Earlier today I was directed to this thread due to [a flattering amount of] controversy. I would like to address all of you as well as Dan and Dave.

Originally Posted by dananddave For a guy who clearly puts time into the practice and study of this art I wonder why he feels it's okay to do what he's doing. No morals or respect whatsoever. I have sent him a kind email asking to take our products off but have yet to receive a reply. Thanks, dan

I replied to your email immediately after I received it. Apparently it didn't get through, so I will post it here, as well as resend it, to ensure that it gets to you this time.

"David, you may want to have your lawyer familiarize you with copyright and trademark law. As per your request I will not be removing any content from my website. On the other hand, It isn't my nature to be inherently cruel or unfair. If you are interested in furthering this dialogue reconsider my invitation to get to know each other and contact me by phone.

Sincerely,
Laurence Miller
(REMOVED BY MOD)
(Phone number censored)"

********

Magic is kind of like cooking in that the ingredients don't change much, it's more like what you do with them. I've been doing magic for a little over 12 years now. I have a lot of ideas. Some are good, some are bad, but either way, I must acknowledge that someone somewhere either has had or will have the same idea. Tricks, flourishes and sleights should not be monopolized by a publisher claiming it is their 'original idea.' There's no credit--just persuasive marketing. This is why copyrights are not granted to methods.

The publication/distrubution of tricks and flourishes seems to imply that a publisher/distributer deserves 'credit.' An observed example of this is the credit that goes to S.W. Erdnase for many fundamentals and classic moves. Erdnase was the pseudonym of an author whose identity was never revealed, making him an imaginary figure. No one knows if he even was a magician at all--it's likely that he merely wrote a compilation of cheats he learned elsewhere, with no 'credit' given. Yet, we all respect him, don't we? I don't see any boycotts of "Expert at the Card Table."

I am aiming to provide a resource for people like me--who want to invest in learning magic from those who are already experienced. Putting prices on magic tutorials makes sleight of hand more exclusive to a community than posting free videos on Youtube.

-Laurence Miller

[Taylor]

Of course you can find legal matters are easily bypassed on a subject like this, but making a quick buck off of obviously peoples already published material is wrong. I can understand your point of view where magicians / flourishes over time will come up with similar, and even identical methods. Yet knowing about previous conceived methods and marketing them anyway is a douche way to make a living grow up.

[Chris Bailey]

Originally Posted by bicycleman The publication/distrubution of tricks and flourishes seems to imply that a publisher/distributer deserves 'credit.' An observed example of this is the credit that goes to S.W. Erdnase for many fundamentals and classic moves. Erdnase was the pseudonym of an author whose identity was never revealed, making him an imaginary figure. No one knows if he even was a magician at all--it's likely that he merely wrote a compilation of cheats he learned elsewhere, with no 'credit' given. Yet, we all respect him, don't we? I don't see any boycotts of "Expert at the Card Table." -Laurence Miller

The key is discretion, people have to use good judgment. The Erdnase example really holds no water anyway; you have an anonymous author, who admits that most of the ideas are not his, and who doesn't/didn't wish to receive credit himself for the ideas. The book was also published in an extremely thin market as opposed to our current saturated market.

Let me give you a more applicable scenario, something very unique and original like Raise Rise. How long do you think Ray Kosby sat around fooling with the ambitious riser move creating and subsequently refining the effect? As we all know, time is money. He put the time and the effort in, and he came up with it, and most people acknowledge that as far as unique ideas go it's completely out of left field.

You on the other hand learn it from his video in about ten minutes, and sell it on your website for $6 (none of which goes to Mr. Kosby).

Originally Posted by bicycleman I am aiming to provide a resource for people like me--who want to invest in learning magic from those who are already experienced. Putting prices on magic tutorials makes sleight of hand more exclusive to a community than posting free videos on Youtube.

You're obviously a true philanthropist, so I'll let you in on a time saver. You can save yourself all of the trouble of making DVD's and a fancy website by directing people who want to learn magic to a place where they can learn things from the people who created them.

Sarcasm aside, I think you're either lying to us, or you're lying to yourself... and us. The key here is that they're "investing" in learning magic by giving their money to YOU, and in return, you're giving them other people's ideas and material.

Lastly, but by no means least...ly, Making a video tutorial available for a sum of money DOES NOT make anything exclusive or prohibitive, because (this is key now) it doesn't get rid of the youtube clips, it only adds to them.

All the best,
Chris

[monark]

Obviously you are skilled with the cards, per your videos. You have put in the practice to make the moves look nice. However, I don't (and I think that most people don't) agree with how you are applying your skills. I don't mean to make money. Hell, that's what most people are out to do. Dan and Dave are out to make money with their ideas too. There's nothing wrong with that. Where the issue takes place is how it is being earned.

