In the "Let's make a deal--Tricks and effects" thread, Café member Shomemagic has offered an effect he purchaed in 1970-1980 entitled Flash Beam. He pointed out that this is NOT the Scotty York version (whatever that is).

Cafe member Bill Palmer came on and posted that this version of Flash Beam is a rip off of Ken Brooke's Laser Beam effect.

Shomemagic is now wondering whether or not it is ethical for him to sell an effect that he bought in good faith 20 years ago which is allegedly a perfect copy of the Ken Brooke effect.

I'm not certain of the answer but I do have the following questions to ask and comments to make:


Shomemagic,

Isn't it the pits when an established dealer sells something like this and you the buyer are supposed to know whether or not the item is a knock-off or not and you cannot rely upon the fact that the offer of sale itself implicitly is stating the item is an original or properly licensed effect?

In the good ol' days (1970-1980s), I would have thought that this type of activity (rip-off) was not so prevalent at it seems to be now-a-days but, in my naivete, I suppose the real answer might be that without the Internet (and instantaneous information), rip-off activity might have gone on just as fast and furious as it does today--but that it was harder to learn about it or pass on the info to others.

And, to give Tannens the benefit of the doubt, did they know or should they have known that the item they were selling might be a rip-off of another effect?



Bill,

Is the Scotty York version and the Ken Brooke version different from each other, and, if not, which came first? Put another way, did one of these two guys rip off the other? I'd hate to think so. I hope that they are either different effects or that one gave permission to the other to sell his version.

Also, are you suggesting to Shomemagic that the version he is trying to sell is identical to the Ken Brooke version or merely that the effect is identical but that the methodology might be different?

Is either the Scotty York version or the Ken Brooke version currently available?


Oh, my head is beginning to hurt; I think I'll take two aspirin and go to bed.

Mike

P.S. In the same vein, I just today learned that "Professor's Nightmare" was invented by Bob Carver (see Doug Dyment's comments in the footnotes to Doug's "Bob's Your Uncle" effect in his "MindSights" booklet). Is Bob Carver still alive? If not, does anyone own the rights to this effect? In any event, here is an effect that is so universally performed and sold that it has almost slipped into public domain. I see Ammar's version, Gustferno's version, Richard Sander's version, and other versions ad infinitum. What's a magician to do? I'd hate to think that we have come to the point that no one can purchase any magic without first doing a bibliography and etimological search of each effect--and hoping that their research is both accurate and complete.

What are ethics?

I'll address the issue of the Scotty York version vs the Ken Brooke version.

The Ken Brooke version was a flashlight that lit up when it was passed over the selected card. This was actually very easy to build, and therefore was knocked off like crazy. At the time, Tannent's had a reputation for having the following business philosophy -- if we can't get the original from the person who made it, we will make it ourselves, because we don't want to lose the business. Tannen's then extrapolated this philosophy into -- if we can't get it from the originator, OR if we can make it more cheaply, then we will do that. In the case of the flashlight, the version that came out had the same instructions, as well, just with a name change at the top of the sheet and an address change at the bottom. The magic magazines went NUTS over this. But Tannen's had a lock on things, because they owned the back cover of most of the magic magazines. Some of the mags had the philosophy of looking the other way.

There were other dealers who knocked this effect off as well. And there is basically no way that Showmemagic could have known this unless he had been involved in magic back then.

Unfortunately for Ken Brooke, the US Copyright laws did not work in his favor back then. I won't get into that, because it was very complex.

The Scotty York effect is completely different. It's an actual light bulb that lights up when it is held over the card. The mechanism is similar, but the effect is completely different. It's a light bulb that lights by magic. So it's not an infringement at all. A version similar to the one Scotty uses is available from several dealers now. I think Stevens has it.

It's kind of cantankerous.

I don't think the light-up flashlight is available from any authorized source any more. But at the peak of the competition, they were selling for around $15-$20. They were being manufactured in garages and on kitchen tables everywhere.

Ken Brooke is long since gone. And I don't think Ace Place has the item any more, since it was knocked off so much.

BTW, Ken was one of the first to scream when his stuff was knocked off. But he wasn't completely innocent, either. The same is true of his successor, who was the first to knock off the Ted Lesley deck under the name "Another Winner." But that's an old story.

Thanks for the info, Bill. I NEVER knew that about Tannens. I always thought that they were "THE" magic store and epitomized the ethics and virutes of all that is right in magic. And then there is the issue you raised of certain magic magazines ignoring ethical reality and selling ad space to whomsoever has the cash to buy it. I would never have guessed that a magician might not be able to confidently purchase everything advertised in any magic magazine. Why? Because I felt that the magic community would police itself and anyone caught selling any knock-off or rip-offs in the magazine would have immediately been busted by the magic community. Silly me! I always thought that "peer pressure" would be sufficient in this regard.

I'm going to take a flyer on this one and suggest that Showmemagic should be allowed to sell his version purchased in good faith--particularly since the originals are no longer available.

Mike

It's okay to sell forgeries as forgeries.

And okay to sell items as items.

