|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19~20~21~22~23..32..40..48..56..63~64~65 [Next] | ||||||||||
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Wravyn wrote: In my opinion, no. But that's because I have always viewed things from an academic perspective. It's impossible to do proper research or have knowledge of something that is not publicly available. |
|||||||||
Eric Gretencord Regular user Houston, TX 170 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 5, 2023, Wravyn wrote: Real Secrets was offered for public sale, so yes.
He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder.
-M. C. Escher |
|||||||||
leipzisch Special user 928 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Sudo Nimh wrote: I recall some pages ago the accusation made of Treber that they use a specific tactic (falsely claiming they are about to release an updated version of their product in the 'coming weeks'), to prevent creators from releasing product. If that is the case, Treber will never seek an accommodation with Petty (or anyone else they decide to bully, for that matter). |
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
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?
|
|||||||||
|
brandonp New user 5 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, dirtyfoucault wrote: I'm not sure that Brent understand's the meaning of the word "method" lol! Using age calculator with the numbers turned to words is older than the hills and certainly not Weber's method. Not the first time Brent has smack talked Craig though. And no prizes for guessing who's a good friend of Weber. At least Brent put his face to it. |
|||||||||
da5id Loyal user Dublin, Ireland 268 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, dirtyfoucault wrote: It doesn’t belong to someone else. It wasn’t published. Craig did all the due diligence that one would expect. It’s crazy you would defend someone who been defrauding, deceiving, scammimg, and bullying this entire community for decades. |
|||||||||
|
da5id Loyal user Dublin, Ireland 268 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote: Show us the ad copy where it was advertised for sale. |
|||||||||
|
sileeni Veteran user UK. 361 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote: 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 |
|||||||||
|
Eric Gretencord Regular user Houston, TX 170 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 5, 2023, Sudo Nimh wrote: https://themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopi......orum=218
He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder.
-M. C. Escher |
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote: I wasn't even a member; any Weber items I possess were gifted to me by Michael himself. He even sent me a generous donation in support of my periodical. That's why it really pains me that I had to come forward on this thread. He has never received a single cent from me and was only kind to me. It hurts because it feels like I betrayed him. It was one of the hardest decisions I've had to make in a very long time. |
|||||||||
|
DJG Inner circle 1296 Posts
|
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.
|
|||||||||
|
sileeni Veteran user UK. 361 Posts
|
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. |
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Does anyone remember the sensation that was created when Timothy Wenk's "Misled" hit the market? It was sensational. The thing is, if someone's material really is *that* stellar wouldn't it make more sense for it to be on the open market just like Misled was? Where are the superstars who were borne from this exclusive material?!
|
|||||||||
|
da5id Loyal user Dublin, Ireland 268 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote: Exactly. And the effects are not in the ad copy so it’s too much to expect a creator to know about it. For the purpose of research and crediting, this was not published in a way that was useful. |
|||||||||
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, sileeni wrote: I had forgotten that! Well, not exactly rejected. For some reason, the payment had to be done in a certain way, which wasn't clearly described so I payed with a normal Paypal payment.... which was quickly refunded without any explanation. But it seems the reason was more due to technical matters than a rejection of me as a person. In any case, it wasn't easy to become a subscriber. Later on, I got a complimentary subscription from someone, and I still don't know from whom. Maybe from Michael, but he said he knew nothing about it when I asked. Maybe from Tim. The project contained some quite intriguing items, but it was complicated to keep track of it. For example, I don't have any of the download material. Some was never downloaded in time, and some seems to have been saved on a harddrive that later died. |
|||||||||
|
Eric Gretencord Regular user Houston, TX 170 Posts
|
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:
He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder.
-M. C. Escher |
|||||||||
|
mike donoghue Inner circle 1299 Posts
|
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 |
|||||||||
|
teenagelabotomy42 New user 95 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, mike donoghue wrote: I'm sure they're credited because they came first... |
|||||||||
|
TStone V.I.P. Stockholm, Sweden 774 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, DJG wrote: In general terms, without going into the details of this particular conflict, nope, that is not accurate. None of the involved believe that. Copyright cover all fixed artistic expressions that surpass a certain threshold of originality. Weber's starting point was valid, is still valid, even though choices and actions that followed can be questioned. Craig says so himself in his video. Had there been different choices and actions, I have no doubt that there would have been a cordial outcome that all involved had been equally happy/dissatisfied with. |
|||||||||
|
sileeni Veteran user UK. 361 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Eric Gretencord wrote: I know. And if this topic was black and white, then a mere yes or no would have been sufficient. But, this topic is far from it. Since we're referring back to Wravyn's points: "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." "Generally" is the key word here. So, by this very specific definition, then the answer can only be 'No.'. Also, if you were looking for a meal recipe, you'd generally search publicly published books for contents descriptions to give information as to what recipes are within the books. But in this case, the contents are all the ideas were specifically kept private. In this case, the method was hidden within a subscription service that could not be joined by just anyone, within an issue of said subscription where the contents and/or index were to never be spoken about is. To consider that a public publishing is unreasonable. As to your other question; I'd imagine that showing it to a few big players in the game does not mean that it was shown to all big players. No one is all knowing though. And it'd be absurd to expect anyone to show their work every single powerhouse in the game. Also, you don't want to share your ideas with too many people too, either. My question back to you is; what would you deem as sufficient due diligence? |
|||||||||
| 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..19~20~21~22~23..32..40..48..56..63~64~65 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 6, 2023 12:56 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|