I think the most common argument I hear against IP protections for software is that so much of it is obvious, or incremental. We have companies patenting and suing over techniques which are considered common knowledge by many programmers. How silly was it that Oracle's recent huge lawsuit ended up hinging on a range check function?
But is that the same as a masterful magic trick? And if not, should we treat it the same?
I don't think it's the same thing at all. A master magician might easily spend years practicing a trick -- the right mechanics, the right theatricality, anticipating the audience response, coming up with some new illusion -- and then, as the article describes, if that trick is self-contained enough, someone else might see it and work out how it's done and then sell the same trick to people who haven't invested anywhere near as much effort in practicing it.
So I don't think that we can say, well, this is just like software, it's an idea, and therefore we shouldn't protect it. I think that the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort -- to safeguard someone's livelihood if they spent years developing an idea, so that someone else wouldn't simply come along immediately afterward and usurp the idea and rob that person of all of the effort that they invested in developing it.
There's this huge difference in effort between writing simple functions in software and developing masterful magic tricks, and we should recognize that.
Nor do I think that Penn & Teller are at all guilty of hypocrisy. I think it's enough to have just seen some episodes of Fool Us to see that they can have huge amounts of respect for magicians who copy their tricks, so long as those magicians add something unique to it. That's all they ask: take what we do, and do it better.
I can not imagine defending the reverse engineering and subsequent sale of someone else's unique illusion under the umbrella that "software patents are bad".
I am somewhat more dismayed that the article seemed to present a good enough case for this all on its own, but the discussion so far is ignoring it -- almost as if everyone just skimmed it.
Just because something takes effort does not mean it should be protected. Just because a person could make more money by having exclusivity does not mean that thing should be protected.
I haven't thought about the issue of magic tricks enough to know what I think about it, but I definitely resist the notion that something should be protected simply because it took work to create. That way leads to a society where everything is pay-per-view. For example, just because I scan an old book doesn't mean I should own a copyright on the scan.
>the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort //
The idea from the point of view of the populus is to encourage innovation and open cultural expression. A corollary of that is the protection of livelihood of creators/inventors if that is required to support the general aims.
So are illusionists who're creating innovative cultural expressions of their art ceasing to create for want of funding and because others are following their lead? Or are such illusionists who create, model and use novel illusions able to generate a reasonable return for that good without additional IP protection and thus with the addition of such works entering the public domain at the earliest possible point.
[I concede I've not read the article yet (shock!) as it was blocked for me].
I am fine with the literary aspects of it being protected provided that the practical aspects are not, or vice versa. Of if Teller wants the practical aspects protected, he can file for a patent, providing directions for someone reasonably skilled in the art, to understand what he is doing.
What I am not fine with is this idea that IP is protected for its own sake. We need to remember that it is a quid quo pro, and not merely a reward for entertainers.
I understand Teller wants to protect an idea he came up with
Given how much Penn & Teller built their careers on exposing the tricks of other magicians who had guarded their secrets for decades (and getting a lot of stage magicians made at the duo), it's pretty ironic for Teller to now decide he wants government protection for a trick of his.
Disclaimer: esquire.com is not working for me right now so I haven't read the original article yet; I'm basing this on your comment.
Did you read the article? That is not the same video or trick that Teller is suing over.
Article version:
> Against a crimson curtain, Bakardy had erected an easel with what looked like a large pad of white paper on it. Perhaps six feet in front of the easel sat a small wood table bearing a glass Coke bottle filled with water. That bottle also contained a single rose. A spotlight, outside of the camera's view, cast the rose's shadow on the paper on the easel. Dressed in a dark suit, Bakardy appeared in the frame carrying a large knife in his right hand. He sliced it deep into the rose's shadow. And when he cut into its shadow, something impossible happened: The corresponding part of the rose fell off the stem and onto the table. Petal by petal, Bakardy cut at the rose's shadow until that Coke bottle somehow held only a decapitated stem, which he removed as though to demonstrate the absence of wires. He then lifted up the bottle itself — still no strings attached — and poured out the water. Ta-da.
As other people have mentioned Penn & Teller don't have a problem with people copying their ideas & improving them or performing them in a different way.
The problem here is that the chap was then SELLING the trick for thousands of dollars, that's where Teller started to have a problem with it.
That's the big question, with a universal application: that tension between the fact that knockoffs have a diluting effect on the original, and the idea that if your idea can so readily be copied it's perhaps not worthy of protection.