I suggest drawing the line at calling the item the original innovation and the first of its kind offered anywhere.

Bill is right about the flashligh (UK: torch). It was called "Beam Shot" and was the invention/idea of Bob Ostin (if I remember rightly).

The Scott York Lamp came a little later. I provided illustrations for Ken for this effect, but don't know if he ever used them.

As Jonathan says - sell it as it is.

To sell it as a used item is different than manufacturing batches of them to sell.

I have the orginal "Beam Shot" by Bob Ostin, marketed exclusively by Ken Brooke. Tannen's (SPINA) did KO the item as did Bob Little, both upset Ken so much the stress actually caused his death (stroke).

I have (altho it needs repair) an original prototype York Bulb that Scott sent me when he was working it out. He gave Brooke permission to make and sell. Bob Swadling developed the improved version with a higher tech switch system.

Kaps, and I believe Swadling, came up with the scissors to "turn off" the bulb.

Stevens owns the US Rights to the Ken Brooke line and has a revised York Bulb on his website now.

Scotty outlines how to make the bulb in his _For Your Eyes Only_ book. Buy the book and make your own. It must be available from Stevens Magic since Pete said they were making a York bulb.

Scotty taught me how to make the originals and I still have parts laying around the shop. It's very simple technology but a pain in the A** to make unless you like to eat glass dust! But easy once you know how theres nothing to it. Takes about an hour.

Scotty used the barrell of an old WWII surplus flashlight as the base of his unit. Believe me, we stopped making them when we couldn't find any more of those flashlights.

It's a great trick. I have a bulb based on the idea but shop made in my shop out of all original parts- not old flashlights cut down. I love doing it and it was a great honor to have had Scotty teach me how to make the bulbs himself in his shop in Virginia. I still have a few of the original instruction books with the "Tabman, York and Wells" logo here if anybody needs one.

Great trick...

-=tabman

Saying magic shops are ethical is like saying like saying lairs tell the truth sometimes. While the statement is correct, it's meaningless.

Cheers.

So what is the point in resurrecting a thread that has lain dormant for six years without actually contributing something other than an inanity to it? You obviously don't need the points to get into the Secret Sessions.

Since you have a bone to pick, and you obviously have been ripped off by some magic shop, let me play the Devil's advocate and ask you to provide me with ONE instance in which Stevens Magic Emporium has knowingly displayed unethical behavior.

Ditto Denny's Magic Shop.

Bill: you hit it on the head.

Bill (and Pete): He's been hiding in his lair, which evidently can speak.

*jeep!
--Grandpa Chet (Hey! I'M the one who adds inanities!)

Geez, and I can never get back the time I wasted reading all this...

The point is to continue the conversation since it's just as prevalent today as it was back then. I turn you attention to this thread that is dealing with just such an issue in a more specific context.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......=159&128

Cheers.

Since I know a bit more about the situation you have specifically pointed out than you apparently do, let me point out that the idea behind the thing you mention was the possibility of having a temporary PK ring. The idea was around LONG before Cesaral's Melting Point came out.

A similar device was manufactured on a strictly custom basis in Webster, Texas by a jeweler, so you could convert any ring you had into a PK ring. This was at least 10 years before Cesaral's gaff.

And a similar gimmick is being made and used right now by a fellow in Germany. I'm sure he doesn't even know about either of these gaffs.

There IS such a thing as independent discovery.

The difference, basically, between what Hank Morfin did and what happened with Beam Shot did is very simple. Hank had no previous knowledge of Cesaral's gimmick. He was not attempting to duplicate the use the gimmick had been put to. He was not trying to preempt any sales by Cesaral.

In the case of Beam Shot, the dealer was trying to produce a duplicate of a known, proprietary effect. Not just the gimmick, but the entire routine. They went so far as to photocopy the original instructions with a different title on them.

The outcomes in the two cases were different. Hank pulled the item off the market, even though he probably really didn't need to. The Beam Shot/Lazer Beam knockoff remained on the market.

So, why didn't the original manufacturer sue over copyright violation in the case of Lazer Beam/Beam Shot? The copyright of the original was not valid in the US at the time. The law changed after the trick was produced.

Now, a valid copyright case could take place...unless, of course, they decided to reword the original instructions. Then it's all up for grabs again.

My pointing to the instant pk ring controversy was simply to point out the relevance of this thread.

Since you saw fit to write as much as you did, you have helped me make my point.

Thank you.

That's interesting, because I have made this point over and over and over and over in many other threads in this part of the forum as well as in my own "column" -- From the Wizard's Cave.

Evidently, you haven't bothered to read any of them.

I make my living through intellectual property. Theft of intellectual property is one of my hot buttons. Another is false accusations of theft of intellectual property.

Evidently you don't understand the difference.

LOL whatever you say Bill? LOL

You pointed out a non knockoff to illustrate a thread about knockoffs? I should be laughing at you.

Evidently, you live under a bridge and eat goats.

Goat is delicious! Souvlaki, Kebab, Curry. LOL Are you really this insecure or are just putting us on? LOL

Cheers.