Death to the Double Undercut // 1-on-1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 28, 2008
598
0
That's just the thing. You people aren't referring to the creator. You're using hte public domain to rationalize your tantrums.



I tell them to get Xtreme Beginnerz or The Art of Card Manipulation. But maybe that's because I'd rather the kids learn from real pros rather than an acne-riddled skeleton sitting in front of his webcam.

You get what you pay for.



But it's his choice what to do with them. He decided to teach them for free rather than charge for them because he created them. That's his prerogative, and it is not your or my place to tell everyone else to do the same thing for the sake of our convenience.



I don't buy the public domain argument. Lots of the flourishes you probably know are technically in the public domain, but it's a safe bet that you forked over cash for them at some point.

No, all I see here is typical magician overreaction to an imagined transgression.

Saying i'm having tantrums is completely unnecessary, I have not made this personal and have never insulted you. I am happy to discuss this with you but there's no need to try and trivialise people's arguments with stuff like this.

Kevin Ho is not an 'Acne ridden skeleton' and is as much of a pro as De'vo and Jerry Cestkowski. If somebody is referred to Kevin Ho's cuts they will be able to try them and see if they actually enjoy flourishing before spending money on a DVD. I would never suggest Youtube as an alternative to XB or The System, simply a starting point.

As for the Kevin Ho cuts, you seem to have missed my point. I was saying it is in no way unethical to refer people to his cuts as you seemed to suggest it was.

I have the System and The Trilogy which largely contain original moves not found elsewhere, so I disagree with this. Of coure a couple of public domain moves will be incorporated but most of it is original.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
Defining what is 'public domain' is difficult

No it's not. Do your homework.

and there certainly isn't any rules on when or if a move is public domain.

Then why are you arguing as if the opposite were true?

So somebody on Youtube has just as much right to teach it as Joel or anybody at T11. The only difference is that T11 is charging for it.

This is true. However, we have a market in which you have this wonderful thing called choice. If you think paying 5 bucks to have an experienced magician teach you a basic move with several applications that you may or may not already know is worth it, then you can buy it.

If you don't think it's worth it, then you can go somewhere else.

Either choice is legit on the part of the one imparting the good/service precisely because of public domain. If people want to pay for it, they will.
 
Apr 28, 2008
598
0
No it's not. Do your homework.



Then why are you arguing as if the opposite were true?



This is true. However, we have a market in which you have this wonderful thing called choice. If you think paying 5 bucks to have an experienced magician teach you a basic move with several applications that you may or may not already know is worth it, then you can buy it.

If you don't think it's worth it, then you can go somewhere else.

Either choice is legit on the part of the one imparting the good/service precisely because of public domain. If people want to pay for it, they will.

Obviously defining what is public domain in most areas is exceptionally easy. In magic it is difficult as it is sometimes imposssible to know who originally created something or who owns it or how old it is.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
Saying i'm having tantrums is completely unnecessary, I have not made this personal and have never insulted you. I am happy to discuss this with you but there's no need to try and trivialise people's arguments with stuff like this.

I don't have to trivialize an argument that has no merit.

Kevin Ho is not an 'Acne ridden skeleton' and is as much of a pro as De'vo and Jerry Cestkowski.

What made you think I was referring to him?

If somebody is referred to Kevin Ho's cuts they will be able to try them and see if they actually enjoy flourishing before spending money on a DVD.

That's what a demo video is for. Sometimes, people just have to take a risk. I can point people to something they might like if they ask for the help, but I can't tell them how to spend their money.

As for the Kevin Ho cuts, you seem to have missed my point. I was saying it is in no way unethical to refer people to his cuts as you seemed to suggest it was.

But the argument isn't about Kevin Ho's original creations, it's about what you believe to be public domain. So the point is rather obtuse.

Of coure a couple of public domain moves will be incorporated but most of it is original.

All I needed to hear. The public domain simply means that the copyright holder does not have the exclusive rights to profit off of a creation.

Obviously defining what is public domain in most areas is exceptionally easy. In magic it is difficult as it is sometimes imposssible to know who originally created something or who owns it or how old it is.

If you can reasonably assert that the creator has been dead for 75+ years, or that no effort has been made to renew the copyright, it's in public domain.
 
Apr 28, 2008
598
0
I don't have to trivialize an argument that has no merit.



What made you think I was referring to him?



That's what a demo video is for. Sometimes, people just have to take a risk. I can point people to something they might like if they ask for the help, but I can't tell them how to spend their money.



But the argument isn't about Kevin Ho's original creations, it's about what you believe to be public domain. So the point is rather obtuse.



All I needed to hear. The public domain simply means that the copyright holder does not have the exclusive rights to profit off of a creation.

It is your opinion that it has no merit, quite a few people agree with me.
Either way, personal insults are still unnecessary.

I would assume you are referring to him as I believe he is the only person I have suggested people learn cuts from on Youtube.

Why should people take a risk when they don't have to? It's easy to say just go and buy something but some kids don't have a lot of money and may only be able to buy a DVD once every few months. If they are in this situation then asking them to take risks with their money is unnecessary.

