What really stuck with me was his candour about why he did this. Not out of some sense of the greater good for the magic community, but, instead:

…so I can better understand the world I live in. If I can understand it, perhaps, I can improve my chances of making it a better place.

For what it’s worth, I think there’s a lesson there that’s wider than this discussion.

Today I received another email from Derek, one that may well validate the idea of community policing espoused in my original post. It turns out the owners of the original piracy site stepped up and wanted to make amends. They agreed to work with Derek, transforming the site into one with an anti-piracy theme, in exchange for relative anonymity – no release of surnames. With the help of Jonathan Bayme (CEO of theory11), this new venture looks to make the world – at least the magic world – a better place:

So, with thanks to my new friends Brian, Jason and Mr. Jonathan Bayme, the project is underway and we are proud to announce the new Magicsnoop.com, a site that will actively pursue and protect the intellectual property of magicians.

http://www.magicsnoop.com/

Good work, Derek. I look forward to seeing how this new chapter unfolds, and if the world is ready to be made a better place.

These days the concept of sharing information on the Web ranges from innocent to nefarious, and every stop in between. One of these ways is piracy, which lives more towards the nefarious end of the scale. Unauthorised reproduction or use of copyrighted material has always been a sticking point for content producers and consumers alike, with legislators sprinting to catch up with technology. In some cases, you get what happened in New Zealand this year with The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, which puts the onus of proving innocence onto the accused. Controversial, to say the least, as it would seem to contradict the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But I digress.

On 8 December 2011, Derek DelGaudio posted this on Twitter:

@Magic_Snoop I'd appreciate it if you didn't offer my copyrighted material. It's a dick move, not to mention illegal.

08 December 2011 16:20 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@derek_del

Derek DelGaudio

Then, about five hours later,

CONTEST! First to publicly name who owns http://t.co/f5HcAkJn wins a very cool box of goodies!RT @garciamagic & @calenmorelli365, want in?

08 December 2011 21:33 via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@derek_del

Derek DelGaudio

After this campaign gained groundswell on Twitter, the offending site was gone by 9 December 2011, replaced with a domain parking page:

The site is down, but contest stands! Win a prize loaded with magic from me, @mwisme @garciamagic @calenmorelli365! (see last tweets) RT

09 December 2011 09:45 via EchofonReplyRetweetFavorite

@derek_del

Derek DelGaudio

It’s difficult to prove a causative link between DelGaudio’s crusade and the site forced offline. Still, support grew. Within a day or two, many names in magic – famous and non –  had contributed prizes to the ‘contest’. People like Jamy Ian Swiss, David Blaine, William Kalush, Helder Guimares, R Paul Wilson, Michael Weber, The Buck Twins, Andi Gladwin, and Daniel Garcia all chipped in. This unity of purpose astounded me. (As of this writing, it doesn’t look like anyone has collected the bounty on the disestablished site’s owner.)

I know magic, like other creative endeavours, has been affected by digital copyright infringement. Why buy when you can download? To be honest, I always thought the arguments put forward by motion picture studios and record companies were hollow, just a remnant of centralised control of product and profit in an increasingly decentralised world. I sided with those claiming piracy and theft are not the same thing. In the conjuring world, though, I don’t know about this position. A relatively small community with a limited economic influx sees the downstream impact of copyright infringement quite quickly. It was this small community that gathered, and essentially caused the site to vanish, without the weight of entertainment cartels or legislatures.

Ultimately, I don’t know if this is a win for DelGaudio. Anyone with a Google and a bit of intuition can find what are presumably the files formerly hosted on the shuttered site. Because of peer-to-peer file sharing, no longer is there one place where the files are kept, so removing them from the Internet becomes nigh impossible. Of course, that won’t stop governments from crafting laws with unanticipated side effects. After all, long-term thinking isn’t something in which governments excel.

