|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19..21~22~23~24~25..33..40..47..54..61..63~64~65 [Next] | ||||||||||
The Mac Inner circle 1982 Posts |
|
|||||||||
bangobango New user 23 Posts |
My understanding is that you cannot copyright ideas or processes. You could discover the secret of making gold out of lead and publish it in a paper, but that would not protect you from others using your process to do the same thing. That's what patent law is for. It is also my understanding that it is really difficult to patent or copyright a magic trick, at least in the US.
This is my first look into this world of magic publishing and it is bizarre. Those saying that Petty should credit Weber, credit him for what exactly? If Petty was unaware of Weber's work, then why should Weber get credit for what Petty publishes that Petty made on his own? I mean, put yourself in somebody's shoes who has independently come up with an effect, spent a lot of time and resources in getting that effect to market, and then on the eve of publication is told that they shouldn't publish b/c somebody did the effect before and described how to do it to a small group of select people. It's nuts to me that some of you expect somebody to just back-off and forget all the time and effort that they invested into the project before learning of the pre-existing "publication." It's surprising to me that there hasn't been a system agreed to by the community of magicians to handle things like this. The simplest solution seems to be using a common database to list the effects, and if your trick isn't listed in the database, then it is free game for anybody who independently comes up with something similar. I know that there is the Conjuring archive, but it doesn't appear that there is the understanding among magicians that if you want to protect your trick, then you better make sure it's in that central database. I mean, in a sense that is just common decency so that others don't waste their time, money, and labor working on something only to be told at the eleventh hour that somebody else is asserting ownership over it. |
|||||||||
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1866 Posts |
You forgot "Other Guy". LOL
I really shouldn't joke as, for me at least, this isn't a humorous situation. I feel bad that I had to betray someone who I looked up to - someone who had also been kind to me. It's still really bothering me. |
|||||||||
mralincoln Loyal user If I wasn't so busy, I'd have more than 220 Posts |
Maybe that’s true for Netrix. However, that doesn’t negate the argument. Being a member of the other two, I believe it is applicable for them. The point is a release is a release whether it’s in a subscription service or not. Nor does the fact that it is released to a few mean an effect is fair game.
|
|||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1420 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Sudo Nimh wrote: This is the most sensible thing that anyone has said on this thread but don't ignore the fact that this is a two way street, Craig could have handled this just as differently as they could have. As far as Weber is concerned this is most assuredly NOT about money. If Weber was concerned about making money he would be releasing his products en masse through Penguin or even Murphy's instead of doing it they way he does. Michael Weber is an extremely successful corporate speaker and consultant as well as many other things, making a few bucks off shilling magic is not really something he needs to worry about. Craig says he's been workshopping this for the past two or three years and has exhaustively researched the history of it with powerhouses in the mentalism world. I guess those powerhouses did not include Max Maven, whom Craig could have asked as of November 1, 2022 and he would have arrived at the factual conclusion that Weber/Trono/Real Secrets already published first. |
|||||||||
sileeni Veteran user UK. 361 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: Hilarious that you edited your post to add © 2018 after you initially left it off. Then posted that very relevant meme... Why does this feel so familiar now? TRIUMPHOTOCOPY Copyright New Guy 1985 You really are an expert on all things Weber. Going out on a limb... you don't happen to write your own reviews too? |
|||||||||
da5id Loyal user Dublin, Ireland 268 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, mralincoln wrote: One is searchable and the other is not. It’s not about it being a subscription service. The non-subscription stores list the effects not the secrets. This is the only thing that matters for due diligence. If your trick is not findable you won’t get credit. Kind of obvious. I’m not sure why some are struggling to understand this. |
|||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1420 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote: Hey Genius, The Mac and Mac_Stone are two different people. I shouldn't expect you to have an eye for details like that though. |
|||||||||
sileeni Veteran user UK. 361 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: Whoooosh… That’s the sound of the point whizzing over your head. But please… don’t ignore the main point, Mr Weber. |
|||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1420 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote: You've caught me out. Indeed, I am Spartacus and Michael Weber and Tim Trono and Jimmy Hoffa and I've been secretly masquerading around The Café under a pseudonym while impersonating a teenager back in 2004. https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......39398#15 You dropped your tinfoil hat by the way. |
|||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1420 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, da5id wrote: I am not a member of this subscription service and cannot search search it's contents. https://visualmagicstore.com/membership If I come up with a trick that was already published there and pursue it to market what then? |
|||||||||
Morganjj Regular user 168 Posts |
Even to an outsider, it's obvious that
