theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards
New York, New York
Los Angeles, California
Our team is composed of the best of the best minds in the magic industry - from performers to creators and consultants.
From mind-blowing illusions to the world's finest playing cards, theory11 values quality over quantity.
theory11 artists are the foremost experts in the conjuring arts - from new upcoming talent to magic's greatest historians.
We produce world-class shows and live-events. Learn more about The Magician at The NoMad and what we can do for you!
Our team has consulted on countless projects relating to magic on stage and on screen around the world.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cardistry & Flourishing Forum' started by Ratllesnag, May 21, 2019.
Where can I buy cardistry high
Seems like Zach deleted it... The link is: http://www.fontainecards.com/cardistry-high but the site gives me a 404 error
Here you go:
[DELETED BY MODERATOR]
Cardistry High is pretty solid, you'll like it.
This is a site that sells pirated stuff....
I'm not saying it is, or isn't stolen. I am asking if you can prove or verify that claim? I'm not trying to be mean or disbelieve you, but saying something doesn't make it true. nor doe shaving multiple people agree with you either...If proof is provided then that's a totally different story and I apologize for posting that link.
Also "Pirated" is a term specifically used for the theft of computer software (Common term for stolen video games).
Are you trying to say it's a black market site?
Also if something is no longer up for sale by the owner but other places had it in stock, (Stolen or not) the place where it's sold has every right to sell it.
If the stuff was stolen, then the owner of the item would have been notified and it would have been dealt with. Especially in this case.
Just look at the other stuff in it and compare the price with the other “legal” providers. For instance the bottom deal by jason england sells for 15.00 $ here at theory11, and it should be more or less the same with the other retailers as well, but as you can see, this site is selling it for just 2.00 $. And I’m sure if you ask the staff here, it isn’t approved to sell their products either. It was just an example. You can compare the price of the other stuff in it with the price chosen by the official retailers as well.
Another good example is the Martin Nash book series. There’s no legal pdf for his books, and the physical version of them is quite expensive, yet you find the pdf version of them for a really cheap price.
I can provide a lot of other examples as well but I think I already made my point.
And about taking legal action, it’s happening in a lot of places and the host websites of a lot of such sites are in countries like china that don’t have strict copyright laws, and someone from a country like US just has no way of defending their creation or stopping it from being illegally shared. That’s just the way it is around the internet. All we can do is to not buy from such sites.
Legal PDF? What does that even mean? Furthermore a book in PDF format doesn't prove anything. Just because the owner or seller didn't format it like that, doesn't make it any less legal if someone formats like that.
Sorry but your point isn't a good one, and I'm not trying to be a jerk or argue, I'm simply saying, what you're saying isn't quite correct and applies to anything sold on this or any other site.
So please let me explain:
Here is an actual situation that happened to a place I had performed a show at, which a Disney Lawyer got involved in.
There was a Christmas display that had to be moved out of a neighborhood because it was causing traffic problems. The display had Disney figures in it (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck..things like that) The display was moved into a place that usually charged admission for it's venue. Now when the display was put up, the normal venue was closed down. Disney Lawyers decided that since the place normally charged admission, and there were Disney figures in the display, that Disney was entitled to some of the admission profits because it would be considered charging admission to see Disney. (Which by law is correct) So to bypass this, the people hosting the event said admission to the display is free, we're charging for parking. And that's all it took.
This situation you're discussing with me is no different:
If I buy multiple copies of a book, scan a copy into my comp and make a PDF out of it, I can then list it as you're paying for the format I put it in, and the information is free. I don't have a contract with that creator, it was legally bought, and I can legally sell it in any format I want to provided I say it's only the format I'm selling, and not the information in it. (It would be charging for parking, not admission to the display)
If what people are saying is true, no one would be able to sell anything.
While the situation with that website and many others like it, is unfortunate, this is the world we live in.
Man, you don’t get it do you? Stuff like Ben Earl’s less is more are available both in PDF and Paper, and you need to pay almost the same price for the pdf version when you’re buying it from Ben or someone he has approved. Now if you find the same pdf for free or a price that is much cheaper, it would be a pirated version. Same thing goes with books that don’t have any pdf version. The pdfs that you get are usually scanned by someone at their home or something with a cheap scanner and rather low quality, and are just images put together, not the word file turned pdf which you will get with an actual legal pdf version. Heck, even I can scan some of my books and sell them for a price at my website at a cheap price. Is it legal? No. Is the creator getting any of the money that I’m making from it? Hell no. So how is it different from those websites?
Still, if you’re not convinced yet, as they actually sell theory11 products in their website as well, just contact the support staff and ask THEM is this website is a legal producer of their products.
There is no similarity in it whatsoever.
If that was the case, site like librarygenesis or torrent websites should have been legal. And moreover, even if what you say about changing the format is true, videos should still not be legal. I mean as I mentioned with the Bottom Deal video produced by t11, they’re selling the exact same format as the original producers, but with a much cheaper price that isn’t going to T11.
Legally, that is copyright infringement. When you buy a book, you do not get the right to make a copy of it.
That is completely untrue! Not sure where you're learning your laws from but they're not actually correct. It's why students and schools can make copies of entire books for classes and things like that. According to people in this thread when a college paper is used they're republishing the authors work so it's illegal.
If people needed permission to use an authors work then no book-test in magic would be allowed. Furthermore no magician would ever be able to do a show with a single prop because they're using someone elses work for profit. Garage sales would be illegal.
Copyright infringement is obtaining a copy of something without paying for it or having it without permission from the creator. When a creator publishes anything on their own or uploads it to a website, that is the consent. it's why Google Images are legal.
If I buy a book it's paid for it's mine, I can burn it give it away, hang it in a tree, drag it down the road, throw it down an elevator shaft, even do a book test with it, if I want. I just cannot publicly display it for profit or sell it for profit.
Once an owner of something uploads a work they did, or puts it up for sale, then THAT IS THE CONSENT! It's why Google Images are perfectly legal.
How about 25 years as a lawyer... that has to count for something.
That is called fair use doctrine and it only applies to sections of works for academic use. Copying a complete book without permission violates copyright law regardless of who does it. A college paper provides citations for the works used and only quotes sections of work. If you took a published article and turned it in as a college paper, that would be both plagiarism and a copyright violation.
Uhhh... no. False equivalency. You are using the book in a manner that is no different than reading it. You are not copying the book. That is the difference. Hence the word, "copyright" which is the right to copy. When you buy a book, you get the copy but not the right to copy.
No. Copyright infringement is making a copy of something you don't have the right to copy.
Incorrect again. A copyright attaches to anything that is published. For example, if I write an article and put it on my law firm's website for people to read for free, I have a copyright on the article. You can't copy that article and publish it on your website without my permission even if you provide credit to me. You can read it on my website, link to my website, but you can't copy it to your website.
Mostly correct. You actually could rent the book to someone for a profit. The only thing you can't do is make a copy of the book because, wait for it... you don't have the copyright.
Let me close with the copyright notice of the magic book closest to my computer:
All rights reserved. No portion of the book or any of its contents may be reproduced by any means now known or to be invented without written permission of the publisher.
Seems pretty clear to me.
You're confusing plagiarism with copyright.
The permission has been given once the author has published it whether for free or through a distributor. So copying it for personal use is 100% legal. Fair use doctrine only applies to PUBLIC display. Public being anyone other than yourself.
That applies to plagiarism not making a backup copy of a book or any part of it
I once again direct you to Google images! I can either find a text or cover of your book by doing an internet search and turn it up on half a dozen sites.
The author relinquishing materials to the public is consent.
No, according to what you and others are saying is that what you're doing is making a profit off others work. When you buy a trick you're only authorized to the secret, not to use for personal profit.
The right to copy it was given by the author once they releasing it for sale or for free. I again for the 4th time direct you to Google Images. I can find images of full text and or covers of books in Google images.
