|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
cc New user 75 Posts 
|
I posted this reply in the ebook/pdf section of the forum for John Cesta's Ultimate Positive and there's been no replies. Maybe it got lost in the shuffle. I'm hoping those of you who have this will give us your two cents:
I've had this for a few weeks now and I've held off on posting about it. I've been doing Max's Positive Negative for many years now and when Bryce Kuhlman showed me his version just before it was published in The Mystery School book, I immediately began doing that. I've never seen a reason to purchase an "improved" version of this, but for the small price Mr. Cesta was asking I took the plunge. There's nothing wrong with the effect or method Mr. Cesta uses here. As others have written, it's a logical method to use for Max Maven's plot. But I have a problem. Mr. Cesta has simply taken Max Maven's plot and combined it with Rick Maue's method. When I saw Mr. Maue lecture, his method was taught and it's included in his lecture notes. His effect is different of course. But Mr. Cesta, who seems like a really nice guy and a sincere student and performr of magic and mentalism, simply hasn't brought anything to the table here. He's just slapped someone else's method (with permission) onto someone else's effect and even included part of Max's title in his title! I guess what I'm getting at here is, is this ethical? Can I take any effect or plot from another performer, combine the method of another performer with it, and sell it? In other words, I add nothing else to it. Should I profit from that? I say there's a line here and Mr. Cesta has crossed it. I sent my concerns to Mr. Cesta several weeks ago in an email and instead of addressing them, I received a one-line reply: "Yes I think what I've done is fine. Thanks for your purchase." I've spoken with several friends, including reviewers, whose opinion I respect and they agree. Perhaps those of you who own Mr. Cesta's effect and Mr. Maue's method would like to comment here. Or maybe Mr. Cesta can elaborate. I would love to hear your opinions. |
|||||||||
|
ElliottB Inner circle 3254 Posts
|
Right or wrong, there are scores of published variations for the Positive Negative plot.
My memory is a little weak at the moment, and I may be wrong, but I think the original plot pre-dates even Positive Negative (Larry Becker’s name keeps popping into my head.) The previously published versions were mostly substantially identical, except for small variations in method. And those methods were almost never created just for the coin prediction plot. So, why do you think this version is any more or less ethical than the scores of other versions? EB Disclaimer - I haven't actually seen UPN (the trick,) so my comments should be viewed with that in mind. |
|||||||||
|
PsiDroid Inner circle 2164 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-10-07 14:39, ElliottB wrote: elliotb: Becker it was. And Mr. Maven credits him on videomind explanation cc: And the idea used for the envelope predates Rick Maue : think Annemann but I'd not be surprised if it is older. Seem such a common sense thing to come up with. |
|||||||||
|
p_n_g Loyal user 297 Posts
|
There is nothing new under the sun.
Combination of methods is one of the most powerful tool of the mentalist. Mr.Cesta was the first who came up with this idea. What should he do ? 1 : Keep the idea for himself ( I have the effect, bad idea  )
2 : Freely distribute. OK, it sounds dumb - one method exposing two effects. 3 : Sell it, but donate some percent of the income to the above mentioned two person (Rick Maue and Max Maven). 4 : Give it freely to only the trusted persons - Many performer do that. But I don't think its good for a "mentalist community", because each effect inspires new effects - like this. I think if you know the solution to this, you will have the answer to your main questions! Norbert |
|||||||||
|
cc New user 75 Posts
|
All interesting takes, but how many of you own Ultimate Positive Negative and Rick Maue's lecture notes? It doesn't matter if the source of Max's effect or Rick's method are older. Mr. Cesta specifically indicates that the effect belongs to Max and the method belongs to Rick. He doesn't credit anyone other than those two. This means Mr. Cesta didn't do his homework. And that would be yet another reason for him not to sell this.
So I'll ask again, can I sell an ebook in which I openly state the effect and method of one performer, borrow part of the title as well, and simply add the method of another performer? If that's the case, we're all missing a lot of money-making opportunities! Think how easy this would be to accomplish. p_n_g, I'm glad you brought up what Mr. Cesta could have done instead. Keeping it to himself or sharing with close friends, or hell, even mentioning it on this forum (without revealing methods), would have been fine. And p_n_g, you are quite mistaken if you think "there is nothing new under sun." My head started to spin a little bit when I read that. I've read comments like that before on this forum and it's just laughable. I agree that there are many times, especially in Mentalism, where one can use a method from another effect to solve the issues one has with another effect. Whether one should profit from that is very debatable! ElliottB, yes there are many variations of Max's effect and I have no problem with the ones that not only credit Max, but bother to get his permission to publish it. Mr. Cesta, as far as I know. did not. He makes no mention of this in the ebook. |
|||||||||
lumberjohn Special user Memphis, TN 626 Posts
|
I own both UPN and Rick's lecture notes. Upon reading the UPN manuscript, I of course immediately recognized the method and was a bit disappointed (not at the effect itself I should point out, but that the method was not new to me).
