the tutorial so I don’t feel like I can make an informed decision at this time. So I have decided we will not be selling this until…

1. It’s clear that Craig has credited Weber.
2. Craig makes it clear what makes his method/effect different from what Weber released and owns the rights to.
3. We hear that Craig and Weber have come to an agreement about how to move forward.

I understand some people here may disagree with my position. If that is the case feel free to order this from another magic vendor no judgement here.

I just don’t have interest in supporting a product when the method/effect belongs to someone else."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; it makes me think no less of Brent Braun. He's doing what he believes in his heart to be right. Just like I did what I did because I believed (and still believe) with all my heart that it was the right thing to do. The thing is, I doubt there will ever be an agreement between Craig and Michael. If Michael wanted an agreement, he would have tried having a proper discussion with Craig - without threats, and without attacking him under a false identity which he has used at the Café for nearly 20 years to promote himself with false endorsements. That sort of underhanded tactic just goes far too far and speaks to the lengths he will go to.

This whole thing could have been settled easily. For example, when I just spoke with Peter I assured him he would get proper credits in Eclipse and even offered him a cut from sales. He graciously told me he didn't want my money and to proceed with his blessing. That simple.

Craig could have offered him a percentage of the sales along with crediting. Michael makes money freely off a project he didn't even have to invest a dime in and still gets credited. The magic world gets a great new item. Everyone wins. But rather than negotiate with Craig, veiled threats were made and underhanded tactics used.

On Feb 6, 2023, dirtyfoucault wrote:
Brent Braun saying he won't carry EDCeipt at Bricks and Mortar until 3 criteria met...

"People are asking me about my take on Craig Petty's EDCeipt.

There has been more than enough posted about this other places if you need to get up to speed. I don't see a reason we need to rehash any of that here as it's not the intent of this group.

That being said I believe strongly that when a creator creates and publishes a method they own the rights to that method and that anyone using it in a product should at the very minimum credit the original creator and have added something original to the basic effect.

Simply adding 1 hour or even 6 hours of content doesn't allow you to use a method that doesn't belong to you.

I have yet to hear Craig's say that his method is different. He has instead said that he didn't know about the original release and that he has added more content to the this project.

I also haven't seen the tutorial so I don't feel like I can make an informed decision at this time. So I have decided we will not be selling this until...

1. It's clear that Craig has credited Weber.
2. Craig makes it clear what makes his method/effect different from what Weber released and owns the rights to.
3. We hear that Craig and Weber have come to an agreement about how to move forward.

I understand some people here may disagree with my position. If that is the case feel free to order this from another magic vendor no judgement here.

I just don't have interest in supporting a product when the method/effect belongs to someone else."

On Feb 6, 2023, dirtyfoucault wrote:
Brent Braun saying he won't carry EDCeipt at Bricks and Mortar until 3 criteria met...

"People are asking me about my take on Craig Petty's EDCeipt.

There has been more than enough posted about this other places if you need to get up to speed. I don’t see a reason we need to rehash any of that here as it’s not the intent of this group.

That being said I believe strongly that when a creator creates and publishes a method they own the rights to that method and that anyone using it in a product should at the very minimum credit the original creator and have added something original to the basic effect.

Simply adding 1 hour or even 6 hours of content doesn’t allow you to use a method that doesn’t belong to you.

I have yet to hear Craig’s say that his method is different. He has instead said that he didn’t know about the original release and that he has added more content to the this project.

I also haven’t seen the tutorial so I don’t feel like I can make an informed decision at this time. So I have decided we will not be selling this until…

1. It’s clear that Craig has credited Weber.
2. Craig makes it clear what makes his method/effect different from what Weber released and owns the rights to.
3. We hear that Craig and Weber have come to an agreement about how to move forward.

I understand some people here may disagree with my position. If that is the case feel free to order this from another magic vendor no judgement here.

I just don’t have interest in supporting a product when the method/effect belongs to someone else."

On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 5, 2023, Wravyn wrote:
I agree with you. If it is published, they own the rights.
published
adjective
1.
(of a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) prepared and issued for public sale or readership.
"the collection includes the complete published works of Benjamin Britten"
2.
(of information) printed or made available online so as to be generally known.

Is sharing it in a private, members only group considered published?

Real Secrets was offered for public sale, so yes.

On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 5, 2023, Wravyn wrote:
I agree with you. If it is published, they own the rights.
published
adjective
1.
(of a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) prepared and issued for public sale or readership.
"the collection includes the complete published works of Benjamin Britten"
2.
(of information) printed or made available online so as to be generally known.

Is sharing it in a private, members only group considered published?

Real Secrets was offered for public sale, so yes.

On Feb 5, 2023, Sudo Nimh wrote:
Where was Real Secrets sold publicly and when? This is an honest question as I don't know the answer. Did you have to sign up through psience to get it?

On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 5, 2023, Wravyn wrote:
I agree with you. If it is published, they own the rights.
published
adjective
1.
(of a book, journal, piece of music, etc.) prepared and issued for public sale or readership.
"the collection includes the complete published works of Benjamin Britten"
2.
(of information) printed or made available online so as to be generally known.

Is sharing it in a private, members only group considered published?

Real Secrets was offered for public sale, so yes.

Actually, this is not true.

You had to apply to become a member and many, if not most, were turned away.

Even Tom Stone had his application rejected. https://tinyurl.com/tomgenii

On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote:
This is taken from Real Secrets site, on the subscription page. Had to use the Way Back Machine to uncover it.

https://web.archive.org/web/201208260648......ship-usa

"You agree that your membership may be canceled for any reason by Real Secrets and any existing prorated subscription will be reimbursed if you are not in violation of Terms and Conditions.

If any Terms and Conditions are violated you hereby understand that your membership will be immediately terminated and you will NOT be eligible for reimbursement on any existing time left in your subscription period."

So even if you DID sign up to become a member ($180) and you also didn't (like many) get your application rejected, at any moment your membership could be cancelled if Weber deemed you'd violated their terms, then you would not get the items paid for and owed for the remainder of the membership.



Yeah, super public.

On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote:
Even Tom Stone had his application rejected. https://tinyurl.com/tomgenii

On Feb 3, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote:
If you have shown this to the powerhouses in the industry yet have a relationship with a giant in the industry, how can you claim due diligence?

On Feb 6, 2023, mike donoghue wrote:
I have a question .
Does anyone have permission to use this method from the people who put it out as a prize inside the Christmas Crackers I got in England as a 9 yr old kid ?
I am now nearly 63 yrs old
This is undoubtedly a great release from Craig & he has built on a very old principle & the lad is a creative powerhouse & he knows his stuff.
Found him to be a great lad & very friendly.
Hopefully people will now leave him alone & give him the praise he deserves.
He develops effects ( puts considerable work , time & money into them ) & we end up looking good performing them . End of .
Personally from me Craig ‘well done with another hit which will make us workers look good . NO , LOOK GREAT

On Feb 6, 2023, DJG wrote:
Doesn't matter if Weber published first, second, or never. His threats would only be drawing a line in the sand and hope you don't cross it. Petty has no obligation to credit anyone... legally. Morally? That's for each person to decide for themselves. Copyright does not protect ideas or concepts... only words.

On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote:
I merely answered the question whether it was was published based on the definition posted by Wravyn.

What about this question?

Quote:

On Feb 3, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote:
If you have shown this to the powerhouses in the industry yet have a relationship with a giant in the industry, how can you claim due diligence?