So what, then? Has what has happened with Derek DelGaudio’s magic change the face of piracy? Doubtful. For some, information is meant to be free, and to that end it will be made so. Technology will outpace law, and people will have their intellectual property taken beyond their control. But the idea of a community policing itself  seems far less problematic than sweeping legislation that risks the democratisation of information.

The title has always intrigued me, illuminating the gap between people that has always existed. I believe Rich meant it to uncover differences in gender and culture, but the same goes for all words that define us and separate us at the same time. It’s these implied and imposed divisions that cause medical terms to be in Latin and technical explanations to be unerringly complex.

In a way, we all need a level of opacity in language to form our boundaries and shape us. If we can’t communicate with those like us, what hope can there be for any understanding? The only issue comes when we want to connect with others outside our group.

In magic, this division is prevalent. It’s to be expected really, in a situation where the very nature of what occurs is based in secrecy and deception. But then there comes a time where the deception needs to be brought into the light, to have people – real, live, non-magician people – observe and interact. That’s when what we learn in books and from others falls sadly short in making the connection. For example:

• Square: If you work with cards, you know what ‘square the deck’ means. But give a deck of cards to a participant and tell them to square it, and you may be met with a blank stare. This is one of those times when a simple ‘make sure they’re all straight’ may suffice.
• Shuffle: I feel the days of using cards for recreation are on the wane, and the concept of ‘shuffling’ will soon be like calling recorded music ‘albums’ – a nostalgic nod to a fond past. Instead, a word like ‘mix’ conveys the idea and the action in one. Granted, this may be a stretch, but think of how prevalent the mimed shuffling action is performed as an instruction.
• Patter: This is one for the insiders, but I think still proves the point. ‘Patter’ is an essentially derogatory term, denoting rote speech. Actors don’t refer to their scripted lines as ‘patter’, even though actors and magicians share the end goal of entertainment. ‘Dialogue’ or ‘presentation’ seems a better choice.

These are only a few top-of-mind examples, and I’m sure there are far better ways in getting these ideas across. It’s a conscious effort to make the connection with people, to not drive a wedge between what we know and what others experience. A conscious, sometimes difficult, but worthwhile effort.

I’ve recently realised – probably far later than I should have – that this understanding is based in a simple concept that’s overlooked. To paraphrase Otis and Aretha, this is about respect.

This somewhat obvious revelation came about whilst I attended the Sydney International Magic Summit, put on by Sean and Diana Taylor of Taylor’s Magic Shop. I had been mulling ideas around presentation and involving others for some time, and looked forward to learning more on this from the lineup of speakers: Michael Ammar, Oscar Muñoz, and Peter Wardell. It was also an opportunity to talk with other Antipodean magicians about, well, anything and everything.

The edifying moment happened for me during Peter Wardell’s lecture. Peter produces The Magic State of Mind podcast and the 52 Ideas blog, both abundant with content for those willing to absorb it. He was significantly jet lagged, but he said something during the lecture that really rang true to me. Again I paraphrase, but his intent remains:

Tricks are for yourself. Effects involve other people.

Fundamental to that remark is the appreciation of the ‘other’ involved. After all, they are the ones participating, giving their time to someone whose idea of creative expression usually involves transposition of an item to an impossible location. We should work to reward participants for the respect they’ve shown to us. Performing an effect does this, taking into account their observations, beliefs, thoughts, and feelings – the things that make them human and worthy of respect. Whereas performing a trick merely shows that you’re clever.

Though this is a message echoed throughout magic’s corpus, seeing hobbyists or casual performers disrespect participants didn’t really surprise me. (Here’s a tip: if you’re performing a three-card monte routine for Michael Ammar, you might want to avoid the insulting remarks as part of your delivery. Ammar will crush you.)

It was during the International Stars of Magic show when I was astounded to see several performers fly in the face of this oft-repeated consideration of respect. For instance, if you call someone on stage, it’s probably best not to make fun of them and their parents. Continually. Sure, it may get some cheap laughs, but you can almost guarantee that you’ve lost their respect. And then there’s the chain reaction: the next time the person you’ve disrespected encounters a magician, you’ve all but ensured the level of respect and participation they’ll receive.

