|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26..34..41..48..55..62..64~65~66 [Next] | ||||||||||
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1338 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Morganjj wrote: His name is Max. |
|||||||||
da5id Loyal user Dublin, Ireland 268 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, mralincoln wrote: Unless the finding out came in the form of threats and bullying. |
|||||||||
|
bangobango New user 20 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, TStone wrote: And your performance can be copyrighted, but the process or method is not. At least, that is my understanding in briefly researching it. |
|||||||||
|
bangobango New user 20 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: Did you ever consider what he thinks is exhaustive may not be what you consider exhaustive? It's a rather subjective word, is it not? And I don't know what happened with Red ten years ago has to do with today and now, but it certainly makes it seem that you biased in this conversation by bringing it up again out of the blue. |
|||||||||
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1701 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mark_Chandaue wrote: That's so odd; I had the opposite experience with Max. Before Facebook, I could email Max and I would get a response back that day or the next. Before he passed, I made several credit inquiries with him on FB Messenger and he responded nearly instantly. The last time, was for the origins of a very peculiar and old idea. I told him about my suspicions regarding its origins. 10 mins later, he informs that my suspicions about this obscure thing were the same as his. However, a huge list of credits and references followed which I had missed. And I mean, these were really crazy things like " Back of Weetabix Cereal Box, 1954" - stuff like that. It kinda blew my mind.
If I write what I feel, it's to reduce the fever of feeling. What I confess is unimportant, because everything is unimportant.
|
|||||||||
|
Morganjj Regular user 167 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: I see that your answer is no, which does make it very easy to see who's being deliberately misleading, eh? |
|||||||||
|
Mark_Chandaue Inner circle Essex UK 3958 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Sudo Nimh wrote: It may be that the email address I had for him wasn’t his primary email. At the session I was able to spend a lot of time with Max and he was always extremely helpful (and often awe inspiring) with crediting help. It never ceased to amaze me how off the top of his head he could provide you with credits for every element of an effect right down to which specific issue of a magazine and even sometimes which page from 1935 the item appeared in. At the recent session it was really sad to not see Max there. It’s almost like the largest database of magical history just got wiped and there was no backup. Although my sadness was more about the loss of such a kind, generous man with such a razor sharp wit. Mark
Mark Chandaue A.I.M.C.
Harpacrown is available from http://www.harpacrown.co.uk Harpacrown Too is available from http://www.harpacrown.co.uk/?product=harpacrown-too Ophiuchus is available from http://www.harpacrown.co.uk/?product=ophiuchus Totally Free Will is available from http://www.harpacrown.co.uk/?product=totally-free-will |
|||||||||
|
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1338 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Morganjj wrote: Sorry, I'm busy rewatching Craig's video so I can get you that answer. So far you are right, Craig has not claimed to have made exhaustive research, only two years of due diligence. As I'm listening back to Craig's telling of events I hear a lot of "please's" and "prefer's" in the emails sent by the other guys, not so many demands and threats as he has insinuated. Also, in the future please refer from shamefully misnaming Max. Legally, and in every other sense, his name is Max Maven and that is how he should be remembered. |
|||||||||
|
mralincoln Loyal user If I wasn't so busy, I'd have more than 221 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, da5id wrote: I understand the point. I obviously do not support inappropriate “threats or bullying,” but I also do not hold to situational ethics. Again, my concerns are about broader issues/attitudes rather than the specifics of the current controversy. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, as magicians (including creators), we should approach such issues with graciousness and respectfulness. Thanks for your interaction, da5id! |
|||||||||
|
Morganjj Regular user 167 Posts
|
Sure I can do that.
