I wish to take issue with TubaDiva's recent magic tricks decision.

The BBQ Pit
1

I fully respect Ms. Diva’s right to issue whatever grand edicts she wants, however, I believe her reasoning in this thread to be flawed, and wish to express my opinion. While I neither expect or demand any action to be taken, perhaps by expressing a (seemingly) commonly-held view, my brilliant oratory will effect violent revolution. But probably not.

Many people of great talent and skill indeed earn their livelihood by performing magic tricks, however, with rare exception, the methods for performing all such tricks are known. As mentioned by pulykamell, explanations for most common magic tricks can be found in books in your local library, and on the Internet. TubaDiva seems to agree that this is the case, and that while tricks themselves are not copyrightable, explanations of them are. However, Tuba deleted a (presumably) original explanation by Trigonal Planar, on what I assume were ethical grounds.

I submit that explaining magic tricks is not unethical. Allow me to make an analogy. As a student of film, I have studied many techniques for creating special effects. Special effects are similar to magic tricks – they make you see something not normally possible, and the way they work is often hidden. Many people earn money by creating special effects and inventing new methods to do so (many of which are patented.) However, no one has ever objected to explanations of how special effects are created. I could go into great detail about bullet squibs, bluescreens and pyrotechnics, and I’m sure many people would find it interesting. Knowing how an effect is created does not diminish from the enoyment of an artfully executed effect, even if it’s a simple car explosion that’s been done a billion times before.

Books upon books have been written about special effects techniques, and people have posted GQ’s about them here, and they have been answered. A film is copyrightable, and effects devices and techniques used in a film may be patented, and a particular description of those things may be copyrighted, but no one would object to a wholly original description posted in GQ.

As a very, very, very amateur and unskilled student of magic, I feel that precisely the same principle applies to magic tricks. The only difference is cultural; many magicians have a strict code about revealing secrets. 99% of this is simply showmanship. The truth is, there are no more secrets in magic than there are in movies. Both can make people dissapear. It’s the context and performance that makes a magic show or movie enjoyable as art, whether or not you know how it’s done.

Therefore, I believe that instructions for performing magic tricks should be allowed on the board. Common courtesy would dictate that spoiler warnings be provided for people who do not want to know.

2

I concur.

What’s more, I’d like to congratulate/thank you for posting such a well thought out, nicely stated complaint. If more folks did this when they had a complaint (with the board or otherwise), this would be a much nicer place.

3

There’s something profoundly ironic about being prohibited from explaining magic tricks on a board ostensibly devoted to fighting igorance.

Are discussions of the methods psychics use to do their “readings” off-limits too? I mean, psychics depend on ignorance to make a living. It would be unethical to put Johnathan Edwards out of business!

:rolleyes:

4

I’ve been following the issue at hand with some interest, and was considering speaking up in the Pit myself. However, I think several very good points have been brought up, and maybe it’s a bit premature to pit TubaDiva’s decision until she’s had a chance to respond to the very accurate and very well thought-out points raised in the other thread.

5

A better analogy would be posting song lyrics, which isn’t allowed.

I’m still not sure where I stand on this. At first glance, without thinking it over too much, I think we should be able to speculate on how a trick is done by making [educated] guesses, as long as we don’t know for sure how the trick is actually done (ie - we bought it.) Since this rule is unenforcable, maybe we shouldn’t be allowed at all.

Like I said though, I’m still not sure where I stand on this.

6

No, that’s much worse analogy. That would be an analogy that completely misses the point of what a copyright is and what it protects.

A copyright protects only the literal words, not the ideas, information, or facts that they convey. Explaining how a magic trick was done, in your own words, does not violate copyright laws. Quoting song lyrics does.

7

Oh, and don’t take my word for it, take the US Copyright Office’s.

Here’s their FAQ list on “What Does Copyright Protect?”

Read at least the first Q&A, please. :slight_smile:

8

No, that’s a very bad analogy. Song lyrics (and music, etc) are copyrighted. Just like a TV show or a book or a painting. The method by which one plays power chords on a Fender is not copyrighted, and neither is a double-lift or French-drop. If you combine magical techniques to come up with something truly new and unique, it may be copyrightable, just as a unique melody is copyrightable, though I’m not sure. But your average card, coin, rope or rubberband trick does not fall into this category.