You are taking me far too literally with the term public domain. I'm not referring to it in a legal sense. I'm using it to refer to moves that are very old/commonly published and have no known owner. I'm saying I don't think it is appropriate to charge for these moves.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,611
3
31
Leicester, UK
www.youtube.com
What I meant was, the swivel cut has been taught everywhere for quite some time, nobody 'owns' it. So somebody on Youtube has just as much right to teach it as Joel or anybody at T11. The only difference is that T11 is charging for it.

And that this isn't just a swivel cut?(this is an M&S swivel cut [for Brits])... It's an alternative to a double-undercut that incorporates the swivel-cut.

- Sean
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,818
15
It is your opinion that it has no merit, quite a few people agree with me.
Either way, personal insults are still unnecessary.

Popular sure don't mean right.

I would assume you are referring to him as I believe he is the only person I have suggested people learn cuts from on Youtube.

You said to go on YouTube and learn flourishes. The majority of the YouTube tutorials are from pasty, malnourished teenagers. It's not that big a leap of logic.

Why should people take a risk when they don't have to?

Ever heard of risk and reward?

It's easy to say just go and buy something but some kids don't have a lot of money and may only be able to buy a DVD once every few months. If they are in this situation then asking them to take risks with their money is unnecessary.

If they don't have that kind of money, then I would direct them to the public library. Books made from professionals. The ones living gave the library the permission to carry their works. The ones who are long dead are now in public domain, so the library can carry them guilt-free. Either way, the works are still professional and effective at teaching.

You are taking me far too literally with the term public domain. I'm not referring to it in a legal sense.

Do you think maybe that's because it's a legal term?

Saying that you're not talking about public domain in a legal sense is like saying that you're talking about open heart surgery, but not in a medical sense.

I'm saying I don't think it is appropriate to charge for these moves.

You can say it all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that it is.

Almost any anthology book you buy is going to contain a lot of public domain material. Are you going to advocate for shutting those down? Are you going to actually tell me that you would condemn the Tarbell course?
 
Apr 28, 2008
598
0
And that this isn't just a swivel cut?(this is an M&S swivel cut [for Brits])... It's an alternative to a double-undercut that incorporates the swivel-cut.

- Sean

I would say the difference between this and the standard 3 packet cut is negligible. There's simply the addition of a break. To use your analogy of M&S. Tesco sell a Chicken for £3, M&S come out with some BS about how it's the best chicken ever and has an awesome taste and a really cool sauce. Really, it's nearly the same as Tesco's chicken but it costs £7. Death to the double undercut = M&S chicken.
 
Sep 1, 2007
659
1
I would say the difference between this and the standard 3 packet cut is negligible. There's simply the addition of a break. To use your analogy of M&S. Tesco sell a Chicken for £3, M&S come out with some BS about how it's the best chicken ever and has an awesome taste and a really cool sauce. Really, it's nearly the same as Tesco's chicken but it costs £7. Death to the double undercut = M&S chicken.

Dude, I know this is totally off topic, but M&S food is sooo much better.
 
Apr 28, 2008
598
0
Popular sure don't mean right.



You said to go on YouTube and learn flourishes. The majority of the YouTube tutorials are from pasty, malnourished teenagers. It's not that big a leap of logic.



Ever heard of risk and reward?



If they don't have that kind of money, then I would direct them to the public library. Books made from professionals. The ones living gave the library the permission to carry their works. The ones who are long dead are now in public domain, so the library can carry them guilt-free. Either way, the works are still professional and effective at teaching.



Do you think maybe that's because it's a legal term?



You can say it all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that it is.

Almost any anthology book you buy is going to contain a lot of public domain material. Are you going to advocate for shutting those down? Are you going to actually tell me that you would condemn the Tarbell course?

I am aware that there are many pasty malnourished teenagers on Youtube who suck at flourishing. Which is why I specifically referred to Kevin Ho so people wouldn't bring this up, but you did anyway.

I'm not going to disagree on the books thing, it's not really what this about.

I know it's a legal term, which is why I used the inverted commas ('public domain') to show I didn't mean it in the literal, legal sense.

The main issue I have been arguing is value for money, I have never said that people shouldn't be able to teach public domain moves. I am saying people on Youtube have as much right to teach them as everyone else and that charging for one of them isn't justified. Tarbell is different, this is a well thought out collection of many moves with very useful advice on these moves. Which, in my opinion makes it worth it. Simply picking one of these moves and putting it on video doesn't seem like an ethical thing to do (by ethical I am referring to charging T11 customers for it, not ethical in the sense of teaching a move they have no right to teach etc.). You may think it is worth it, I, an many others don't.
 
Oct 21, 2007
3,146
1
29
Bergen County, NJ, USA
While we welcome professional, respectful criticism, that has already run it's course in this thread. There is no intellectual or professional advancement that can result hereafter, as at the end of the day, you're either going to buy it or not buy it. The choice is yours. What theory11 can learn from your feedback is how to best focus 1-on-1's for future as to satisfy as many people as possible, and for that reason - I know that theory11 both respects and thrives off of it. However, this thread has gone wildly off-topic, at many points disrespectful and unprofessional towards even each other. For that reason, this thread is closed.

-Doug
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results