And while they're probably not exact copies of the method used in the book or manual provided with the effect. The summary written in the article is in such detail that it may constitute a copyright violation of the manual the same way excessively long plot summaries are. (see for example the template atop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_%28season_3%29 ) Mgm On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Excessively long plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because while they're not an exact copy, they damage intellectual rights of the copyrighted material. Can't the same apply to summarizing a magic trick manual to the point while the text is not a copy it still violates the copyright of the text? Mgm On 1/15/07, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I probably mean "imply" rather than "allege". - d.

On 1/15/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: That's why I'm mentioning the instructional videos and/or manuals as the tangible expressed bit of the magic. The written instructions to magic trick are copyrighted - no doubt. Mgm

On 1/15/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: The real difficulty is supplying references. There's nothing wrong with referring to hard-copy manuals that aren't available online, though.

On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: In the US, plot summaries of films and books can constitute a copyright violation because a plot is a copyrightable work. Copyright covers copying, not just making exact copies. Most plot summaries are fair use. Some aren't. Anthony

Copyright caselaw takes into account the character of the copyrighted work. If the nature of the work is to describe some sort of process or activity, it likely falls under patent law and not copyright law. The standard mantra, misleading as it can be, is that ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions. When we are talking about things like "how to move your hands around to get the desired effect," that usually applies (when we are talking about things like "an evil character with a dark black helmet who makes asthmatic weezing", then we get into a more murky question about where ideas end and expressions begin). Is there any concrete reason to worry about this at the moment or is this all just hypothetical? We should not overly concern ourselves with magician etiquette if there is no pressing reason. FF On 1/15/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

geni wrote: Why does Wikipedia have an obligation to support the people who make their living coming up with new tricks? And if we do, why doesn't that obligation extend to supporting the people who make their living selling commercial encyclopedias?

You pay for the secret when you buy a magic effect. Revealing it on Wikipedia certainly detracts from the product's commercial viability . Mgm On 1/15/07, Nina Stratton <ninaeliza(a)gmail.com> wrote:

--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Lots of people who sell information will no doubt find Wikipedia detracts from their commercial viability (Britannica Online?), but that's not our concern. Our job on Wikipedia is to document topics based on the available reliable sources. Sorry to sound callous about it, but if that happens to negatively impact the business of selling secrets, then tough cheese. Our article on [[copyright]] says: `Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work.' -- Matt Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com ___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk

--- Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: Please do. For reference, there was the historical [[Wikipedia:Proposed policy for magic methods]]. [[King levitation]] is an article where people have fought to remove the explanation of the effect -- "Consider the magicians' livelihoods that you are harming by posting this unnecessary junk. It is unethical!" etc. [[King levitation]] also completely lacks references. We might want to mention the need for reliable sources, which is an especially important issue when it comes to "secret" information of any kind. The issue of sourcing is related to the exposure question, because magicians have little right to be upset when Wikipedia is acting only as a tertiary source, pulling together information from sources already in the public domain. -- Matt Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com ___________________________________________________________ New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk

gwern branwen wrote: The Church of Scientology claim knowledge of [[Xenu]] as a trade secret. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 16/01/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Indeed. "As a Freemason, I am honour-bound to remove these secrets from your pages!" "What a coincidence - as an admin, I am honour-bound to block you, and your eternal sockpuppets returning to make the precise same edit. Idiot." The hand is quicker than the eye - your editing access vanished! Just like that (tm). - d.

On 16/01/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: No, no. He was an *anti*-Mason. There are plenty of nutters attacking [[Freemasonry]] from both sides. Here's to the core of reasonably sane editors trying to keep it useful and readable. - d.

Sean Barrett wrote: Conspiracies are never straight. Ec

On 17/01/07, Thomas Dalton &lt;thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That reminds me, [[Robert Anton Wilson]] is really pretty skimpy. Also needs a few more <!--fnord-->s. - d.

On 17/01/07, Sean Barrett &lt;sean(a)epoptic.com&gt; wrote: No ... but somehow, I don't want to look. - d.

On 16/01/07, Steve Summit &lt;scs(a)eskimo.com&gt; wrote: And here I was thinking "encyclopedia as enlightenment project" was something I could assume and that NPOV was going to be the hard one to get across ... - d.

Sean Barrett wrote: There you go! All the time I was deceiving myself into believing that epoptic had something to do with ulcers. :-) Ec