9

Ok, I guess legally it’s a worse analogy. Ethically it’s a better analogy. Psychics make their money by fooling and ripping people off. Magicians and musicians make their money by entertaining people.

10

/golf claps

11

So? Describing how, say, Houdini escaped from a giant football*, is akin to me telling you that The Beatles’ “Eleanor Rigby” is a song about the despair of the lonely. Quoting directly from a book Houdini wrote about escaping from a giant football would be akin to me quoting you the whole of the lyrics to “Eleanor Rigby.” Big difference.

*see Cecil’s column on same

12

Since I’m new here, I’ve been paying close attention to how the rules are specifically enforced. So that obviously led me to be interested in this topic, too. I have to agree with you, something seems extremely non-objective in how this topic was treated. I’m not sure why magicians were singled out to get copyright enforcement even past the point of the law, but I’m sure curious to find out.

13

Ethically, you may have a point, but one that works against you.

To wit: Nobody would pay to hear me sing. I have a rather poor voice to begin with, and I’ve had no training in singing technique. The same is true for most people, so why would anyone object to us knowing song lyrics, since we cannot possibly challenge the livelihood of those who wrote and/or sing them professionally?

I don’t defend that argument because, given the current state of US copyright law, it is indefensible in a court of law. But that objection simply does not apply to an original description of the execution of a magic trick. In the absence of that counterweight, what barrier can be reasonably constructed against the explication of magic tricks on these boards?

14

I’m squarely on TubaDiva’s side on this one. Let me explain my thinking.

John Edwards. He claims to be a real psychic, wizard, whatever. He’s obviously not, so to eradicate ignorance we need to be able to expose his tricks for what they are. If Penn and Teller were to claim to be able to do real magic, I’d be in favour of exposing them too.

As it is, they don’t. Prominent magicians like Penn, Teller, David Copperfield, and James Randi do a very good job exposing frauds and explaining their tricks. I see no reason to expose the tricks that they use to make a living. No, I don’t believe that Penn and Teller would go out of business if their tricks were explained here, but I don’t believe that Stephen King would go out of business if It were published here either, and I’m still against that. That the law is different is entirely irrelevant.

Magic tricks, performed by people who willingly admit that they are in fact performing tricks and nothing else, is one of the very few cases of ignorance that doesn’t need to be fought. Enjoy it.

15

Rubbish. If you don’t want to have the “magic” ruined, don’t open the threads. Magic tricks shouldn’t be some special protected class of discussion on the boards. Many people here have a great interest in finding out the mechanics behind the tricks and will not appreciate being told what particular ignorance “doesn’t need” to be fought.

Besides which, the decision has been couched in terms of intellectual copyright law. It’s been said before, but once again: only a particular expression of an idea is subject to copyright. Ideas or concepts themselves are not subject to protection. Explanation of a concept or a trick is not a breach of copyright law.

To take your example, only Stephen’s King’s specific expression in It is protected and not the ideas in the story; an explanation of the the plot of It is not a breach of copyright.

I’m embarrassed the Board has taken advice from magicians on a question of law. I hope the ruling will be changed.

16

Yes, but so does John Edward.

17

See, I’m waiting for Edwards to start using that sort of cold-reading trick on the campaign trail. How about something like:

Edwards: “I’m getting a G, or maybe a D. Yes, more like a D. Is there anyone here who knows something with a D?”

Kerry: “Deficit!”

Edwards: “I’m getting that Deficit is something important to you.”

Kerry: “Yes! The Deficit is too large and must be taken care of. Thank you, thank you, John Edwards.”

18

Good one Asterion, nearly made me crack up in front of a client!

I agree with the OP. There doesn’t seem to be any legal/moral/ethical basis for Mistress TubaDiva’s opinion, stance, or pulling the plug on the thread. I could use analogies and law to prove this, but dozens of people have already done that, so let me just offer my support.

Sam

19

Exactly. Maybe there should be a rule that anyone engaging in discussion of how magic tricks are performed should put a “Spoilers” warning in the thread title, just like with movies. But to ban such discussion outright is just silly.

It seems to me that discussing how magic tricks are performed is very similar to discussing the plot of a movie–you’re giving away the secret, but you’re not violating anyone’s copyright.

20

I suppose next we’ll have a ban on, say, carpentry threads. Because while telling people how to fix their homes isn’t illegal, if you do it yourself you’re putting a carpenter out of work, which is unethical. :rolleyes: