Ethics in Producing Magic Instruction
I am currently embroiled in a messy ethics situation in my local magic club. I’ll get more into the specific details another time, but basically, I have called for a vote to remove an officer of the club from their position for a major ethics violation. The response has been forceful — and most of it is personal attacks on me. A few have congratulated me for standing up and taking action, but they are in the minority.
A major problem in the magic world is that magic is not trademarked or copyrighted. Anyone can read a book or watch a DVD, and then write their own book or record their own DVD teaching the same material, and it’s not illegal. As a result, it has become necessary for members of the magic community (if they care about the art of magic), to support magicians and publishers who produce original work, and shun (and boycott) those who rip off others.
However, the situation is in a continual crisis, as more and more people take up magic as a hobby every day, and have no idea that any of this is going on. In their innocent ignorance, they purchase the knock-off items because they’re cheaper (in every sense of the word), and keep the scumbags in business.
For those who don’t quite see what’s wrong with selling magic instruction knock-offs, let me use an analogy. Let’s say a guy named Jeff wrote a dictionary. He didn’t invent any of the words, but he spent years gathering them into one place. He even learned to pronounce them all and use them properly in conversation. Then let’s say a couple of guys name Eddy and Robby read that dictionary, then published their own dictionary, mostly made up of the words in Jeff’s dictionary. They didn’t use all the words — they skipped the ones they had trouble pronouncing or understanding. They also added in some words not in Jeff’s dictionary, although they weren’t the same language. Then they published their book and called it a thesaurus, so it wouldn’t be so obvious that they copied most of it.
This kind of thing goes on all the time, on both a large scale and a small scale. In some cases, it’s not even obvious which product is the more ethical choice to purchase, and some research is required. But the biggest problem is that too many people just don’t care. Most people aren’t clever enough to write a dictionary, and know they’ll never accomplish anything themselves, so they aren’t worried about any personal loss due to this. So they happily buy the cheaper items and call themselves magicians.
They should be ashamed, but they are not. And they know who they are.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
it seems so much like you are all-so describing yourself. How often do you talk about all of the videos that you continuously download off of the net, burn to DVD, and give to your friends. im sure you didnt create or invent the videos, they are copyrighted, and those people whom you give the DVDs to have no right in having them cause they never payed for them. Think about it. Oh and just a little side note, Ed’s last name is not Ray. And in an analogy you aren’t actually supposed to use the real persons names, ie: Jeff(mcbride), Eddy(ray), and Robby(owner of magic makers). Why doesnt Jeff Mcbride confront Ed one on one. I think that would be the ethical thing to do. To put it bluntly, you, Shawn Milocheck are wrong on this one as you are on so many others. Good Day to you and God Bless.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Thanks for the anonymous, cowardly reply. Also, it’s full of lies. I do not download videos from the Internet. So, I don’t talk about all the videos I download from the Internet because there aren’t any. I know Ed’s last name is not Ray, you spelled my name wrong, and the simple fact that you are afraid to give your name tells me your opinions don’t count. Oh, and you get bonus idiot points for failing to refute a single claim I made about the rip off. The simple fact that you are attacking me instead of defending the culprits shows you understand that they are wrong — you can’t defend them because there is no defense.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 am
Allow me…..
Shawn you yourself admit to never viewing the DVD’s in question. I have also been told by Jeff, as you call him, that he has also not seen the DVD’s. This being said, you have made some serious claims against Ed without investigating all of the information in question. To me that is unresponsible.
On a side note you refer to the first persons comments as “cowardly”, some might suggest that emailing out a letter of un-varified claims, instead of bringing it up during the meeting, face to face with our members, could be cowardly.
The claims aside, I just feel you did not go about about presenting your information, or lack of, to the group properly.
I look forward to our next meeting.
Ryan
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Ryan,
The DVDs each have a table of contents. The plain and obvious proof of Jeff’s allegations is printed in black and white, and that is what I have brought to the attention of the club.
As I have explained repeatedly (including to you), the only reason the letter went out via e-mail instead of being read by me in person was that I was unable to speak to Ed privately before the meeting, and I thought it would be wrong to ambush him with no warning during the meeting.
And once again, I’d like to point out that I have received nothing but personal attacks on me from most of you since I opened my mouth on this topic. Why is that? You all know the truth. Ed has done this kind of thing too many times, and someone needed to say something. I am only trying to draw attention to it and cause people to pay attention and ask him to answer for it.
It’s perfectly fine if you think of Ed as a friend. As I have repeated over and over, Ed and I have never had any personal quarrel. I’m not trying to get him crucified or anything. It’s obvious now that many of you don’t consider me a friend anymore (if you ever did). I can deal with that, because if you’re going to blindly take sides without being able to defend your side and only attacking me personally, then I can see that I’m not losing much.
However, if I’m misjudging my attackers, then just explain why your harsh personal attacks are justified and somehow make sense considering the issue at hand. I’m a reasonable person, and so I’ll listen to reason.
Shawn
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Personally…
I have not personally attacked you.
Here is what I have asked…
1. you not bring this up in person instead of the email. You gave your reasons, I agree with some, and not with others.
2.Your not singing the letter. See above, and if you believe in these convictions you should be able to type your name at the end of any letter, or email.
3.I asked if you have seen the DVD’s before, and you admitted you have not, and neither have I.
In my opinion, you have made serious charges without serious investigation. While Jeff might be a trustworthy person, I would not just take his word, or anyones for gospel in an issue this serious. Espically when Jeff admits that he has not seen all of the information himself. In order for me to make an informed decision I must review all of the information at hand. Something I feel you have not done.
Just looking at a copy of the table of contents from Ed’s DVD I find things like…
Roy Benson move
Cardini Single Production
Ken Brooke Single Production
Garcia’s Eclipse Production
Garcia’s Million Dollar Card Production
Walter Gibson’s Interlock Production
I can not base a decision this important on this amount of information.
You also tend to preach about religon, and how people should investigate things and not just believe in them because someone says so. If you believe Ed is a fraud so be it, but you investigate and find out for yourself. If you do and find him to be a fraud then so be it.
Good Luck
Ryan
Just my thoughts.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Ryan,
Let me just address one of the points in your last e-mail, which by itself will address the others. It is true that people shouldn’t believe something just because someone else tells them. That’s called an “argument from authority.” However, there is a range here for how much you should trust someone based upon their qualifications. For example, Jeff McBride is not a doctor. If he gave me medical advice, I’d certainly look to other sources. He is not qualified to give such advice. However, McBride is a well-respected magician, known to be respected by other magicians who care very much about ethics. Also, he is the creator of the set of videos in question. Therefore, his “opinion” about whether he has been ripped off is a valid source from which we may draw our own conclusions.
Also: McBride is a busy guy — he’s always traveling, performing, teaching, or doing something on the go. Why would he take time out of his busy schedule to accuse some guy of ripping him off when he’s never even met that guy in his life? This is not proof, obviously, but it’s one more thing to think about.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
you say “Therefore, his “opinion” about whether he has been ripped off is a valid source from which we may draw our own conclusions.” Theres a difference between fact and opinions. You should not be basing your arguments off of opinions. I dont care how busy Mcbride is, if he is so bothered by this he should not have any problem making a little time to confront Ed himself. He shouldnt be needing a third party to do his dirty work. I mean think about it, you are taking Jeffs argument and using it against Ed. You didnt invent that argument so technically I guess you can say that you are stealing it from him. And i will sign off as anonymous for one very good reason, All you have been doing to those responding to you is personally attacking them. I dont need to take that crap from you.
God Bless!
Oh and P.S.:
This scumbag is off to the magic shop in Reading to buy some stuff. Hope you arent offended.
yours trully:
Scumbag