

Silent magician Teller files copyright suit over "stolen" shadow trick - pwg
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/silent-magician-teller-files-copyright-suit-over-stolen-shadow-trick.ars

======
dantheman
This makes me sad, if the guy figured it out on his own - I don't see what the
problem is.

~~~
naner
_Bakardy sells a kit—including a fake rose, instructions, and a DVD—for about
$3,000._

 _Teller had Bakardy's video removed with a DMCA takedown notice, then called
Bakardy to demand that the magician stop using his routine. Teller offered to
buy Bakardy out, but they were unable to agree on a price. So Teller sued
Bakardy last week in a Nevada federal court._

It looks like Teller is upset at the crass commercializaiton of his work.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
Which is interesting as Penn & Teller have made a career out of showing how
tricks are done (and being so skilled that even when you know how it is done
you are still amazed).

~~~
glenra
> Penn & Teller have made a career out of showing how tricks are done

No they haven't. P&T don't really show how tricks are done. They especially
don't reveal big secrets used by other magicians. The notion that they're
doing something transgressive that makes other magicians dislike them is just
a schtick they came up with for publicity purposes.

When P&T do "reveals" they are usually mock reveals - revealing a technique
that they're _not actually using_ which often was _invented_ specifically for
the purpose of being revealed. Or they're "revealing" something that everybody
already knows which in no way detracts from the enjoyment of the trick. And
sometimes they're just riffing on the psychology of magic, showing us how even
when you're trying hard not to be fooled you can still fool yourself.

(The clear Cups And Balls might be an exception to this general rule. That's
the only one I can think of that more-or-less fits your description.)

------
GigabyteCoin
Blatantly copying somebody's magic trick from which they make a living from
and then literally packaging and selling it as your own is downright dirty.

~~~
wdewind
What do you think software developers do for a living?

~~~
rollypolly
Software is a little different. It generally comes with a license specifying
what can or can't be done with it.

~~~
wdewind
Sorry I should've been clearer. If as software developers you are under the
impression that you are not stealing other people's jobs (aka tricks) by
packaging them, making them more efficient, and selling them more cheaply, you
are wrong.

I love Penn and Teller but I was pretty bummed to read this story, it's so
anti-competitive, and Penn's comments smacked of elitism, especially about how
"elegant" the "real" way Teller did the trick was.

~~~
GigabyteCoin
There is a difference between public common knowledge on "what is good
programming practice" and a trick that teller came up with on his own time and
made a point telling nobody about.

~~~
wdewind
Still missing my point. Software industry profits by making things more
efficient. This removes jobs. Robotics is a great example. Whats the
difference between packaging a magic trick one uses to make their living, and
a manufacturing skill?

------
pazimzadeh
Some of Teller's bookmarks are very...interesting.

[http://ia601207.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.869...](http://ia601207.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.86951/gov.uscourts.nvd.86951.1.3.pdf)

~~~
StavrosK
What, mantube? I didn't even know that existed, I was surprised that it was
there. I guess I never really concerned myself with Teller's sexuality, and
why would I start now...

~~~
pazimzadeh
CFselect too, and possibly Corbin.

------
guscost
I'm guessing that Teller is mostly worried about bad magicians undermining his
trick by doing the same routine and not fooling audiences as well as he can.
Not sure exactly how the law can help at this point, though.

------
baddox
This is surprising, given Penn and Teller's political and philosophical
beliefs.

~~~
AndyNemmity
I don't see why. They are Libertarians (American style). There is nothing in
US Libertarianism that is against copyrights.

Can you elaborate about what part you find surprising?

Copyrights are an extension of property rights, which US Libertarians consider
very important.

~~~
nextparadigms
I don't think "Intellectual Property" is like physical property at all, but
that's a whole other discussion. I believe copyrights have seen (been pushed
by lobbyists) as property rights only in the past few decades.

~~~
tzs
That's not correct. IP has been viewed as a property right for approximately
200 years.

It goes back to classical libertarian theories of property, and how a person
has a natural right to the fruits of his labor. Well, that's in the US, where
our legal philosophy was strongly influenced by Locke. In Europe, their
intellectual property philosophy was more shaped by Hegel, and the idea that
the creations of your mind are an extension of your personality, and so for
someone to use your creations without permission would be a violation of your
personalty.

Those who prefer to analyze from an economic viewpoint rather than a
philosophical viewpoint also have long considered IP a form of property--
because that's the whole point of IP economically in a free market system. For
a free market to work with a good, that good needs to have certain attributes.
Goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludible, like intellectual goods, do
not work with a free market. In order to try to make the free market work to
determine the allocation of resources to production of intellectual goods, we
use the law to artificially give intellectual goods those aspects of real
property that free markets need.

------
cypherpunks01
How is this done?

------
f6enter
It's an _illusion_ ; tricks are for whores.