The initial respect is hard earned. Once won, it’s too easily lost. Even if it takes an extra moment of thought, isn’t respect worth retaining?

Don’t do tricks “to” your audience; do tricks “for” them.

This, to me, points out an important distinction between spectator and participant in magic.

Spectators are passive in the act, and they have the work done to them. This usually manifests when you see someone performing magic as close to the script as possible. When performing for spectators, if one thing goes wrong – the chosen card wasn’t the Eight of Diamonds; the thumb tip is seen; the shell coin flips over – the illusion is over, usually accompanied with visible  frustration and resentment. How dare this spectator ruin my beautiful trick?

Performances for participants, though, are far more engaging. The audience is active and  involved. If things go wrong, there is an acceptance of humanity, and a laugh is had, and we move on. Oh well, just trying to have some fun. How about this…

The literature is rife with this terminology of ‘spectator’. A quick look through the shelves has Simon, Fitzkee, Tamariz and Hugard using the term. I can understand how there are really a limited amount of words one could use to describe the person or persons who are involved on the non-performing end of a routine, but the next time you see the word, try translating it to ‘participant’.

The important thing to remember is that lacking the engagement of a participant, you may as well be locked in your room practising for your mirror. You need a participant to come along with you on the journey, to feel something magical happen. Otherwise, what’s the point?

It happens all the time: ‘This trick is based on a Marlo variation of a Vernon experiment, originally presented by Thurston who borrowed it from an unpublished idea of Reginald Scot.’ Seriously, more accreditation than a doctoral thesis, leading the reader to source the original idea, which is often unrecognisable, or unusable.

It makes me wonder about such things. After all, you never hear of an actor giving credit on this level. Yes, they give praise. Effusive actors always enjoy praising those who came first, those who influenced them. But never do you hear credit for a hand movement, or an inflection, or an aspect of Richard III. Never ‘The idea for Willie Loman being slightly slouched came from Lee J Cobb.’ Instead, actors build on what they know of the scene, and the audience, to create a character and action that serves the message they’re trying to deliver.

To do similar in magic, however, is unforgivable. It’s seen as heresy in the magic world second only to revealing secrets. Naming and shaming tactics are acceptable against those who don’t footnote. It’s a curious behaviour. I think there is a fine line between crediting and not, but I don’t think the latter equates to theft.

Maybe it’s because the magic community is so small, that it’s easy to accuse one’s contemporaries of stealing. But ideas come from experience, and because of the small community, the experience context is smaller. Therefore, overlapping ideas are not only likely, but more probable. I suppose it’s a matter of quantity, though: ‘taking’ someone else’s idea once can be called shoddy research; do it twice, and you’re  a thief. Either way, not a good position to be in.

There is nothing new under the sun but there are lots of old things we don’t know. – Ambrose Bierce

To me, it makes sense. Many things we now consider works of art were merely the output of a labourer – the cornice of a building; a stained glass window; a wall mural; the turned arm of a chair. In their day, the people who created these things wouldn’t be called artists, and it’s doubtful they would call themselves that.

They were, instead, craftspeople, creating utilitarian objects that just so happened to manifest beauty. The intrinsic nature of the object was one of use, and if someone enjoyed it, all the better. I think this describes practitioners of magic perfectly. The ‘use’ in this case is to vanish, or transform, or produce, or restore, or transpose, or any of the other categories of magic suggested by Dariel Fitzkee and others. If someone enjoys it, all the better.

And, just to prove that I did attend university, I’ll close this out with some stanzas I think both quite beautiful and apropos here, from The Builders, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

In the elder days of Art,
Builders wrought with greatest care
Each minute and unseen part;
For the Gods see everywhere.

Let us do out work as well,
Both the unseen and the seen;
Make the house, where Gods may dwell,
Beautiful, entire, and clean.