I won't be lectured on shame by someone who invokes the dead in order to attempt to bully others under false pretenses, though. And how are you now listening to Craig's telling of events and pointing out these "pleases," and "prefers," when earlier you were implying you'd read the initial emails and Craigs response? Have you read the emails or not, Mac_Stone? If you have, why is that? The whole thing where you pretend you're just an outside observer is transparent, which is why I posted initially. |
|||||||||
|
1tepa1 Special user 916 Posts
|
Shaming someone for using the wrong name of a magician like its some big deal comes of as pretentious. Its not "shameful". Max put out multiple magic books and tricks under the name Phil, so someone using that name either by accidental memory lapse or by not knowing which of the two names is the real one is not a big deal to be ashamed of. A simple correction would be helpful, shaming is not.
|
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1701 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mark_Chandaue wrote: That pretty much summarizes how I feel about his loss, too. I imagine that feeling is widespread across the art.
If I write what I feel, it's to reduce the fever of feeling. What I confess is unimportant, because everything is unimportant.
|
|||||||||
|
Mac_Stone Inner circle Miami, FL 1338 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Morganjj wrote: To be clear, you were the one that started lecturing me on shame. And the reason I invoke Max's name is because he was involved in and credited with the Real Secrets project, his contribution being the inverse binary system he published in The Violet Book of Mentalism. So as you can see, Max could have very definitively pointed Craig in the right direction. Not once have I ever implied that I have read these emails and I invite you to find the quote where I do. When you don't please state so publicly so as to prevent any further deliberate misinterpretations. I have not read the emails, I am not personally involved in this any more so than you. You too seem to have dropped your tinfoil hat. |
|||||||||
|
Morganjj Regular user 167 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, Mac_Stone wrote: The implication of the above is that you have insight into the content of the emails. If that's all simply based on Craigs commentary then you're right and you have no special insight and I've read the implication wrong. But if that's so, then the above quote shows way too much confidence about the contents if all you've heard is some cherry picked quotes. That's all. |
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1701 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, bangobango wrote: I agree. As a creator, it can be difficult sometimes. First, you have to be very careful with who you turn to when trying to do due diligence because not everyone can be trusted and there are sharks out there who will steal your work. Additionally, sometimes you will approach a fellow who has work in the same vein as yours and ask for permission and they can (A) not give permission (B) give permission (C) claim they "already had that idea" and then deny permission and now publish your idea as their own. A stifles creativity. C doesn't stifle creativity, but steals it. The only good outcome is B. Max could have made a LOT of money if he charged a flat fee of $100 (or whatever) for vetting services. And you wouldn't have had to worry about your work getting stolen either. Every creator would have gone to Max and this problem would be virtually non-existant. This is what we really need. But who can fill those shoes? Perhaps Bill Kalush at Conjuring Research Center? He has the resources and it's kinda right there in the name, isn't it? Pay a little money up front to see if your work is worth publishing/marketing. That way you don't spend a bunch on production costs and end up with a situation like we have here afterwards. There's a good business model here for an enterprising individual with the right attributes. Or an official board... sort of like the Library of Congress, but for Magic. All creations go through it and a team determines if something meets a set criteria if it borders on infringement. They keep a copy in their library or database of every new release. You get the idea.
If I write what I feel, it's to reduce the fever of feeling. What I confess is unimportant, because everything is unimportant.
|
|||||||||
|
Sudo Nimh Inner circle 1701 Posts
|
I see that I missed Craig's most recent video on this situation. Just watched it.
I still stand with Craig on this matter and bowing out of the discussion because it's affecting my well-being.
If I write what I feel, it's to reduce the fever of feeling. What I confess is unimportant, because everything is unimportant.
|
|||||||||
|
Consultthemind1 Regular user 185 Posts
|
A lot has happened since I have been gone!