But I wouldn't say that John's application of Rick's method to Max's effect/plot was unethical. The creation of new effects has always involved mixing and matching: plots, themes, patter, methods, etc. Especially in the area of mentalism, it is very rare that someone comes up with a truly original method (or, for that matter, a truly original plot). When purchasing a new effect, I think most people are more likely to feel ripped off (or at least that the creator has not earned his pay) when the creator has simply mashed together the ideas of others without adding much of his or her own creative juices, such as a new presentation. Certainly, I feel better about a magic purchase when the creator has demonstrated originality in this regard. But I think we're on a slippery slope if we accuse anyone who sells a product constructed of simple mixes and matches of unethical behavior. Many great effects have originated in this way, like magical Frankenstein's monsters. And after all, it does take some thought and creativity to match the method to the effect. Even though I was aware of both in this case, I did not put them together myself, and I'm not sure I would have ever thought to use Rick's method for a PN routine. What we as purchasers of magic are usually paying for is intellectual capital. As long as proper credits and permissions are obtained, I don't think we should be casting stones. |
|||||||||
|
cc New user 75 Posts
|
Lumberjohn, thanks for your reply. Apparently, you missed my point completely. I'm not at all angry at John Cesta in any way for his idea of combining one performer's method with another performer's effect. The effect was $11.77. If the effect is good, I would be perfectly willing to pay many times that price (and have). My point is, I don't feel John Cesta has brought anything to the routining, script or handling! He simply combined the two together, that's it.
Since you own the originals, can you please tell me where Mr. Cesta properly obtained permission from Max Maven? If so, I will respectively "uncast" my stone. Is this where the state of creation is in Magic and Mentalism? I simply buy an effect, figure out a different way to do it by revealing the method of another performer (even with permission). Put the word "Ultimate" in front of the original title and sell it? I don't change anything else? Seriously? |
|||||||||
|
pearljamjeff Inner circle Ann Arbor 1249 Posts
|
Dude, seriously. Take a deep breath and untwist your boxers. Everything is going to be ok.
Jeff Travilla - I own an advertising agency to help finance my magic addiction.
|
|||||||||
|
lumberjohn Special user Memphis, TN 626 Posts
|
CC,
I apologize if I missed your point completely. Perhaps it was your suggestion that John Cesta's selling of Ultimate Positive Negative was not "ethical" that led me to believe you were upset with him for marketing this effect. My mistake. |
|||||||||
|
cc New user 75 Posts
|
Lumberjohn, I'm upset because I feel that it is unethical to sell the effect the way John Cesta is selling it. Not the fact that he combined the two methods. you said you have no problem "As long as proper credits and permissions are obtained, I don't think we should be casting stones."
You are also the only one who's replied who owns the items in question. So again, I'll ask, where does John Cesta write that he got permission from Max Maven? |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts
|
I'm sure John will pop up sooner or later and give you a response...
I recently released a book into the wild - and a couple of effects are based on others work - reversal is one...all I do is point people to two books that I would expect any mentalist to own anyway...Karl Fulves and Banachek...so I don't explain the method. And it's in some maths-magic books too if I remember correctly? Anyway - I think if you're explaining someone else's effect, then it has to be with permission, personally speaking...I've not read John's, and he's always seemed a more than decent guy. So let's not *** anyone just yet.
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
|
Pablo_Amira Special user Temuco, Chile 682 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-10-07 14:55, p_n_g wrote: If this premise its true, genius people doesn't exists.
-------------------------------------------
Asombro...lo más elevado a que puede llegar el hombre Johann Wolfgang Goethe |
|||||||||
swiss_magician Regular user Switzerland 161 Posts
|
Maybe my English prevents me from understanding 's point of view are 'missing the point'
What is the point exactly here? Getting a written confession and full apologizes of Mr Cesta? Have him stopping selling the UPN effect? Cheers, M. |
|||||||||
|
cc New user 75 Posts
|
I do hope John responds here Iain, but I have serious doubts. As you can see from my original post, John doesn't feel he has done anything wrong. Two other well-known performers/creators I've spoken with recently also raised the same concerns with John and got nowhere.
