Clowning articles Clown Forum Clown Chat Clown Forum Clown Closet classified ads Funhouse games Souvenir Stand Clown Gallery

Go Back   Clown Forum > Children's Entertainment Forum > Magic

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2007, 01:18 PM
The_Princess_of_Bozonia's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,309
Thanks: 228
Thanked 473 times in 258 posts
Laugh: 171
Got 439 laughs in 181 posts
Groans: 1
Groaned at 14 Times in 4 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to The_Princess_of_Bozonia
Default The Conjurer's Dilemma: How magicians protect their tricks

The Conjurer's Dilemma: How magicians protect their tricks.
By Tim Harford

In the late 1870s, a magician named Buatier de Kolta was mesmerizing audiences in Paris with the trick of producing big bunches of paper flowers from an empty roll of paper. Nobody knew how the trick was achieved, until a stray gust of wind blew one of the flowers onto the floor in front of the stage. A magician in the audience seized it and ran out, and de Kolta's trick was soon being performed by many of his rivals.

The story is told by Jacob Loshin, a recent graduate from Yale Law school, in a working paper on how magicians protect their tricks. Such outright thefts would be hard to imagine today, because magicians have developed a professional code of conduct to defend their most valuable property: their ideas.

The research bears—albeit obliquely—on an issue that is only going to become more important: intellectual property in a world where more and more of the wealth that is created takes the form of ideas rather than objects. Intellectual property law does not protect magical tricks very well, and it does not help much in high fashion or in haute cuisine, either—all areas that Loshin describes as a "negative space" for intellectual property. (Check out the Law and Magic Blog for a glimpse into the issue's complexities.)

For the fashion industry, a lack of intellectual property protection may not be a problem: The trickle-down of high-end fashion helps create obsolescence and the demand for more high-end fashion. But chefs and conjurers need a little help protecting their ideas. Lacking legal protection, they resort to professional norms.

Loshin describes the magicians' norms, which encourage the selective sharing of techniques, limit copying unless a technique has been widely distributed, and credit the rediscoverer of a long-dormant technique with the same rights as the trick's inventor. Economists Emmanuelle Fauchart and Eric von Hippel report very similar norms for the sharing of recipes among French chefs.

In both cases, the norms are enforced through social pressure that can be very powerful. Loshin describes the case of one company that manufactured tricks that were regarded in the eyes of the profession—although not the law—as proprietary. Magic journals would not accept the company's advertisements, professional magicians shunned its offerings, and bankruptcy soon followed.

These techniques work because the fraternity of magicians—and chefs—is close-knit. Aspiring chefs work long apprenticeships and rely on word-of-mouth for their next job. Magic journals are not available at newsstands, and even Prince Charles had to perform an examination before being accepted as a member of the Magic Circle. A magician who steals from another, or reveals secrets not widely known by nonmagicians, will not be entrusted with new ideas or recommended by other magicians.

These informal sanctions work well for both chefs and magicians. But they are not perfect. Magicians, in particular, face another problem that the chefs do not. If a chef's recipe is revealed to the world, that does not detract from his reputation, and only other professional chefs are likely to be able to use the information. But if a magician's trick is revealed, his reputation suffers. In fact, a little bit of the mystery is taken away from the entire profession.

In one notorious episode, a series of 1990s television shows with the self-explanatory title Breaking the Magician's Code won big audiences by revealing the secrets behind classic illusions. One magician complained that the shows were "peeing in everybody's cornflakes"; another compared them to destroying Santa Claus. But the magicians' social sanctions were powerless to prevent television executives from exposing their secrets, and legal challenges to the program did not succeed.

Loshin's work is a reminder of how idiosyncratic intellectual property rights can be. Idiosyncrasy is not easy for economists to deal with, but if we want to understand the intangible economy of ideas, it's a trick we shall have to master.

Tim Harford is a columnist for the Financial Times. His latest book is The Undercover Economist.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2175616/
Reply With Quote
  The following 4 clowns say thank you to The_Princess_of_Bozonia for this great post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2007, 10:32 PM
Fitzwilly's Avatar
COAI Regional Vice President Midwest
Donor Link Award Distinguished Author Award 
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Central Indiana
Posts: 4,629
Thanks: 534
Thanked 817 times in 566 posts
Laugh: 520
Got 761 laughs in 389 posts
Groans: 13
Groaned at 10 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Hey, that is a good article. It tracks well and leaves you wanting to visit his website as well as do more research in this direction. I tip my top hat and my rabbit bends an ear to you Princess.
__________________
Dan/Fitzwilly
www.LaughingStockPro.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=