Libertarianism is rather diverse when it comes to IP. Some think there should be no IP (it infringes free speech). Some think there should be IP, but enforced through the market via contracts. And some, such as those who lean toward the Objectivist side of things, consider it essential.
There's also an interesting parallel with standup comedy. At least here in the UK, the stealing of jokes by mainstream comedians from alternative performers is — while not accepted — viewed by the victims of the theft as just one of those things that happens, something to be ridiculed rather than something that can or should be fought.
This can sustain itself in part because there is a relatively clear divide between the mainstream and alternative comedy circuit.
Within the mainstream circuit there is much more of a culture of sharing material, so one can be of the opinion that joke theft is just something that happens on the mainstream circuit.
It doesn't majorly impact the victims on the alternative circuit because the audiences are different, and the concept of ownership of material within the alternative circuit is a lot stronger and so the people who matter will still attribute it to you.
I don't know enough about magic to know if there is or isn't a similar divide.
One name comes to mind when you mention the above: Robin Williams. There is still talk of him paying off comics after indirectly doing their material on stage or on television.
Especially interesting when viewed in the context of recent patent disputes in the tech world. To hear Teller talk and to hear his performances described conveys that ethereal, intangible quality that "the real thing" has and that knockoffs generally fail to capture — a quality that seems instinctively to be deserving of protection.
If the "knockoffs" can't capture it, why does it need protection? The logic doesn't work there. You could just as easily defend the cynical interpretation that Teller is looking to "defend" (via the monopoly status of his tricks) his quite substantial revenue stream. That doesn't seem so deserving of protection to me.
It's easy to dismiss Teller because he works in Vegas in a rather quirky profession. But his is a peculiarly deep, sensitive and beautiful mind. I tend to love everything he writes, and most things written about him.
I think you should see the real version and not an explanation of the version first. Watching this could ruin the suspense and enjoyment one might find watching the real performance.
I've been to their vegas show this August and I swear, it's something that I'll carry for me for a long time, if not forever. I couldn't believe my eyes and the feeling of witnessing those tricks live right in front of you is indescribable.
It would be funny if copyright in tech was treated like it was in magic.
All of the techie people instead of deriding copyright would instead insult and attack anyone who used any code remotely similar making sure to not stay in the same company of someone who would dare write even a version of a sorting function.
taking this back to technology, and I'm thinking of Apple vs Samsung here. What do you all think?
Is scroll bounce magical, the way Teller's Shadow is? It is a lie, we all know that digital screens do not have bounces, and that's what surprises us and pleases us. What about slide to unlock?
Honestly, I'm torn by this. As much as I cherish things magical, I couldn't see how public interests would be served by giving these illusions exclusivity.
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|13 years ago|reply
But is that the same as a masterful magic trick? And if not, should we treat it the same?
I don't think it's the same thing at all. A master magician might easily spend years practicing a trick -- the right mechanics, the right theatricality, anticipating the audience response, coming up with some new illusion -- and then, as the article describes, if that trick is self-contained enough, someone else might see it and work out how it's done and then sell the same trick to people who haven't invested anywhere near as much effort in practicing it.
So I don't think that we can say, well, this is just like software, it's an idea, and therefore we shouldn't protect it. I think that the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort -- to safeguard someone's livelihood if they spent years developing an idea, so that someone else wouldn't simply come along immediately afterward and usurp the idea and rob that person of all of the effort that they invested in developing it.
There's this huge difference in effort between writing simple functions in software and developing masterful magic tricks, and we should recognize that.
Nor do I think that Penn & Teller are at all guilty of hypocrisy. I think it's enough to have just seen some episodes of Fool Us to see that they can have huge amounts of respect for magicians who copy their tricks, so long as those magicians add something unique to it. That's all they ask: take what we do, and do it better.
I can not imagine defending the reverse engineering and subsequent sale of someone else's unique illusion under the umbrella that "software patents are bad".
I am somewhat more dismayed that the article seemed to present a good enough case for this all on its own, but the discussion so far is ignoring it -- almost as if everyone just skimmed it.
[+] [-] haberman|13 years ago|reply
No, this is know as a "sweat of the brow" interpretation and has been rejected by the US Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
Just because something takes effort does not mean it should be protected. Just because a person could make more money by having exclusivity does not mean that thing should be protected.
