61–70 of 80 posts
Am I the only one who believes, after reading this article, that Gerard Bakardy is a creation of Teller's?
So, if this is a hoax, it's a long time in the making (this page was last updated in November 2009).
Gerard Bakardy reuploaded his version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs 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…
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.
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 sa…
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.
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.
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.
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 sa…
> I think that the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort 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…
Just to play devils advocate, why not? Wouldn't that result in many more old books being scanned that otherwise wouldn't be? Wouldn't competition force down the price of the popular old books?
Gerard Bakardy reuploaded his version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs 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…
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 t…
It is not the same video, it is the same trick done with different patter, and feel. Sorry if that is not clear, I can tell by the reading the intention I was trying to convey was not the intention people got.
He reuploaded him doing the trick with different patter, not the same video.
Gerard Bakardy reuploaded his version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkq4XfFgCYs 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…
Judging by the description of the video in the article, this isn't the same video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think that the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort 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…
For example, just because I scan an old book doesn't mean I should own a copyright on the scan. Just to play devils advocate, why not? Wouldn't that result in many more old books being scanned that otherwise wouldn't be? Wouldn't competition force down the price of the popular old books?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The argument (which I'm by no means seeking to make) would presumably be that knockoffs don't necessarily have to capture the same spirit as the original in order to devalue the original — and, indeed, the very fact that they don't capture the spirit of the original is what makes their devaluing influence most powerful.
Perhaps magic tricks should have the same thing: an automatic license for "covers", where if you want to perform someone else's trick you pay a standardized, small fee to the original inventor.