Summation of IP points:
- Magic tricks themselves are not copyrightable.
- Copyrights apply to instructions on how to accomplish a magic trick that have been recorded in a tangible format, i.e. written down. Therefore, copies of the instructions taken from such records are forbidden under the copyright laws.
- Copyright infringement will be found where the copyrighted text and the accused text are substantially the same (paraphrase here as I don’t have the statute before me) and access to the copyrighted work is shown. At times, access will be inferred if the similarity between the accused and copyrighted works is strikingly similar (again a paraphrase).
- Generally speaking, only those who publish copyrighted works will be liable for infringement. If I recall correctly, linking to a website does not constitute copyright infringement.
- If a magic trick is patented, there is no stricture on describing the magic trick in its every detail; full disclosure of a patented method is required as the quid pro quo for the monopoly granted to the patentee.
- Patents grant a monopoly to the patentee on making, using, or selling the patented item, in this case a method (magic trick).
- Trade Secrets are a contractual creation in which parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of a piece of information.
- Trade Secrets may last indefinitely.
- Trade secrects may be legally reverse-engineered.
- Where the information that is the subject of a trade secret is available from a third party that is not under any contractual duty to keep the information secret, then the trade secret is not a secret and the contract that created the trade secret will not be enforceable against those who learn the protected information from the non-restricted third party.
Some of these things have been asserted already. The others are things that I know from my work as an intellectual property attorney. They are my own words but will be born out by citations if so desired. (I’m not actually looking forward to finding the cites but I could).
Based solely on what I’ve read in this thread, there are no concerns regarding direct patent infringement unless someone figures out how to actually perform the trick on the website, i.e. is able to practice the trick. Note that I’m assuming that there is a valid patent on the magic trick, a fact that I highly doubt. If there is a patent, and instructions on how to practice the invention are listed here, a crafty attorney may be able to argue that the board is liable for contributory infringement. But, since the information in a patent is already mandatorily in the public domain, this argument would not hold water.
Also based solely on what I’ve read in this thread, there are no concerns regarding trade secrets. This board is not under any contractual duty that I know of to keep all magic tricks secret. Therefore, receiving information from a poster on how to perform a magic trick should not give rise to any problems. I use the word “should” instead of “will” because I suppose that a poster could somehow let the mods know that their posts are full of trade secrets that are being illegally disclosed. In that case, the mods should delete posts to avoid problems. Liability will likely not accrue even where the illegal posts are not deleted, though arguing about whether liability will accrue can be expensive, even if you win.
Finally, based solely on what I’ve read here, there should not be any concerns about copyrights. As has already been said, copyrights don’t apply to magic tricks. Copyrights do apply to written instructions. Dropping copied text from a copyrighted set of instructions into a post is a copyright infringement. Nothing I have seen leads me to believe that the deleted instructions or links constituted copyright infringement. We should confirm, of course, that the written instructions that were deleted were in fact written by the poster in question and are not simply a cut and paste job. Linking to another website that has written instructions is not by itself a copyring infringement. The mere presence of the linked to instructions on the web might be an act of infringement, but the link to them is not, unless the SDMB runs the linked to site as well.
The bottom line is that in this case there does not appear to be any real issue of intellectual property infringement. I have in the past been frustrated by the conservatism of the mods on the board with respect to intellectual property rights, but in general really have no problem with their actions in this regard. Tuba’s actions in this case are inconsistent with past practice.
The ethics issue is debatable on its own merits, but I did not realize that posts were policed for ethical orthodoxy. My own opinion is that there is nothing unethical about outing a magic trick. Letting the cat out of the bag is the magician’s problem.
Which leads me to the issue of the high grand pooba of the magician’s union. Taken at face value, his assertion that people have been successfully sued for disclosing magic tricks is true. But it is an exceptionally biased and misleading statement because it does not address the specific issues of the set of circumstances before us. That statement is intended to mislead by inferring that this is one of those times that the parties involved will be sued and sued successfully. I admit that there are a few facts that we haven’t nailed down rolling around out there. But Mr. Magicians statement and Tuba’s reliance on it are getting darn near tin foil land.
This board will never obtain a guarantee from anyone that there will never be a copyright problem arising from a user’s post. Therefore they must be careful. They just need a bit of recalibration over this issue.
cj
(just be glad I deleted the appendix)