On your site, it lists many tutorials for sale. Now, normally that isn't a big deal. However, there are several items that are what could be considered blatant rip offs of other people's material. Now, in your above post, you wrote one line that make it sound like this is simply a case of independent creation ("I have a lot of ideas. Some are good, some are bad, but either way, I must acknowledge that someone somewhere either has had or will have the same idea"). Now, that may or may not have been what you meant when writing this, but either way, there are still several examples that could be considered 'rip offs'. With 2 of these moves, the names weren't even changed from there original names (Silver Surfer and Diving Board Double), while 2 of the others have strikingly similar names ("Sybil False" and "Worm Cut" in place of False Sybil and Werm Cut). This sounds like another case of "Magic Makers" syndrome, and if you've been a member of the magic community as long as you say, you'd know what reputation they have with people...

So, be it as it may, there could be no legal lines that you are actually crossing. That I'm not sure of as I am not a law major. But as far as ethics goes, I think that you definitely crossed a line. You obviously have the skills, so why not concentrate on creating and marketing your own material for all to enjoy and learn from. I really hate to see your hard work go to waste, but I know that I won't support it, and I think that many others (at least here) won't either. It would be great to see you put out your own material. With your skills, I think that it could be successful.

Well, with all of that being said, I'll step back and leave well enough alone. This is really between you and Dan and Dave anyway. Hopefully you guys can reach some sort of agreement on this issue...

*Edit* - I was just pointed to several other items that further my above point. On your site, you say the following: "These are the best, newest, rarest, and most valuable sleights and flourishes that I have to offer you, my friend. They are my babies. Very few people in the magic community have seen these, I've really kept them hard under wraps until now." There is at least one move that is again named exactly the same as the move that has already been published (Cherry Control) and other that is at least named close to another move, and from what I've seen, I have a feeling it probably looks a lot like it too ("One Hand Clip Shift" for Clip Shift). I just don't see you 'independently creating' AND naming 5 or more of the EXACT same moves that have previously been published. Honestly, it would be more dignified for you to just come out and say "yes, these are not my moves, and I am just trying to make a quick buck off of teaching them" rather than claiming them as your own... Again, my 2 cents for what it's worth...

[tkh]

Dude you say you sell things like a porper for 8 bucks and then they actually cost 500 bucks, that definately has to be illegal...

But really, this is completely unethical, I don't understand why someone as skilled as you doesn't see the value in creating original material, and the value that a person holds in their own material.

[woodman]

Guys, I know this person. I used to live in Seattle where every Saturday we had big sessions with the big guns around the city. (Jack Carpenter, Steve Mayhew, Steve Dobson, Rob Stevens, the likes) This guy shows up and being nice magicians we ALL are, we show our material to him with open heart. He is a nice guy in person, but his ethics in magic is really bad. Until we started finding out he was really really shady. (He would give out fake numbers to everyone! Even people who thought were friends.)

Before this bicycleman website, He made TWO DVDs teaching many sleight of hands that WE taught him. Many of them were underground pet moves done by the group. This included the "Pull pass" which is really called the P.S. Pass, and Steve Dobson's Pet card routine "Aces to Jacks". We found out what he was doing and basically black listed him from the community in Seattle. We actually heard that he made so many DVDs, and that no one wanted to buy them that he had to throw all the DVDs into his trunk and drive cross country and try to sell them personally to Murphy's Magic because he got a bad reputation.

It's one thing to teach other people's materials because it's apart of your routine, but why not even CREDIT the person who made it in the video, and CALL it by the right name? I wouldn't have as much beef with this guy if he didn't just say in his videos "this is made by Such-and-Such and It's called Blah, If you like this, please support them at here." No, He has to go and Re-name it to some generic name and hide behind it. I would know, I showed him my Color change YEARS ago, and I am about to publish it and instead he adds it into his "NEW Stuff Goodies" under the name "Chang Photo Change".

Basically its this. This guy doesn't give a Sh*t. And if Laurnace is reading this, knock some sense into your head. There are better ways to get a "quick buck" than selling other people's materials.

-Tony Chang

[neutrino]

Guys, relax. No one is going to buy anything from this guy. I mean - let's say I want to learn the Clipshift, or the Cascade Control or the Asher Twist. If I really want to learn these moves, I will buy Chad's DVD, or Dan and Dave on demand or Lee Asher's video. Even if this guy teaches the moves for free, sure, I will definitely look at it, but just to know what the move is all about in general, and I will still buy the creator's products (or products by someone who has a permission from the creator) to learn all the subtleties. I cannot imagine I can learn more from this guy than from the original creator of the trick.

[monark]

Yes but not everyone will know that he is not the original creator. You and I may know who originally created the Clip Shift or the Asher Twist, but someone who is just starting may not, and that is where the integrity of the originator is compromised.

No one here may buy the DVDs/tutorials, but somewhere, someone is bound too, and in the long run they will be cheated because they will not know who originally devised the material...

[KieranMackrell]

i think its just wrong like the others have said. It's ok if you want to teach effects that utilize certain sleights but give credit to the original creator or offer a different method, like dan and dav do for the queens explanation. BY removing the few videos everyone here is concerned with you are guaranteed to have a wider market in the future.

[trashmanf]

Holy crap this guy lives in Seattle? I should meet up and jam with him. I'll teach him my pet move I've been working on, the 'get kicked in the nuts' sleight (hope he doesnt publish it)

Seriously bicycleman you even spelled "WERM" wrong.