The whole no reproducing any of the authors works in part or in whole without permission explicitly applies only to Plagiarism not copyright.
Again Google images prove this isn't a copyright issue.
Incorrect. Provide me with a citation to any country's copyright law which provides that. You can't.
You are confusing the rules related to the ability to back up certain software and to make personal copies of certain digital media with the ability to make a copy of something and to make that copy available to the public. If you make a copy and make it available to the public without permission, that is a copyright violation.
Incorrect. I'll say it again. You buy a book, you get a copy. You do not get the right to copy. The phrase copyright means that the right to copy has been reserved by the publisher.
Most likely the copies of the books on Google Images are either: 1) older books where the copyright protection have expired and are in the public domain-- examples include Royal Road and Bobo's Modern Coin Magic; or 2) books that have been imaged or copied illegally. The first category includes books published before 1964 which failed to timely file a copyright renewal after 28 years and publications prior to 1989 where the author did not include a copyright notice. Just because someone posts it on the internet, it doesn't mean that doing so is legal.
Again, an assertion without any support. That is incorrect. Publication is not consent.
I don't think anyone is arguing that.
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's thoughts and ideas as your own. It is unethical but not illegal. A copyright violation is making a copy of something you don't have the right to copy.
17 U.S. Code Section 106 provides that "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
If the owner has the exclusive right, that means nobody else can reproduce the copyrighted work or distribute copies of the work.
17 U.S. Code Section 501(a) provides, "a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 ... is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."
Plagiarism is COPYING someone's ideas and or work and passing it off as your own. It doesn't have to be in any specific form.
Copyright does. Copyright is using someone's work without permission which is why I pointed you at Google Images
That's what publishing is. it's a deceleration for people to use their works.
Your whole argument falls apart because of Google Images. A picture of one of the pages of the books, picture of the author taken from that book and Book cover wouldn't matter because your whole argument is NO PORTION IN PART OF WHOLE IN ANY SHAPE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN according to you pictures cannot be exempt from your argument.
Which I reply once again, an author publishing their own works absolutely is consent. They personally chose to allow their information to go out and why anything in Google images cannot be subject to copyright.
Anyway this has gotten way off track.
From this point forward I'll just refrain from posting links that has things for sale it will avoid any possible conflicts.
Well, the said website is actually using it for their own profit. That’s the problem here.
"Or sell it for profit." And that's kind of the point, isn't it? Let's leave aside the discussion of whether they're allowed to make copies of the product in the first place, once they sell it for profit it is illegal, according to your own words. Did I misunderstand you? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
"Fair use doctrine only applies to PUBLIC display. Public being anyone other than yourself." Again, if I understand you correctly (though, having no legal background whatsoever, I may have misunderstood), you break the law once you make a product that is not your own available to the public without the creator's consent. Isn't that what the site you linked to is doing?
Though this discussion about legal intricacies is certainly fascinating, let's look to where our laws stem from: A person's moral conscience. While morality may be a difficult subject for some to discuss, let's try to break the issue down to a real example: A young magician (not sure how much he'd appreciate being named on this forum), in his early twenties, visiting university. The university fees are quite steep, and the magician doesn't starve but he has to be careful with what money he has got.
So one day he's notified that his website has been compromised and several products have been stolen. This costs him money he really can't afford to lose.
This is the world we live in.
But wouldn't it be nice if that weren't the case?
Yes, there are differences between the above scenario and the problem we were discussing earlier, with a site selling copies they have no right to sell. For example, the site Spaz linked before probably didn't hack any site selling magic products legally. But at every other step along the way, they did exactly what the people in the scenario given above did: They sold products they had no right to sell, and in doing so they cost the original creator money.
I'm really not asking for a legal discussion, but just for you to consider, how much would you appreciate this happening to one of your products, to you?
Oh, please continue posting links! But please be sure to link to retailers that properly recognize the person who has the original rights to the product.
Have a good rest of the day, everybody!
PS: @RealityOne One of the square brackets in the post in the beginning still links to the site. Could you fix that, please? Thanks!