That reply wasn't directed at your post. It was directed at the quote listed in the top of my post.
--Jim
That reply wasn't directed at your post. It was directed at the quote listed in the top of my post.
--Jim
L
Liam Carrie
Guest
L
Liam Carrie
Guest
I personally would like to hear the opinions from the Artists at theory 11 about this injustice. Its just unexplainably crude. I first heard about the MM Ripping people off when i met lee asher in sorcerers safari last year. He Said Magic makers stole the ashers twist by renaming it the "Ghost Kings" and replacing the aces with kings using the exact same moves. Then Penguin Magic Stole lee's Thunderbird Production And called it their own "Starry Eyes Surprise" Its Just plain SICK
There is a difference between asking for permission and just crediting someone after using their work without permission. I think it is important that you understand that before you dismiss something as being borrowed and credited as acceptable, especially when the performer is alive and a working pro who is easily accessible through many avenues.
I have no idea what the circumstances are surrounding this or the MM copy of Lee's routine so I will ask a simple question: Did Oz or MM ask Lee to use his material prior to using it? Or did they think that simply crediting him was enough to copy portions of his work or the entirety of the work itself?
--Jim
L
Liam Carrie
Guest
To awnser your question when i met lee, He told me they stole it. They never asked, MM bought asher twist and marketed it under their own name of the ghost kings, and Penguin magic got thinderbird. Lee was not happy.
Penguin does same thing ALOT. One example that makes me angry, Luke Jermay's 10 Card Poker Deal, Mark Desouza invented that a decade ago. I saw him do it at a lecture. Penguin does alot of that. Just ignore it and don't buy it. 
Penguin does same thing ALOT. One example that makes me angry, Luke Jermay's 10 Card Poker Deal, Mark Desouza invented that a decade ago. I saw him do it at a lecture. Penguin does alot of that. Just ignore it and don't buy it.
Marc Desouza did not "invent" the 10 Card Poker Deal. The plot has been around for many years. Jermay's version is just that - another version of many.
If Mark Desouza didn't invent it and it has been around for years (which I doubt) it's not right that it is called LUKE JERMAY'S 10 Card Poker Deal.
Not knowing all the circumstances surrounding Luke's release I am inclined to believe that calling something Luke Jeremay's 10 Card Poker Deal would infer it was Luke's interpretation of the 10 Card Poker Deal. I think if you asked Luke he would tell you straight up he didn't invent the 10 card poker deal and this is merely his interpretation of the routine with his own twist on it.
--Jim
QFE. I was just going to say that. Jermay is not claiming he invented the effect. It's just his version of it.
Again, Marc did not invent the 10 Card Poker Deal. I just grabbed one manuscript off of my shelf - Psych-Out from Bruce Bernstein. Bruce's original published version goes back to 1986 - 21 years ago and in Bruce's manuscript he states this:
This routine is based on the clasic "Ten Card Poker Deal" routine in which, if the opponenet gets one particular card, often called the "Jonah" card, out of the ten, no matter what other four cards are chosen, he will always get the losing hand.
::::::::::
Then I ran across the Stewart Judah version and was fascinated by it, since it solved what was to me, the major problem in the ten card versions - namely that since your opponent always got the same"Jonah" card in his hand, he might easily realize what was happening
There you have it. In case you do not know, Stewart Judah was born in 1893 and was one of the top card guys back in the day.
What Marc has is his version of a classic card routine, the same as Luke Jermay.
Thanks for that Steve. Always nice to know the history behind things =)
--Jim
Thanks, but that's hardly THE history behind the effect. I just pulled one manuscript of many off of my shelf and that's what I found.
While there are many of us who love learning from and watching DVDs, our history is in print and there is much more magic in print than on DVD. If a magician's only reference point is DVD, you're missing out on over 100 years of magic plots, theory and history.
While there are many of us who love learning from and watching DVDs, our history is in print and there is much more magic in print than on DVD. If a magician's only reference point is DVD, you're missing out on over 100 years of magic plots, theory and history.
Honestly, the only thing we can do about it is not buy from them and just try to forget about them. If we do this, they will eventually go out of business, and we can finally have our big party. I myself have never bought a Magic Makers product, although I have gotten a couple from Penguin's promotions.
They are going very far with ripping off products as is a lot of major and non major magic Companies.
M.M. just came out with 'The very best from R.R.2.C.M.' and the same from Modern Coin Magic.
M.M. just came out with 'The very best from R.R.2.C.M.' and the same from Modern Coin Magic.
There's a sort of dual ethical problem here.
On the one hand, here is Joe Bob the Magnificent. He invents a brand new effect. He goes to a manufacturer, and gets it mass-produced to put on the shelf at magic stores.
Now you go to the magic store. You like this effect, and you want to do it, so you want to buy Joe Bob's effect. It's $50.
Meanwhile, over on the other side of the aisle is Billy Bob's version of the effect, shamelessly copied from Joe Bob's, and it's $20.
Both have been manufactured in China for $3. At the same factory, too. Probably with the exact same plastic in the exact same molds, and all they did between the runs was switch the cardstock in the box-packing machine. So there's no way anyone can tell the difference between the two effects.
So Billy Bob's $20 version leaves $17, of which $10 goes to the shopkeeper, $5 to the wholesaler, and $2 to Billy Bob (not his real name - he's actually a businessman in Taiwan).
Joe Bob's $50 version leaves $47, of which $15 goes to the shopkeeper, $10 to the wholesaler, and $22 goes to Joe Bob. Every single person involved in Joe Bob's effect makes more money from it, and it's my money.
Now, if the only difference between them is Joe Bob's name - exactly what makes it ethical to charge me an extra $30 for having that name on it?
I'll pay a little extra. I always shop at my local magic shop rather than ordering online, because I like to have a local magic shop, and if I don't shop there they won't stay around. I'd also like Joe Bob to keep releasing his effects, and if he doesn't make enough money doing it, he won't do it. So I'll pay an extra five or ten bucks. No problem. But why, exactly, should I pay more than twice the price?
It seems to me that when you charge far too much for something and bribe all the people along the supply chain to push it harder than your competitor's product, that's a little unethical, too. I can understand that you might make a few excuses so you can live with that, but I can just as readily make excuses that allow me to live with buying a cheaper knockoff. I simply don't see that either side of that debate has a moral high ground.
On the one hand, here is Joe Bob the Magnificent. He invents a brand new effect. He goes to a manufacturer, and gets it mass-produced to put on the shelf at magic stores.
Now you go to the magic store. You like this effect, and you want to do it, so you want to buy Joe Bob's effect. It's $50.
Meanwhile, over on the other side of the aisle is Billy Bob's version of the effect, shamelessly copied from Joe Bob's, and it's $20.
Both have been manufactured in China for $3. At the same factory, too. Probably with the exact same plastic in the exact same molds, and all they did between the runs was switch the cardstock in the box-packing machine. So there's no way anyone can tell the difference between the two effects.
So Billy Bob's $20 version leaves $17, of which $10 goes to the shopkeeper, $5 to the wholesaler, and $2 to Billy Bob (not his real name - he's actually a businessman in Taiwan).
Joe Bob's $50 version leaves $47, of which $15 goes to the shopkeeper, $10 to the wholesaler, and $22 goes to Joe Bob. Every single person involved in Joe Bob's effect makes more money from it, and it's my money.
Now, if the only difference between them is Joe Bob's name - exactly what makes it ethical to charge me an extra $30 for having that name on it?
I'll pay a little extra. I always shop at my local magic shop rather than ordering online, because I like to have a local magic shop, and if I don't shop there they won't stay around. I'd also like Joe Bob to keep releasing his effects, and if he doesn't make enough money doing it, he won't do it. So I'll pay an extra five or ten bucks. No problem. But why, exactly, should I pay more than twice the price?
It seems to me that when you charge far too much for something and bribe all the people along the supply chain to push it harder than your competitor's product, that's a little unethical, too. I can understand that you might make a few excuses so you can live with that, but I can just as readily make excuses that allow me to live with buying a cheaper knockoff. I simply don't see that either side of that debate has a moral high ground.