Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Intellectual rights to magic methods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Reply to query on where the original research is in the article:
Keep. I see four sections, all of which are entirely verifiable. Magic secrets are not covered by copyright, usually not covered by patent or trade secret, and are covered by the ethical standards of the magic community. What on this page constitutes original research? Kleg 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good question: This means that, in most cases, revealing a magic secret—even one that is on sale elsewhere—is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright - this is allowed by copyright. provided the description is not a verbatim copy of another description that is otherwise available, and does not include details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick - because then it falls into realms defined by copyright No. If a description includes details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick it does not fall into the realm defined by copyright But "method" in the context of "magic method" has much more in common with a choreography or musical composition, than a scientific discovery or industrial method of manufacturing No legal basis whatsoever to back this sentence up, and none provided. Unfortunately, there is a linguistic problem as the covert choreography of a magic effect has always, by tradition, been refered to as a magic "method". What legal tradition is this? Cite. Cite. Cite. None provided. Original research. The copyright laws for litterature said very little about dance choreography, until the laws expanded to include that area, and now choreography has a similar protection as litterature This sentence establishes a legal thesis that, if true, would have wide ranging effects on how copyright law is implemented. It does not define the word "similar." How choreography is "similar" to litterature in the eyes of copyright law would completely destroy an essential part of copyright law that excludes the protection of ideas, procedures, processes, and methods of operation. This would make 80 years of copyright legal cases obsolete. the contributions either misunderstand the law, or purposely misrepresent it. I would accept their claims if they had citations, but they don't. As it stands, the article is making up legal precedent as it goes along. Other sections can be merged into their respective articles: Patent section to patent article etc.
- Hm. Perhaps many of the articles in the List of magic tricks should be nominated for deletion given the lack of citations. Kleg 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Many of the magic secret reveals lack external citations and may be original research. I think the vandals who continue to blank magic secret reveals would be much more effective if they afd'd them as original research. Does this mean you are changing your vote to delete for this article?--Muchosucko 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've been convinced that it could use some cleaning up, but I still think the article contains valuable information that should be kept. The contrast between what the IP laws of various sorts allow and what the social norms of the magic community allow is a topic of constant discussion among magicians, as is the need for keeping secrets. Kleg 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Any clean up of this article would make it pointless and redundant to : Exposure (magic), contract law, and patent. It would say: copyright does not protect magic secrets; Patent protects magic secrets, but requires publication; and contract law protects secrets if one signs a contract (duh). The ethics section can be merged with Exposure (magic). I am still not sure if you plan on changing your vote to delete on this article. --Muchosucko 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do not plan to change my vote. It is still keep. This page is not redundant to Exposure because the social norms relating to "intellectual rights" in the magic community involve more than exposure. They also involve questions of "performance rights", such as whether it is okay to perform a trick if you haven't purchased it from the creator. It is generally believed within the magic community that this is not (usually) illegal, but that it is unethical. The idea of "intellectual rights" also involves "knock-offs", where person A puts an item on the market, and person B puts out a cheaper imitation of person A's product. This is usually legal, but in the magic community it is generally considered unethical and suppliers who do this tend to lose business. Neither of these issues involve exposure, in the sense of sharing a secret with non-magicians, but they both involve some idea of ownership that is based upon the community's ethical standards and not upon the law. Kleg 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. Patents can not protect a choreographed sequence of hand movements, just as little as it can protect a sequence of notes in a musical composition. Patents are designed for scientific discoveries, methods of operation - not realised expressions of art - and it is dishonest to pretend it is in any other way. And copyright is totally silent on the whole topic - there's not a single word that even mentions magic. Also, talking about "secrets" are irrelevant and confusing, since the topic is supposed to be about intellectual rights (or lack there of), i.e. has a creator any legally defined rights at all to his creations? And we all know that the answer to that is "no" --TStone 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- TStone has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight. Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick)--Muchosucko 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Legal precedents" to describe a known reality? As you've written that you 'want to take and republish peoples works without their permission, I thought you would be happy, not upset, to know that nothing can stop you. Anyone is welcome to point out how "Out of this World", a realised expression of Paul Curry, could have been patented. Or cite any passage of Copyright where magic is mentioned at all. Claiming I.P laws exists is pseudo-law, as no verification support that notion--TStone 09:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Legal precedents" to describe a known reality? As you've written that you 'want to take and republish peoples works without their permission, I thought you would be happy, not upset, to know that nothing can stop you. Anyone is welcome to point out how "Out of this World", a realised expression of Paul Curry, could have been patented. Or cite any passage of Copyright where magic is mentioned at all. Claiming I.P laws exists is pseudo-law, as no verification support that notion--TStone 09:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- TStone has been making up legal precedent recently on Wikipedia. Please note that his legal arguments hold no weight. Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick)--Muchosucko 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Any clean up of this article would make it pointless and redundant to : Exposure (magic), contract law, and patent. It would say: copyright does not protect magic secrets; Patent protects magic secrets, but requires publication; and contract law protects secrets if one signs a contract (duh). The ethics section can be merged with Exposure (magic). I am still not sure if you plan on changing your vote to delete on this article. --Muchosucko 07:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've been convinced that it could use some cleaning up, but I still think the article contains valuable information that should be kept. The contrast between what the IP laws of various sorts allow and what the social norms of the magic community allow is a topic of constant discussion among magicians, as is the need for keeping secrets. Kleg 22:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Many of the magic secret reveals lack external citations and may be original research. I think the vandals who continue to blank magic secret reveals would be much more effective if they afd'd them as original research. Does this mean you are changing your vote to delete for this article?--Muchosucko 19:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Muchosucko, I don't understand you. I've pointed out that expressions unique to the field of magic isn't defined, even less mentioned, in neither copyright nor patent laws. Therefore, your Catch-22 demand I one should cite a relevant passage in the law that verifies that it is impossible to cite a relevant passage in the law... Well, that's simply impossible. And your claim that anything in this field is "allowed by copyright"..likewise, by aviation laws you are also allowed to frighten small kittens while wrapped in salami, but should that really be condoned or encouraged? Mentioning any law in a field in which that law doesn't apply is just deceptive.--TStone 12:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- And what's that strange notion of choreography and "make 80 years of copyright legal cases obsolete"? Once a sequence of words, but not a sequence of dance steps, were protected by copyright. Then they changed the law, and sequences unique for each field is now covered. This is common knowledge. Since 1978, choreographic works have been copyrightable. I've no idea how to verify that properly, so I just added it as common knowledge, thinking experts of law like Muchosucko would add the proper sources. Maybe this is relevant? --TStone 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- You are probably right. You claim it would have been possible to patent a piece of work like "Out of this World", but seems strangely reluctant to even attempting to show how that would have been possible, and refuse to indulge in any discussions at all. I would gladly study any sources relevant to I.P. law and artistic expressions in magic, if anyone just could point out their existence. Thanks for adding "Respectfully" after dubbing me ignorant :-)--TStone 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerely don't know what all this "making up legal precedent" refers to, as I'm just describing a known reality, and don't understand why that seem to make Muchosucko upset. I would really appreciate it if anyone could explain it on my talk page.--TStone 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerely don't know what all this "making up legal precedent" refers to <--Therein lies the problem. You are unknowledgeable about the law, yet talk as if you knew what you are talking about. I am not at all upset. Indeed, I am very happy because your ignorance of legal standards and the laws you refer to bolsters my position.--Muchosucko 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand you. Is this a place where official legislation is made? This is a field in which I have some expertise, and have quite an extensive library on the art. I also have frequent correspondance with noted creators within the field. Still, until coming here, I have never come across the notion that it was possible to patent a creation - because I have never seen anything that even suggests that patents are for anything else but scientific principles etc. That you argue the opposite of what is known to my field is quite surprising, and would definitely be of great value to us, if it is true. Therefore, I beg you to describe how Paul Curry should have done to get his piece accepted for a patent, because I can not see how that would have been possible. My instinctive reaction, since you are claiming things unknown to me and my field, statements I've only seen here but never elsewhere or in any of the trade journals, is that your claims are Original Research. All discussions about I.P. in the field that I am aware of seems to be focused on the choreography law of 78. Is this a place where legislation is made? If so, there's several people that I should alert. --TStone 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand you <-- I know. Usually debates start when both sides are knowledgeable of the issues. When only one side is knowledgeable, it is a tutoring session, not a discussion.--Muchosucko 17:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I have an extensive knowledge in the field of magic, in both its practice and history, a rather good idea of what is possible to patent and copyright, but besides that totally without legal knowledge. You seem to have an extensive knowledge in I.P. law, a view on ethics that is contrary to mine, and a lack of knowledge in magic. Granted that the conditions for a debate could be better, but surely not impossible? The claim that a magic creation can be patented is something that is unknown to my field and unique to the Wikipedia, and is given without any verification at all. You are an expert in I.P Law, and I'm an expert in my field. So, what if it turns out to be a tutoring session? You seem to take an interest in my art, so maybe I can give you a tutoring session back? If what your are saying is true, then it changes everything for a whole field. So could you please at least make an attempt? How would it have been possible for Paul Curry to get a patent for "Out of this World"? Since you deem me ignorant for not knowing, it's probably very easy and simple to explain? What would the patent office accept as a principle or method of operation? I could perhaps even arrange a monetary reward, if you found it in your heart to explain what Paul Curry should have done - as many of my collegues would find this information both useful and valuable. Just Copperfield alone would certainly donate a hefty check if you managed to explain something his team of lawyers have failed to do, and I can reach him within a few hours through Max Maven or Jim Steinmeyer. I'm serious, you might actually get something solid out of this--TStone 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in any field. I just read enough law in an unbiased way to know what I'm talking about. You can retain an attorney to interpret the law for you. That is what they are there for. Although, something tells me I won't get any money for anything. I am very sorry, but I think explaination I gave Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick) was pretty damn good. Your responses to those points reveal that you did not spend a lot of time on the explaination.--Muchosucko 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- No-no, I'm sorry that I was bone-headed. And it's possible you've stumbled over something all of us in the field have missed. If you know that "Out of this World" could have been patented, it would mean a lot to a lot of people. What if it was arranged donations to a joint locked bank account? I think I can set that up. And as soon as you feel the amount of money is fair, you post your knowledge, and the money is transfered to you - does that seem agreeable? Check the article on me here, and you see that I'm known in the field, so I'm not kidding about being able to set it up. --TStone 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Muchosucko, it seems like I have offended you. Please accept my apologies. A whole field should not suffer, because I've acted stupid. I will avoid legal talk altogether. Do you have an email? I'd like to put you in contact with Jim Steinmeyer as soon as possible, as he already owns several scientific patents related magic, and will be happy to hear how Paul Curry's "Out of this World" could have been patented. His lawyer should be able to set up an account quite fast. And please let me know if there's anything I can do as compensation for having offended you --TStone 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dear TStone: It takes a great deal more than Internet discussion to offend me. I accept your apologies, though they are unnecessary. All discussion can take place in public. Tell Jim and his lawyers to do it on this page. Private discussions can take place on my talk page. You continue to misunderstand this issue. --Muchosucko 04:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but asking Jim to come to a rip-off site like this is really not a good idea, which I sincerely hope you understand. If you think I'm difficult..well..He is a living legend in the field, and it is not a good idea to insult him. As soon as he noticed how his piece Vanishing the Statue of Liberty, is butchered here, together with Poundstone's mad theories - he would get out of here at once. I've at least made sure that Jim's name was added to his piece (which was a fight in itself), but I've given up hope on being able to fix the insult of being associated with Poundstone (I wanted to move Poundstones weird theories to Poundstones own page, where they belonged - but that wasn't allowed apparantly). No, negotiations on your knowledge have to be outside of here, preferably without even mentioning this place at all --TStone 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, there's two issues now. The first one I sincerely don't understand, but is seems to be a combination of formating of info, Wikipedias own original research on IP-laws with info unknown to the outside world, a manner of conduct I've been unable to learn yet, and that you apparantly have a very good status here. The second issue it that you have knowledge that can change the situation for a large number of people around the world, people in my field, people I call friends. First I assumed the claims here was plain wrong, since it said things unknown to my field. Then you convinced me, just because it's unique to this place, doesn't mean it's wrong. You might be correct. Or not - but with stakes this high, I have no choice but to gamble. You seem to continue to play some internal Wiki-game which I don't know the purpose of, and I beg you to stop. In the light of the second issue, the first one doesn't mean a thing to me. I'm not interested in status games and wiki itself has little value, and I promise you that as soon as outside contact has been made, I will leave this place forever and never return. Does that seem fair? I don't what else to offer you in exchange for your knowledge. Are you willing to negotiate for your knowledge? --TStone 09:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- No. You are not making sense. When claiming to possess important knowledge, there's two alternatives. Sharing the knowledge, or being silent. Sharing gives status, being silent does not. Therefore, a decision has been made to be silent. Two possible reasons. The claimed knowledge does not exist or there's a reasonable chance to make profit of the knowledge. It would be stupid posting strong statements all over this place in bold type if the claimed knowledge didn't exist, and I've checked your other edits so I know you're not stupid. Therefore, it seems likely that the knowledge exists and that you are waiting for the proper offer. That you have found a way to patent a magic effect that doesn't contain a scientific principle is essential knowledge of great importance to a whole field, and should outweigh any "issue" on this place. Here, your lengtht of life is until the next revert, but in our field, you can become immortal. Don't play this game, please. Check my edits. Do it seem like I would joke about this topic? How can I make "legal arguments" when I only want to get away from here and start negotiating? --TStone 11:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, there's two issues now. The first one I sincerely don't understand, but is seems to be a combination of formating of info, Wikipedias own original research on IP-laws with info unknown to the outside world, a manner of conduct I've been unable to learn yet, and that you apparantly have a very good status here. The second issue it that you have knowledge that can change the situation for a large number of people around the world, people in my field, people I call friends. First I assumed the claims here was plain wrong, since it said things unknown to my field. Then you convinced me, just because it's unique to this place, doesn't mean it's wrong. You might be correct. Or not - but with stakes this high, I have no choice but to gamble. You seem to continue to play some internal Wiki-game which I don't know the purpose of, and I beg you to stop. In the light of the second issue, the first one doesn't mean a thing to me. I'm not interested in status games and wiki itself has little value, and I promise you that as soon as outside contact has been made, I will leave this place forever and never return. Does that seem fair? I don't what else to offer you in exchange for your knowledge. Are you willing to negotiate for your knowledge? --TStone 09:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but asking Jim to come to a rip-off site like this is really not a good idea, which I sincerely hope you understand. If you think I'm difficult..well..He is a living legend in the field, and it is not a good idea to insult him. As soon as he noticed how his piece Vanishing the Statue of Liberty, is butchered here, together with Poundstone's mad theories - he would get out of here at once. I've at least made sure that Jim's name was added to his piece (which was a fight in itself), but I've given up hope on being able to fix the insult of being associated with Poundstone (I wanted to move Poundstones weird theories to Poundstones own page, where they belonged - but that wasn't allowed apparantly). No, negotiations on your knowledge have to be outside of here, preferably without even mentioning this place at all --TStone 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dear TStone: It takes a great deal more than Internet discussion to offend me. I accept your apologies, though they are unnecessary. All discussion can take place in public. Tell Jim and his lawyers to do it on this page. Private discussions can take place on my talk page. You continue to misunderstand this issue. --Muchosucko 04:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Muchosucko, it seems like I have offended you. Please accept my apologies. A whole field should not suffer, because I've acted stupid. I will avoid legal talk altogether. Do you have an email? I'd like to put you in contact with Jim Steinmeyer as soon as possible, as he already owns several scientific patents related magic, and will be happy to hear how Paul Curry's "Out of this World" could have been patented. His lawyer should be able to set up an account quite fast. And please let me know if there's anything I can do as compensation for having offended you --TStone 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- No-no, I'm sorry that I was bone-headed. And it's possible you've stumbled over something all of us in the field have missed. If you know that "Out of this World" could have been patented, it would mean a lot to a lot of people. What if it was arranged donations to a joint locked bank account? I think I can set that up. And as soon as you feel the amount of money is fair, you post your knowledge, and the money is transfered to you - does that seem agreeable? Check the article on me here, and you see that I'm known in the field, so I'm not kidding about being able to set it up. --TStone 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in any field. I just read enough law in an unbiased way to know what I'm talking about. You can retain an attorney to interpret the law for you. That is what they are there for. Although, something tells me I won't get any money for anything. I am very sorry, but I think explaination I gave Talk:Out_of_This_World_(card_trick) was pretty damn good. Your responses to those points reveal that you did not spend a lot of time on the explaination.