I haven't thought about the issue of magic tricks enough to know what I think about it, but I definitely resist the notion that something should be protected simply because it took work to create. That way leads to a society where everything is pay-per-view. For example, just because I scan an old book doesn't mean I should own a copyright on the scan.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|13 years ago|reply
The idea from the point of view of the populus is to encourage innovation and open cultural expression. A corollary of that is the protection of livelihood of creators/inventors if that is required to support the general aims.
So are illusionists who're creating innovative cultural expressions of their art ceasing to create for want of funding and because others are following their lead? Or are such illusionists who create, model and use novel illusions able to generate a reasonable return for that good without additional IP protection and thus with the addition of such works entering the public domain at the earliest possible point.
[I concede I've not read the article yet (shock!) as it was blocked for me].
[+] [-] einhverfr|13 years ago|reply
What I am not fine with is this idea that IP is protected for its own sake. We need to remember that it is a quid quo pro, and not merely a reward for entertainers.
[+] [-] drhowarddrfine|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AndyNemmity|13 years ago|reply
The style couldn't be more different. The "effect" is the same, but the style is light years apart.
I don't believe you should be able to copyright an effect, and it's likely he's not even using the same effect.
I understand Teller wants to protect an idea he came up with, but I think it's protected simply by the grace and beauty of his version.
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
Given how much Penn & Teller built their careers on exposing the tricks of other magicians who had guarded their secrets for decades (and getting a lot of stage magicians made at the duo), it's pretty ironic for Teller to now decide he wants government protection for a trick of his.
Disclaimer: esquire.com is not working for me right now so I haven't read the original article yet; I'm basing this on your comment.
[+] [-] ZoFreX|13 years ago|reply
Article version:
> Against a crimson curtain, Bakardy had erected an easel with what looked like a large pad of white paper on it. Perhaps six feet in front of the easel sat a small wood table bearing a glass Coke bottle filled with water. That bottle also contained a single rose. A spotlight, outside of the camera's view, cast the rose's shadow on the paper on the easel. Dressed in a dark suit, Bakardy appeared in the frame carrying a large knife in his right hand. He sliced it deep into the rose's shadow. And when he cut into its shadow, something impossible happened: The corresponding part of the rose fell off the stem and onto the table. Petal by petal, Bakardy cut at the rose's shadow until that Coke bottle somehow held only a decapitated stem, which he removed as though to demonstrate the absence of wires. He then lifted up the bottle itself — still no strings attached — and poured out the water. Ta-da.
[+] [-] Stubbs|13 years ago|reply
The problem here is that the chap was then SELLING the trick for thousands of dollars, that's where Teller started to have a problem with it.
[+] [-] robmil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajanuary|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] modeless|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukevdp|13 years ago|reply
Penn has talked about this issue before on Penn Point as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlEBh_98lIo
[+] [-] eric_bullington|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robmil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnosis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajanuary|13 years ago|reply
Within the mainstream circuit there is much more of a culture of sharing material, so one can be of the opinion that joke theft is just something that happens on the mainstream circuit.
It doesn't majorly impact the victims on the alternative circuit because the audiences are different, and the concept of ownership of material within the alternative circuit is a lot stronger and so the people who matter will still attribute it to you.
I don't know enough about magic to know if there is or isn't a similar divide.
[+] [-] brownie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robmil|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bud|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vivtek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orjan|13 years ago|reply
So, if this is a hoax, it's a long time in the making (this page was last updated in November 2009).
[+] [-] Vivtek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathannecro|13 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un1pNtmYguA
[+] [-] AndyNemmity|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asdfprou|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] udpheaders|13 years ago|reply
It was worth the read just for that alone.
[+] [-] pqdbr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naturalethic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thesash|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndyNemmity|13 years ago|reply
All of the techie people instead of deriding copyright would instead insult and attack anyone who used any code remotely similar making sure to not stay in the same company of someone who would dare write even a version of a sorting function.
[+] [-] teyc|13 years ago|reply
Is scroll bounce magical, the way Teller's Shadow is? It is a lie, we all know that digital screens do not have bounces, and that's what surprises us and pleases us. What about slide to unlock?
Honestly, I'm torn by this. As much as I cherish things magical, I couldn't see how public interests would be served by giving these illusions exclusivity.
[+] [-] sneak|13 years ago|reply
That said, you can't steal an idea. It's physically impossible. The original idea-haver still has it.
[+] [-] pydave|13 years ago|reply
;)
[+] [-] madprops|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gluegeorge|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roymabookie|13 years ago|reply