Iain, thanks for your reply. From reading your other posts, you seem like a great voice of reason here. You're right. John does seem like a decent guy. That's what's so surprising about this. My intention isn't to destroy John Cesta's reputation. He seems to be, as I stated in my original post, a very sincere performer and creator. I think he simply didn't think this one through before releasing it. The method that I use is Bryce Kuhlman's and it was released with Max's permission. John's was not. The way you released your effects recently (by suggesting the original sources without revealing the methods) is fine. That's what John Cesta should have done. Dear swiss_magician, "What is the point exactly here? Getting a written confession and full apologizes of Mr Cesta? Have him stopping selling the UPN effect?" Sounds good to me! You my friend, got it! Pablo, exactly! |
|||||||||
|
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 13023 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-10-07 17:42, IAIN wrote: I already gave CC (or whatever his name is) my response via the confidential/private email he sent me. The very reason my response was so terse was exactly what has happened ... CC pasted my response, my confidential/private response in a public forum. So, CC (or whoever you are!) continue on your mission. It's all the same to me. If I thought what I did was wrong and not within the bounds of all other creators, thinkers, idea people, even the guy/girl that created Reese's peanut butter cups from peanut butter and chocolate, I wouldn't have done it. It's kind of "funny" cc that you originally posted this in the PDF section but no one paid attention to you there so you had to repost it here. An agenda my friend? (I know, I know, we are not friends!) ok sorry. That's my response to CC (or, whatever!). That's where it will be left, with me anyway, until the ultimate! end of time!! J P.S.: If you look through some of my posts about a year or so ago you will see where I gave away the secret of this routine using Rick's envelope. So, there it is, I gave it away. No one bit. Quote:
On 2009-10-07 17:58, cc wrote: One of those that raised concerns was Scott Guinn. The other that raised concerns was an apparent friend of Scott who copied and pasted Scott's exact text to me in his email to me. Scott, by the way never bought the routine so I don't know how he was aware of it all. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Good luck on your vendetta CC (or, whoever you are!) J P.S.: Ok, seriously that's it for me on this one. 
|
|||||||||
|
edh Inner circle 4698 Posts
|
Quote:
The way you released your effects recently (by suggesting the original sources without revealing the methods) is fine. That's what John Cesta should have done. cc, if he had done that he would have nothing to sell.
Magic is a vanishing art.
|
|||||||||
|
cc New user 75 Posts
|
Well, John, that's certainly more than I expected! For the record, my name is Christopher Carey. Reposting the message here obviously worked as you can see from the replies we've gotten so far. Also, telling Iain I didn't think you would reply also did the trick. That was quick John!
So, if you've read everything here John, you'll see that I have no personal agenda and no reason whatsoever to insult your reputation. I do not know Scott Guinn or any mutual friend of his. The two performers I eluded to can certainly post here if they wish, but I'm not going to post their personal experiences with you. That's up to them. I have raised what I believe is a serious issue with you selling this product. Your reply here in which you do not address this issue at all speaks volumes. Yes, I saw your post in which you suggested using Rick Maue's method for Positive/Negative in 2008. Nothing wrong with that John! But profiting from it is a whole different ball o' wax. Edh, couldn't John could have released an ebook in which he discusses Max Maven's Positive/Negative plot (with permission) and the possible methods one could use to do it, other than Max's? There have been entire books devoted to one effect. Lovick's book on the bill switch and Born's book Meant To Be, come to mind. |
|||||||||
|
ElliottB Inner circle 3254 Posts
|
This thread is getting really odd.
CC, I am not familiar with the Bryce Kuhlman version. Did Bryce receive permission from Larry Becker for the coin prediction plot? If not, I recommend starting a thread about that. In fact, you may want to do a little more research about the numerous versions of Positive Negative. When you do, you will find versions by top names that do not even credit Max Maven or Larry Becker. Those versions came out years ago. I suggest equal opportunity flaming. |
|||||||||
|
lumberjohn Special user Memphis, TN 626 Posts
|
Christopher,
I feel that, for the most part, magic plots are in the public domain. (Yes, there are presentations that are so detailed and original that they should rightly be considered the intellectual property of the creator, but that's not what we're talking about here). For instance, if I come up with a method for separating an apparently mixed group of cards or objects into order, I don't believe I need to get the permission of Paul Curry (the creator of "Out of this World"), just because he came up with an effect using the same plot. The reason "Out of this World" is such a popular effect is the universal appeal of the "order from chaos" plot. Mr. Curry tapped into it. He did not create it. Likewise, the basic plot of Positive Negative is that the performer correctly predicts which of three objects the spectator will choose. Other effects with this plot preceded Max Maven's and others have been marketed since with no credit to Max. Max's contributions were (1) the use of different denominations of coins, and (2) his clever method of accomplishing the effect, which was virtually impromptu. UPN uses a completely different method from Max's. The only similarities, aside from the basic plot, are the name of the effect and the fact it uses coins. Going back to the OOTW example, someone some time ago came up with the idea of using photos rather than cards to perform OOTW. Though there are several effects on the market now that use photos in this way, I don't see that any of them have credited, much less obtained permission, from the first person to come up with this idea. Are they unethical as well? Personally, I don't think so. I do tend to agree with you that the name "Ultimate Positive Negative," was ill chosen, since it has been marketed as an improvement to Max's effect. On that point alone I would have sought Max's approval if I had been in John's shoes. Or, I would have chosen a different name. But I find nothing unethical about applying a new method (with permission from the creator of the method) to a fairly standard plot. If you are embarking on a crusade to eradicate this type of activity from the magic community, you will be a very busy man. |
|||||||||
|
John C Eternal Order I THINK therefore I wrote 13023 Posts
|
Christopher, Good luck.
j |
|||||||||
Posted: Oct 7, 2009 05:29 pm 