1. People using fake Café identities in order to shill products they're directly related to and attack others is a terrible practice. 2. That anyone can go back and read the first newguy post in this thread and see for themselves what sort of person Weber is. It's all there in the text, and it's pretty shameful. 3. That Mac_Stone clearly has insider knowledge of the emails and back and forth. 4. That invoking Max's name in an argument here is shameful. The quote was "I showed some powerhouses mentalism." not "I showed every great in mentalism, including the dead ones." This is not the first time there's been a deliberate misinterpretation of the obvious by Mac_Stone. If I was a smart man (I'm not, I'm posting in this thread) and I was tied up in this mess I would resist the urge to keep digging my hole deeper. When the shoe drops, it's just going to be worse. |
|||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1420 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Morganjj wrote: 3. No I don't. I think you may be confused because I'm speaking so factually based on owning the material in question by published by the other guys. 4. "I showed SOME of the powerhouses in mentalism" is not quite the exhaustive research Craig claims to have made. Max was indeed alive during the time Craig was developing this according to his own timeline. If I was going to exhaustively research something, particularly in the field of mentalism that's where I would start. I believe I have very deliberately been misinterpreted many times throughout this thread. No doubt that will continue to be the case. |
|||||||||
Mark_Chandaue Inner circle Essex UK 4187 Posts |
It was also not easy for someone based in the U.K. to share ideas with Max. I sent Max some things via email and I think the first one got a reply after around 6 months, none of the others ever got a response. Likewise it was rare to get a response via Facebook messenger. The best time to catch Max was at the session although I think the last time he attended was before the pandemic. At the session Max was very generous with his time, wisdom and knowledge, especially if you were a smoker as the lack of other smokers these days meant you got a lot of quality 1 on 1 time with Max in the smoking area. At some of the larger conventions the demands on Max’ time were far greater.
Mark |
|||||||||
bangobango New user 23 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: Why does he have an obligation to do "exhaustive research" on whether or not a trick has been done before? If you want the trick protected, then shouldn't the burden be on you to make sure those who might come along later with the same idea can easily find that information? Again, ideas, such as methods to a magic trick, are not copyrightable. So, what we are really talking about here is people being gracious and generous to each other and trying not to step on anybody's toes. This is basically a "gentleman's agreement" among magicians from what I can tell. But if you're worried about others re-doing your ideas, then you ought to have the decency to make it where they can find that information before they put a lot of sweat and tears into the project. You shouldn't have to interview "Mac-Stone's exhaustive list of mentalists" before you can safely move forward with a project. |
|||||||||
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1866 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: Yes. It is sad that Max is gone. I never met him in person, but had periodic exchanges with him over the last 20 years or so. He was always very helpful with credits when I wasn't 100% sure about something. I don't know who could even closely compare in terms of knowledge now that he is gone. |
|||||||||
mralincoln Loyal user If I wasn't so busy, I'd have more than 220 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, da5id wrote: I appreciate the explanation related to “due diligence.” Thank you for the distinction you made here. I understand your point. However, for me, there is a bit more involved here. My concern is that some of the arguments being made appear to be justifying selling previously “released” tricks if there was a small number of purchasers and/or the effect was “released” in a subscription-based (meaning private and limited) forum. Whether it’s a subscription service or a single lecture at a small magic club (which would also not be “searchable”), if one knows (or finds out) an effect was someone else’s prior, one does not have “the right” (ethically) to continue to market the effect without some kind of acknowledgment, permission, credit/recognition, and/or compensation being given. Even if “due diligence” was done—and even if an effect was an “independent creation.” I, personally, believe this would apply once the “new” creator learns of the previous iteration of the effect. Communication with the original creator (if available/accessible) would seem to be appropriate to determine the best way to rectify the situation. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 769 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, bangobango wrote: If you can perform it, it is not an "idea" but a realised expression of an idea. |
|||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1420 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, bangobango wrote: Because that's what he claimed. Also, yes that's what is expected and had he done that 10 years ago he would have avoided the Red situation entirely. |
|||||||||
Morganjj Regular user 168 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: Then I'm sure you won't have any issue quoting Craig directly as to the claim you think he made that warranted your dragging Phil's name into this, eh? Let the chips fall where they may and lets see who is doing the deliberate misintreptation. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » EDCeipt by Craig Petty - BRAND NEW » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (2340 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19..21~22~23~24~25..33..40..47..54..61..63~64~65 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |