When is it OK to reveal how a trick is done? (if ever)

DRBUZZ0 · 31st May 2007, 04:04 PM

Quick question. And I'm not looking to break the rules here and have myself banned, so I'm keeping this theoretical.

Is it ever okay to reveal how a trick is done by illusionists, either on this forum or just in general ethics.

I can think of a few situations where it might be:

A magic trick or illusion is being used to con people by someone like Gellar and by revealing how deceptively simple the trick is it makes them seem much less amazing or shows how it can easily be defeated. IE: Just make sure you don't let him touch the spoons ahead of time. Provide them yourself.

A trick has been around forever and the cat is out of the bag. Anyone could find how to do it as simply as searching google.

The trick is not entirely seceret and has been known about and talking about the mechanics and method of it is a good example to illustrate how the human eye and mind can be fooled. Or for some other principal.

It's a very simple and rudimentary illusion which is well suited for "beginners" which are looking for something to do for fun

Of these I see how the first could be problematic because it presents a potential conflict: If the illusion is a secret amongst professionals but is being abused by a con artist to trick people into believing it is supernatural, does one spill the beans?

quixotecoyote · 31st May 2007, 07:53 PM

I wondered about the same thing when I saw Penn & Teller giving away variants of the 'sawed woman' trick.

DRBUZZ0 · 31st May 2007, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I wondered about the same thing when I saw Penn & Teller giving away variants of the 'sawed woman' trick.

Some of those variants have been around for ages, centuries even. I think in that case, the cat is pretty much out of the bag.

quixotecoyote · 31st May 2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Some of those variants have been around for ages, centuries even. I think in that case, the cat is pretty much out of the bag.

True enough, the one I saw them show was the most basic explanation possible, but I hadn't grasperd some of the details before they showed it.

tkingdoll · 1st June 2007, 03:49 AM

It's important to know that a lot of the 'methods' that some magicians (particularly P&T) are not actually how the trick is done. It's just another misdirection.

However, in the case of sawing a woman in half, that's been out there for such a long time that they're not revealing anything new.

HarryKeogh · 1st June 2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

If the illusion is a secret amongst professionals but is being abused by a con artist to trick people into believing it is supernatural, does one spill the beans?

Interesting question. And does it even have to be a con artist? On the Rapture Ready bulletin board there were quite a few fundies who thought David Blaine was in league with the devil to perform his trickery. Is it okay to reveal the tricks to them so they realize it's just sleight of hand and not the result of a pact with Lucifer and his minions?...or is it???!!!

And would revealing tricks hurt the magician's income? It hasn't seem to have hurt P&T's bank accounts.

DRBUZZ0 · 1st June 2007, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by HarryKeogh

Interesting question. And does it even have to be a con artist? On the Rapture Ready bulletin board there were quite a few fundies who thought David Blaine was in league with the devil to perform his trickery. Is it okay to reveal the tricks to them so they realize it's just sleight of hand and not the result of a pact with Lucifer and his minions?...or is it???!!!

Yeah... well if they are actually convinced that his illusions are actual supernatural powers from Satan then there's probably no hope for them... He could reveal it if he really wants

Dinsdale Piranha · 1st June 2007, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by HarryKeogh

On the Rapture Ready bulletin board there were quite a few fundies who thought David Blaine was in league with the devil to perform his trickery. Is it okay to reveal the tricks to them so they realize it's just sleight of hand and not the result of a pact with Lucifer and his minions?...or is it???!!!

Intercourse the fundies. Let them believe Blaine is Lucifer's spawn. If you tried to explain the truth to them they would probably accuse you of being part of the devil's deception.

Many of the tricks Blaine does on his TV shows can be purchased at any magic shop. Even a diehard fundamentalist could find that out. But they don't want to. They want to believe it has to do with Beelzebub.

firecoins · 1st June 2007, 01:18 PM

It is okay to reveal how psychics or gambler cheats do things.

It is not okay for a magician to reveal another's tricks. Penn and Teller cover themselves by in the end by fooling audiences with another method...or the same exact one they just showed the audience.

Of course teaching is another time exposure is perfectly alright.

geni · 2nd June 2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

It's important to know that a lot of the 'methods' that some magicians (particularly P&T) are not actually how the trick is done. It's just another misdirection.

However, in the case of sawing a woman in half, that's been out there for such a long time that they're not revealing anything new.

Well not exactly. The person behind the trick made the mistake of fileing a patent in 1923:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/1,458,575

geni · 2nd June 2007, 02:52 PM

The relivant area of law is trade secrets. If you can find out how a trick is done without placeing any restictions on yourself you are free to do whatever you like with it (other than patent it since prior art would be an issue).

If tricks could be protected in the normal manner they would gain 20 years protection under patent law. I see no reason why they should qualify for protection longer than that.

Bob Klase · 5th June 2007, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by geni

If tricks could be protected in the normal manner they would gain 20 years protection under patent law. I see no reason why they should qualify for protection longer than that.

If you mean that after 20 years anyone should be able to manufacturer and sell a trick then I wouldn't argue much. If you mean after 20 years that everyone should post the method all over the internet and tell all their friends and neighbors how the trick is done then I wouldn't agree with that.

geni · 8th June 2007, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

If you mean that after 20 years anyone should be able to manufacturer and sell a trick then I wouldn't argue much. If you mean after 20 years that everyone should post the method all over the internet and tell all their friends and neighbors how the trick is done then I wouldn't agree with that.

Why? how the trick is done is not protected by copyright.Individual descriptions may be but that is a seperate issue. If someone writes there own description they are free to share it with whoever they want.

DRBUZZ0 · 8th June 2007, 08:45 PM

I suppose it would have to do with how "seceret" it is. If it's something which is a common and established trick which is pretty much known that seems different than if it is privileged information or something not generally known

Bob Klase · 8th June 2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Why? how the trick is done is not protected by copyright.Individual descriptions may be but that is a seperate issue. If someone writes there own description they are free to share it with whoever they want.

Legally that's true. Some people also have ethics.

geni · 9th June 2007, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Legally that's true. Some people also have ethics.

Ethics are broadly speaking a set of standards agreed on by wider society. At present it appears we have agreed on 20 years for protections of methods and processes.

I think you may mean morals but then you hit the problem of differing systems.

geni · 9th June 2007, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

I suppose it would have to do with how "seceret" it is. If it's something which is a common and established trick which is pretty much known that seems different than if it is privileged information or something not generally known

That would be covered under trade secret laws. If only 3 people know how to do the trick it shouldn't be to much of a problem to deal with the one who blabs to court.

Bob Klase · 9th June 2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Ethics are broadly speaking a set of standards agreed on by wider society. At present it appears we have agreed on 20 years for protections of methods and processes.

Even under that broad definition, "wider society" could mean a local magic group or magicians in general. But I wasn't speaking broadly, I meant the 'ethics' as defined in many dictionaries:

"A set of principles of right conduct.
"A theory or a system of moral values"

Originally Posted by geni

At present it appears we have agreed on 20 years for protections of methods and processes.

It appears that "we" have also agreed to make it very expensive to obtain that protection via patent so that it's cost prohibitive for the vast majority of all magic- no one can spend $10,000 to protect a trick that might give them $6-8,000 in profit and put the method in public besides.

While this discussion is about giving the secret, if you want to go strictly with the law and ignore ethics/morales, there's no reason you shouldn't start making and selling any trick you want no matter how new it is. It shouldn't take you long to get rich ripping off and selling the newest tricks on the market. Almost none of them have any legal protection from you doing that.

geni · 9th June 2007, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Even under that broad definition, "wider society" could mean a local magic group or magicians in general. But I wasn't speaking broadly, I meant the 'ethics' as defined in many dictionaries:

"A set of principles of right conduct.
"A theory or a system of moral values"

It appears that "we" have also agreed to make it very expensive to obtain that protection via patent so that it's cost prohibitive for the vast majority of all magic- no one can spend $10,000 to protect a trick that might give them $6-8,000 in profit and put the method in public besides.

Cost would generaly be less than 10K but I'm not suggesting fileing a patent. I'm simply saying that 20 years appears to be the length of time currently accepted in simular fields (movie special effects and the like)

Quote:

While this discussion is about giving the secret, if you want to go strictly with the law and ignore ethics/morales, there's no reason you shouldn't start making and selling any trick you want no matter how new it is. It shouldn't take you long to get rich ripping off and selling the newest tricks on the market. Almost none of them have any legal protection from you doing that.

I suggest you look into the area of trade secrets. While the protection that offers is limited it does exist.

Bob Klase · 10th June 2007, 09:18 PM

You seem to be missing the point.

Originally Posted by geni

Cost would generaly be less than 10K but I'm not suggesting fileing a patent. I'm simply saying that 20 years appears to be the length of time currently accepted in simular fields (movie special effects and the like)

That applies to making and selling an invention- not giving out the secret (which is what this thread is about). While I agree that 20 years should be an acceptable length of time for an inventor to profit off a trick, that's not the subject.

Originally Posted by geni

I suggest you look into the area of trade secrets. While the protection that offers is limited it does exist.

Magic in general (while it's full of unethical people) tends to rely on ethics to maintain secrets. The protection offered by trade secret law wouldn't apply very often.

sinclairmcevoy · 12th June 2007, 01:09 PM

I'd be interested in knowing how Chriss Angel levitated from one building to another. I saw it last night, and when the tape was sped up, he appeared to move, stop and move again about 4 times. Interesting trick.

DRBUZZ0 · 12th June 2007, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by sinclairmcevoy

I'd be interested in knowing how Chriss Angel levitated from one building to another. I saw it last night, and when the tape was sped up, he appeared to move, stop and move again about 4 times. Interesting trick.

Chris Angel might be a good example of what IMHO would be an example of the ethics of magic revelation. His illusions are quite good, and assuming he is not using video effects (which by all accounts he is not) I have to honestly admit that I have not the slightest idea how many are done.

I would say the following would be okay: If somebody revealed that one of his simple impromptu illusions was a take on a well known trick which was in many magic books, such as "The King Rising" or that it at least appeared to be that sort of trick. That's not really an exclusive thing, other than to say he did it very well.

However for one of his more impressive illusions, if one came out and said "My uncle was in vegas when he did that and he saw the crew setting it up from his high hotel window and sent me these pictures where you can see that it is done by..."

That would be NOT COOL. Eventhough it might not be a violation of law if it was seen or somehow it was otherwise figured out, it compromises an illusion which was basically a secret

Or... am I missing something?

geni · 12th June 2007, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0

Or... am I missing something?

It really rather depends on how you feel towards the idea that information should be free.

geni · 12th June 2007, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

That applies to making and selling an invention- not giving out the secret (which is what this thread is about). While I agree that 20 years should be an acceptable length of time for an inventor to profit off a trick, that's not the subject.

I'm useing the figure of 20 as the time length for which perhaps it should not be OK to reveal how to do a trick.

[qupte]
Magic in general (while it's full of unethical people) tends to rely on ethics to maintain secrets. [/quote]

Nah it's mostly relied on the ammount of effort to communicate secrets to a wide audence. Of course that doesn't really work any more.

Quote:

The protection offered by trade secret law wouldn't apply very often.

Not yet. It will though.

I suspect that the market for tricks known to only 2/3 people will increase in future.

FWIW this is what wikipedians think on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ure_on_Wiki.21

Bob Klase · 12th June 2007, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by geni

I suspect that the market for tricks known to only 2/3 people will increase in future.

Can you name 5 tricks that are only known to 2/3 people? There are few that use new principles and many people with a working knowledge of magic in general can figure out the method for most new tricks.

Originally Posted by geni

FWIW this is what wikipedians think on the subject:

Obviously there's no general agreement there. And a few are really pretty funny:

Quote:

That David Blaine will be less likely to be able to hornswaggle some wide-eyed teenager into believing in the paranormal is one of the positive benefits of having that information here.

I wasn't aware that Blaine was "hornswaggling" anyone. But we all know how Sylvia Brown has been put out of business by the ease with which anyone can learn the basics of cold reading/

siqr · 13th June 2007, 12:27 PM

There's the aspect of personal integrity when pointing out that a 'psychic' is using magic tricks. How can one honestly claim that, without knowing what the trick is?

I know you can argue from common sense. But it's sooo much better if you know how the trick is done. The the only sure way to know how all those tricks are done is if the people who know how say so, freely and frequently.

Then there's the educational aspect. The more you know how magical misdirection works the easier it becomes, surely, to spot the fake psychics.

DRBUZZ0 · 13th June 2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by geni

It really rather depends on how you feel towards the idea that information should be free.

There are plenty of things which you are totally free to do and which are within the bounds of the law which are still an ass thing to do

31st May 2007, 04:04 PM	#1
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	When is it OK to reveal how a trick is done? (if ever) Quick question. And I'm not looking to break the rules here and have myself banned, so I'm keeping this theoretical. Is it ever okay to reveal how a trick is done by illusionists, either on this forum or just in general ethics. I can think of a few situations where it might be: A magic trick or illusion is being used to con people by someone like Gellar and by revealing how deceptively simple the trick is it makes them seem much less amazing or shows how it can easily be defeated. IE: Just make sure you don't let him touch the spoons ahead of time. Provide them yourself. A trick has been around forever and the cat is out of the bag. Anyone could find how to do it as simply as searching google. The trick is not entirely seceret and has been known about and talking about the mechanics and method of it is a good example to illustrate how the human eye and mind can be fooled. Or for some other principal. It's a very simple and rudimentary illusion which is well suited for "beginners" which are looking for something to do for fun Of these I see how the first could be problematic because it presents a potential conflict: If the illusion is a secret amongst professionals but is being abused by a con artist to trick people into believing it is supernatural, does one spill the beans?

31st May 2007, 07:53 PM	#2
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,947	I wondered about the same thing when I saw Penn & Teller giving away variants of the 'sawed woman' trick.
	__________________ parky76; Israel does not want an independent investigation just like Bush did not want to investigate 9-11. Thank you for the avatar xkcd.

31st May 2007, 10:19 PM	#4
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,947	Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 Some of those variants have been around for ages, centuries even. I think in that case, the cat is pretty much out of the bag. True enough, the one I saw them show was the most basic explanation possible, but I hadn't grasperd some of the details before they showed it.
	__________________ parky76; Israel does not want an independent investigation just like Bush did not want to investigate 9-11. Thank you for the avatar xkcd.

1st June 2007, 03:49 AM	#5
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,450	It's important to know that a lot of the 'methods' that some magicians (particularly P&T) are not actually how the trick is done. It's just another misdirection. However, in the case of sawing a woman in half, that's been out there for such a long time that they're not revealing anything new.
	__________________ TAM London Oct 3rd and 4th 2009 www.tamlondon.org www.spoonscience.com The World Record Spoon Bend from TAM6 - for all benders, pushers and dealers

1st June 2007, 08:58 AM	#8
Dinsdale Piranha A cruel man, but fair. Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: In the conversation pit. Posts: 842	Originally Posted by HarryKeogh On the Rapture Ready bulletin board there were quite a few fundies who thought David Blaine was in league with the devil to perform his trickery. Is it okay to reveal the tricks to them so they realize it's just sleight of hand and not the result of a pact with Lucifer and his minions?...or is it???!!! Intercourse the fundies. Let them believe Blaine is Lucifer's spawn. If you tried to explain the truth to them they would probably accuse you of being part of the devil's deception. Many of the tricks Blaine does on his TV shows can be purchased at any magic shop. Even a diehard fundamentalist could find that out. But they don't want to. They want to believe it has to do with Beelzebub.
	__________________ "Don't hit me with them negative waves this early in the morning." Oddball from Kelly's Heroes. "I almost had a psychic girlfriend, but she left me before we met." Steven Wright

31st May 2007, 08:08 PM	#3
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote I wondered about the same thing when I saw Penn & Teller giving away variants of the 'sawed woman' trick. Some of those variants have been around for ages, centuries even. I think in that case, the cat is pretty much out of the bag.

1st June 2007, 08:38 AM	#6
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 10,239	Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 If the illusion is a secret amongst professionals but is being abused by a con artist to trick people into believing it is supernatural, does one spill the beans? Interesting question. And does it even have to be a con artist? On the Rapture Ready bulletin board there were quite a few fundies who thought David Blaine was in league with the devil to perform his trickery. Is it okay to reveal the tricks to them so they realize it's just sleight of hand and not the result of a pact with Lucifer and his minions?...or is it???!!! And would revealing tricks hurt the magician's income? It hasn't seem to have hurt P&T's bank accounts.

1st June 2007, 08:53 AM	#7
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	Originally Posted by HarryKeogh Interesting question. And does it even have to be a con artist? On the Rapture Ready bulletin board there were quite a few fundies who thought David Blaine was in league with the devil to perform his trickery. Is it okay to reveal the tricks to them so they realize it's just sleight of hand and not the result of a pact with Lucifer and his minions?...or is it???!!! Yeah... well if they are actually convinced that his illusions are actual supernatural powers from Satan then there's probably no hope for them... He could reveal it if he really wants

1st June 2007, 01:18 PM	#9
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,054	It is okay to reveal how psychics or gambler cheats do things. It is not okay for a magician to reveal another's tricks. Penn and Teller cover themselves by in the end by fooling audiences with another method...or the same exact one they just showed the audience. Of course teaching is another time exposure is perfectly alright.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

2nd June 2007, 02:48 PM	#10
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by tkingdoll It's important to know that a lot of the 'methods' that some magicians (particularly P&T) are not actually how the trick is done. It's just another misdirection. However, in the case of sawing a woman in half, that's been out there for such a long time that they're not revealing anything new. Well not exactly. The person behind the trick made the mistake of fileing a patent in 1923: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/1,458,575

2nd June 2007, 02:52 PM	#11
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	The relivant area of law is trade secrets. If you can find out how a trick is done without placeing any restictions on yourself you are free to do whatever you like with it (other than patent it since prior art would be an issue). If tricks could be protected in the normal manner they would gain 20 years protection under patent law. I see no reason why they should qualify for protection longer than that.

5th June 2007, 08:34 AM	#12
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,389	Originally Posted by geni If tricks could be protected in the normal manner they would gain 20 years protection under patent law. I see no reason why they should qualify for protection longer than that. If you mean that after 20 years anyone should be able to manufacturer and sell a trick then I wouldn't argue much. If you mean after 20 years that everyone should post the method all over the internet and tell all their friends and neighbors how the trick is done then I wouldn't agree with that.

8th June 2007, 08:22 PM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by Bob Klase If you mean that after 20 years anyone should be able to manufacturer and sell a trick then I wouldn't argue much. If you mean after 20 years that everyone should post the method all over the internet and tell all their friends and neighbors how the trick is done then I wouldn't agree with that. Why? how the trick is done is not protected by copyright.Individual descriptions may be but that is a seperate issue. If someone writes there own description they are free to share it with whoever they want.

8th June 2007, 08:45 PM	#14
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	I suppose it would have to do with how "seceret" it is. If it's something which is a common and established trick which is pretty much known that seems different than if it is privileged information or something not generally known

8th June 2007, 10:56 PM	#15
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,389	Originally Posted by geni Why? how the trick is done is not protected by copyright.Individual descriptions may be but that is a seperate issue. If someone writes there own description they are free to share it with whoever they want. Legally that's true. Some people also have ethics.

9th June 2007, 06:57 AM	#16
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by Bob Klase Legally that's true. Some people also have ethics. Ethics are broadly speaking a set of standards agreed on by wider society. At present it appears we have agreed on 20 years for protections of methods and processes. I think you may mean morals but then you hit the problem of differing systems.

9th June 2007, 07:00 AM	#17
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 I suppose it would have to do with how "seceret" it is. If it's something which is a common and established trick which is pretty much known that seems different than if it is privileged information or something not generally known That would be covered under trade secret laws. If only 3 people know how to do the trick it shouldn't be to much of a problem to deal with the one who blabs to court.
	Last edited by geni; 9th June 2007 at 07:27 AM.

9th June 2007, 08:44 AM	#18
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,389	Originally Posted by geni Ethics are broadly speaking a set of standards agreed on by wider society. At present it appears we have agreed on 20 years for protections of methods and processes. Even under that broad definition, "wider society" could mean a local magic group or magicians in general. But I wasn't speaking broadly, I meant the 'ethics' as defined in many dictionaries: "A set of principles of right conduct. "A theory or a system of moral values" Originally Posted by geni At present it appears we have agreed on 20 years for protections of methods and processes. It appears that "we" have also agreed to make it very expensive to obtain that protection via patent so that it's cost prohibitive for the vast majority of all magic- no one can spend $10,000 to protect a trick that might give them $6-8,000 in profit and put the method in public besides. While this discussion is about giving the secret, if you want to go strictly with the law and ignore ethics/morales, there's no reason you shouldn't start making and selling any trick you want no matter how new it is. It shouldn't take you long to get rich ripping off and selling the newest tricks on the market. Almost none of them have any legal protection from you doing that.

9th June 2007, 08:53 AM	#19
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by Bob Klase Even under that broad definition, "wider society" could mean a local magic group or magicians in general. But I wasn't speaking broadly, I meant the 'ethics' as defined in many dictionaries: "A set of principles of right conduct. "A theory or a system of moral values" It appears that "we" have also agreed to make it very expensive to obtain that protection via patent so that it's cost prohibitive for the vast majority of all magic- no one can spend $10,000 to protect a trick that might give them $6-8,000 in profit and put the method in public besides. Cost would generaly be less than 10K but I'm not suggesting fileing a patent. I'm simply saying that 20 years appears to be the length of time currently accepted in simular fields (movie special effects and the like) Quote: While this discussion is about giving the secret, if you want to go strictly with the law and ignore ethics/morales, there's no reason you shouldn't start making and selling any trick you want no matter how new it is. It shouldn't take you long to get rich ripping off and selling the newest tricks on the market. Almost none of them have any legal protection from you doing that. I suggest you look into the area of trade secrets. While the protection that offers is limited it does exist.

10th June 2007, 09:18 PM	#20
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,389	You seem to be missing the point. Originally Posted by geni Cost would generaly be less than 10K but I'm not suggesting fileing a patent. I'm simply saying that 20 years appears to be the length of time currently accepted in simular fields (movie special effects and the like) That applies to making and selling an invention- not giving out the secret (which is what this thread is about). While I agree that 20 years should be an acceptable length of time for an inventor to profit off a trick, that's not the subject. Originally Posted by geni I suggest you look into the area of trade secrets. While the protection that offers is limited it does exist. Magic in general (while it's full of unethical people) tends to rely on ethics to maintain secrets. The protection offered by trade secret law wouldn't apply very often.

12th June 2007, 01:09 PM	#21
sinclairmcevoy Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,330	I'd be interested in knowing how Chriss Angel levitated from one building to another. I saw it last night, and when the tape was sped up, he appeared to move, stop and move again about 4 times. Interesting trick.

12th June 2007, 07:13 PM	#22
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	Originally Posted by sinclairmcevoy I'd be interested in knowing how Chriss Angel levitated from one building to another. I saw it last night, and when the tape was sped up, he appeared to move, stop and move again about 4 times. Interesting trick. Chris Angel might be a good example of what IMHO would be an example of the ethics of magic revelation. His illusions are quite good, and assuming he is not using video effects (which by all accounts he is not) I have to honestly admit that I have not the slightest idea how many are done. I would say the following would be okay: If somebody revealed that one of his simple impromptu illusions was a take on a well known trick which was in many magic books, such as "The King Rising" or that it at least appeared to be that sort of trick. That's not really an exclusive thing, other than to say he did it very well. However for one of his more impressive illusions, if one came out and said "My uncle was in vegas when he did that and he saw the crew setting it up from his high hotel window and sent me these pictures where you can see that it is done by..." That would be NOT COOL. Eventhough it might not be a violation of law if it was seen or somehow it was otherwise figured out, it compromises an illusion which was basically a secret Or... am I missing something?

12th June 2007, 07:14 PM	#23
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 Or... am I missing something? It really rather depends on how you feel towards the idea that information should be free.

12th June 2007, 07:21 PM	#24
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,857	Originally Posted by Bob Klase That applies to making and selling an invention- not giving out the secret (which is what this thread is about). While I agree that 20 years should be an acceptable length of time for an inventor to profit off a trick, that's not the subject. I'm useing the figure of 20 as the time length for which perhaps it should not be OK to reveal how to do a trick. [qupte] Magic in general (while it's full of unethical people) tends to rely on ethics to maintain secrets. [/quote] Nah it's mostly relied on the ammount of effort to communicate secrets to a wide audence. Of course that doesn't really work any more. Quote: The protection offered by trade secret law wouldn't apply very often. Not yet. It will though. I suspect that the market for tricks known to only 2/3 people will increase in future. FWIW this is what wikipedians think on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ure_on_Wiki.21

12th June 2007, 08:59 PM	#25
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,389	Originally Posted by geni I suspect that the market for tricks known to only 2/3 people will increase in future. Can you name 5 tricks that are only known to 2/3 people? There are few that use new principles and many people with a working knowledge of magic in general can figure out the method for most new tricks. Originally Posted by geni FWIW this is what wikipedians think on the subject: Obviously there's no general agreement there. And a few are really pretty funny: Quote: That David Blaine will be less likely to be able to hornswaggle some wide-eyed teenager into believing in the paranormal is one of the positive benefits of having that information here. I wasn't aware that Blaine was "hornswaggling" anyone. But we all know how Sylvia Brown has been put out of business by the ease with which anyone can learn the basics of cold reading/

13th June 2007, 12:27 PM	#26
siqr New Blood Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka Posts: 8	There's the aspect of personal integrity when pointing out that a 'psychic' is using magic tricks. How can one honestly claim that, without knowing what the trick is? I know you can argue from common sense. But it's sooo much better if you know how the trick is done. The the only sure way to know how all those tricks are done is if the people who know how say so, freely and frequently. Then there's the educational aspect. The more you know how magical misdirection works the easier it becomes, surely, to spot the fake psychics.
	Last edited by siqr; 13th June 2007 at 12:31 PM.

13th June 2007, 02:29 PM	#27
DRBUZZ0 Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: The Command Bunker Posts: 3,320	Originally Posted by geni It really rather depends on how you feel towards the idea that information should be free. There are plenty of things which you are totally free to do and which are within the bounds of the law which are still an ass thing to do