The rabbit hole just got deeper; I contacted Scott Dressburg and got an interesting reply. Before getting to his response, for anyone that didn't see my earlier post - I referenced a letter Scott Dressburg sent me in the 90s. I fished out that letter and it is dated April 14th 1996, it says (copied verbatim) - "I think I have finally finished my new effect. I call it "Little Shop of Horrors". I have been using Stuart Robson's "Horrors!" for almost five years and wanted a hook that made sense. This is gonna cost you, but it's worth it - so get your hand in those deep pockets. Go shake off the dust from your old copy of Practical Mental Effects and find Horrors. Lay the book open, take six slips of paper and look at the crib or key whatever it is called on the book's page. Copy that key but instead of copying the words, write a cheap shopping item instead. Take each of the other pieces of paper and where each word is, look at its shopping item equivalent and write the shopping item in place of the word. I know what you're thinking tedious right? Well there's more.You now have to go to the shop with those five pieces of paper, five times and buy each of the shopping items in that order from each of the pieces of paper so you have the receipt. Write the numbers into the bottom corner of the receipts as described in the book and now by following the instructions detailed in the Horrors routine you can perform a thought of shopping item trick that fits in your wallet. Tada". There's more in the letter that is not relevant here. After this drama unfolded it gave me the excuse to call Scott. Before I share Scott's response he has asked me to make it clear - Scott doesn't want to be involved in drama and in his own words "I am too old and haven't been in the game in such a long time that it's a distant memory to me". Ok, onto what Scott said (not copied verbatim), but the essence of it. It was a long phone call, and most of it was not relevant. Scott was never a famous magician, he was not even what he would consider a performer. He was a member of a local magic club who table-hopped from time to time, and at his club, members were asked to do "show and tell" nights which were like mini-lectures. Scott put together a set of ten lecture notes (that technically weren't lecture notes) titled "Little Shop of Horrors" to give to other members of the club. Scott has agreed to send an original set of notes to Denis from Conjuring Archives for verification. Behind the scenes, I have been in contact with Denis, who has agreed to have the notes sent. Scott wanted me to make it very clear that he doesn't want credit, he doesn't believe the idea is original to him as it seemed too much of an obvious solution and even though he printed notes and gave those notes to a limited number of people (some of which he still has the contact information for) he doesn't expect anyone to acknowledge the effect as his creation. He thought (from the outside) that this drama is fruitless because he is sure that he cannot be the only person to play with the binary principle and shopping items, he said (this is copied verbatim as it made me laugh) - "I mean come on, Robson was doing that sh*t in the 1930s". You might wonder why I have posted the above information if Scott doesn't want to be involved. It (to me, at least) goes to show that the idea was not original to Weber and Trono and that until we have seen Craig's Explanations, we don't know how far the plot has been moved forward. We are estimating based on feelings instead of waiting and approaching this logically based on facts. Craig has stated openly that they likely did use the Age Card Principle with receipts, and he happily credits them. What he disagrees with is them saying this is an outright copy without seeing the explanations and how far the plot has been taken. I think we can agree that Craig didn't steal the effect from Trono and Weber because its availability was too limited to aptly be able to research. If Craig is to be done for stealing because the idea was available in a limited capacity before him, then Weber and Trono should also be catching heat as Scott also shared his idea in a limited capacity before them also. David. |
|||||||||
|
dirtyfoucault Special user UK 504 Posts
|
"Craig has stated openly that they likely did use the Age Card Principle with receipts, and he happily credits them. What he disagrees with is them saying this is an outright copy without seeing the explanations and how far the plot has been taken. I think we can agree that Craig didn't steal the effect from Trono and Weber because its availability was too limited to aptly be able to research. If Craig is to be done for stealing because the idea was available in a limited capacity before him, then Weber and Trono should also be catching heat as Scott also shared his idea in a limited capacity before them also."
Looks like Weber has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar 
Joking but this post does highlight the absurdity of Trono and Weber's argument. |
|||||||||
|
leipzisch Special user 656 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, da5id wrote: Now THIS is the most sensible post thus far. |
|||||||||
|
leipzisch Special user 656 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 6, 2023, mralincoln wrote: Equally sensible and not contradictory to the prior post I quoted. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » EDCeipt by Craig Petty - BRAND NEW (2336 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26..34..41..48..55..62..64~65~66 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 6, 2023 05:24 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < 
|