--Muchosucko 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I have an extensive knowledge in the field of magic, in both its practice and history, a rather good idea of what is possible to patent and copyright, but besides that totally without legal knowledge. You seem to have an extensive knowledge in I.P. law, a view on ethics that is contrary to mine, and a lack of knowledge in magic. Granted that the conditions for a debate could be better, but surely not impossible? The claim that a magic creation can be patented is something that is unknown to my field and unique to the Wikipedia, and is given without any verification at all. You are an expert in I.P Law, and I'm an expert in my field. So, what if it turns out to be a tutoring session? You seem to take an interest in my art, so maybe I can give you a tutoring session back? If what your are saying is true, then it changes everything for a whole field. So could you please at least make an attempt? How would it have been possible for Paul Curry to get a patent for "Out of this World"? Since you deem me ignorant for not knowing, it's probably very easy and simple to explain? What would the patent office accept as a principle or method of operation? I could perhaps even arrange a monetary reward, if you found it in your heart to explain what Paul Curry should have done - as many of my collegues would find this information both useful and valuable. Just Copperfield alone would certainly donate a hefty check if you managed to explain something his team of lawyers have failed to do, and I can reach him within a few hours through Max Maven or Jim Steinmeyer. I'm serious, you might actually get something solid out of this--TStone 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand you <-- I know. Usually debates start when both sides are knowledgeable of the issues. When only one side is knowledgeable, it is a tutoring session, not a discussion.--Muchosucko 17:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand you. Is this a place where official legislation is made? This is a field in which I have some expertise, and have quite an extensive library on the art. I also have frequent correspondance with noted creators within the field. Still, until coming here, I have never come across the notion that it was possible to patent a creation - because I have never seen anything that even suggests that patents are for anything else but scientific principles etc. That you argue the opposite of what is known to my field is quite surprising, and would definitely be of great value to us, if it is true. Therefore, I beg you to describe how Paul Curry should have done to get his piece accepted for a patent, because I can not see how that would have been possible. My instinctive reaction, since you are claiming things unknown to me and my field, statements I've only seen here but never elsewhere or in any of the trade journals, is that your claims are Original Research. All discussions about I.P. in the field that I am aware of seems to be focused on the choreography law of 78. Is this a place where legislation is made? If so, there's several people that I should alert. --TStone 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerely don't know what all this "making up legal precedent" refers to <--Therein lies the problem. You are unknowledgeable about the law, yet talk as if you knew what you are talking about. I am not at all upset. Indeed, I am very happy because your ignorance of legal standards and the laws you refer to bolsters my position.--Muchosucko 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- TStone:You completely misunderstand this issue. Please take the courtesy to educate yourself before you make legal arguments. At this point any discussion would be unproductive. Respectfully. --Muchosucko 14:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Perhaps many of the articles in the List of magic tricks should be nominated for deletion given the lack of citations. Kleg 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good question: This means that, in most cases, revealing a magic secret—even one that is on sale elsewhere—is neither prohibited nor allowed by copyright - this is allowed by copyright. provided the description is not a verbatim copy of another description that is otherwise available, and does not include details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick - because then it falls into realms defined by copyright No. If a description includes details of a particular magician's stage adaptations of the trick it does not fall into the realm defined by copyright But "method" in the context of "magic method" has much more in common with a choreography or musical composition, than a scientific discovery or industrial method of manufacturing No legal basis whatsoever to back this sentence up, and none provided. Unfortunately, there is a linguistic problem as the covert choreography of a magic effect has always, by tradition, been refered to as a magic "method". What legal tradition is this? Cite. Cite. Cite. None provided. Original research. The copyright laws for litterature said very little about dance choreography, until the laws expanded to include that area, and now choreography has a similar protection as litterature This sentence establishes a legal thesis that, if true, would have wide ranging effects on how copyright law is implemented. It does not define the word "similar." How choreography is "similar" to litterature in the eyes of copyright law would completely destroy an essential part of copyright law that excludes the protection of ideas, procedures, processes, and methods of operation. This would make 80 years of copyright legal cases obsolete. the contributions either misunderstand the law, or purposely misrepresent it. I would accept their claims if they had citations, but they don't. As it stands, the article is making up legal precedent as it goes along. Other sections can be merged into their respective articles: Patent section to patent article etc.
Comment What happened to all of the other comments on this AfD?????? Peyna 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
