Hi Stuart--
I've had a number of enlightening conversations on this, including one with Marc DeSouza (the chair of the SAM ethics committee), which I'll place here:
Hi Marc-- Thanks so much for contacting me directly on this. Teaching magic tricks in a format like Scam School's is an ethically tricky thing, especially when we're surrounded my so many blatant ripoffs of magic's greatest creators. I sometimes feel like a missionary in a land of heathens when I try to instill a sense of respect for magic and (more importantly) its creators.
Here are few of my thoughts. It would mean a lot to me to hear your opinions on them:
First, it's important to remember that Scam School isn't a TV show, and there isn't a single person who is watching who didn't specifically seek it out. I strongly believe that YouTube is the internet's library; it's the #2 search engine in the world largely because it's where we go to learn how to dance, apply makeup, bake cupcakes, calculate integrals, play chess, repair vehicles, and yes, learn magic. Scam School is just one volume sitting at the 21st century's version of 793.8.
Over the last 5 years I've received thousands of emails and questions from people who are actually performing these effects, and it's become increasingly clear to me that everyone watching the show are magic students, and it seems to be my responsibility to teach good, beginner-level magic.
Obviously not all our episodes are about magic tricks, but when deciding if a particular magic trick is right for scam school, there are three questions I ask:
Is the effect beginner-level appropriate? I want each scam school effect to be dead-simple, and something they could perform tonight. To me, the difference between teaching and exposure is only one thing: when the lesson is over, can they perform the trick? If they can and do, then clearly you've been teaching them. If they cannot, then you've merely scratched the itch of their curiosity, and that's exposure.
Can the effect be performed without ever setting foot into a magic shop? Maybe this is just me, but I don't like beginners thinking that magic is in the props, or that magic is a thing you buy. Of course we need *something* to do our tricks with, but whenever possible, I want to see everything on Scam School made at home. This is the same reason I don't recommend people buy pre-made torches when they learn to eat fire. Also: this goes back to the exposure question: if you can and do make your own stripper deck this afternoon, then clearly you were just taught something. If you can't do the trick because you don't happen to live near a magic shop, then you just had something exposed.
Is there any currently-living magician who invented or owns the rights to this effect? If so, then it only makes it onto Scam School if I get the creator's explicit permission. This is how we featured material from Banachek, Michael Ammar, Diamond Jim Tyler, Dan Martin, Danny Garcia, Rich Ferguson, Robert Strong, Andrew Mayne, Robert Neale, and Martin Gardner (who I got to meet and discuss Scam School with before his passing). This is a very important one for me that I've often discussed with Jonathan Bayme of Theory11. We're dealing with rampant piracy of marketed effects both on bittorrent and via explanations on YouTube, and it's only by building a culture of respect for magic creators that we can keep the magic marketplace thriving.
From what I've seen, the two complaints on this episode seem to be that this is a marketed effect, and that it's used by professionals.
On the issue of marketed effects, my immediate concern is "am I taking money away from someone who owns the rights to it? Am I robbing someone of a sale they should be entitled to?" And it doesn't seem to be the case on this one. Nobody has an exclusive on the principle, and many manufacturers offer competing versions of them. And as I mentioned before, I'd much, much rather see beginners making their own invisible decks than paying for the convenience of having someone else do the dirty work. If they make their own, they get a deeper understanding, and open themselves to the spark of innovation that leads to creating more good magic.
On the issue of professionals doing the invisible deck: of course we all perform it (including me in my stage show). It's a great trick. But we also all perform the french drop... and nobody will complain when I get around to teaching how to do the french drop. The fact that a trick is good is completely independent of whether its appropriate to teach a beginner. If their concern is that the invisible deck is too good to teach beginners, where is their outrage at the local magic shops?
I understand that it can feel icky for someone who loves and performs the invisible deck to see it taught to beginners in a forum like Scam School. But the fact that one person really, really likes a beginner-level effect doesn't seem to me to give them the right to say that no other beginners can learn it. That just seems like "I got mine, so I don't want you to get yours," which is divisive and unhealthy for magic in general.
I hope this helps, and I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks again,
Brian
We're seeing massive changes in the way we all learn and consume information, and I think many people are relying on bad metaphors that need to be updated: YouTube is not television. It's a library. And just about everyone I talk to agrees that if Scam School were a DVD series, there'd be no problem. They also agree that they're okay with the idea of magic DVD's in every library, so...
Stuart, I'd like to (just for a moment) flip this whole thing on its head: For our incoming generation of young magicians, why would it be okay to learn magic from a DVD at a library, but not okay to learn from YouTube? In what ways are they different?
Usually, people respond with "learning from YouTube is too easy," but that's a bogus complaint. It's the exact same thing I heard about Michael Ammar's "Easy to Master" series almost 20 years ago... a thinly-veiled whine of "I learned it from a book, and so that's the only way you should learn it."
Others complain that in order to learn any magic, you have to prove you want it. And for them, the only way to prove it is to travel to your local library and visit the magical land of 793.8... (Unless you have $20 on you. Do you have $20? Because if you have $20, apparently all that "proving you want it" stuff goes right out the window).
But this is an artifact of a bygone time, and was an unfair standard to begin with. What's so great about limiting magic to minds that happen to live next to well-funded libraries? Shouldn't one's participation in magic be limited only by their desire to learn? I keep thinking of the letters I get from Bulgaria, Russia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Croatia, and Estonia... from kids thanking me for making them into magicians. Should the rule be "Sorry kid. Didn't you get the memo? Magicians have decreed that you need to live next to a physical library that has magic books. The hours you spent learning from the gargantuan virtual library of YouTube don't count."
I'm sincere that I'd like to hear from you on this. The entire information economy is changing, and magic desperately needs to have a position besides "pretend YouTube's not there and claim anything taught there is exposure," because that's simply not going to work. It's on us to shape how magic weathers this digital transformation.
Best,
Brian Brushwood
Host of Scam School and NSFW, iTunes top video podcasts of 2008, 2009 & 2010
http://shwood.com