I remember seeing Axel Hecklau lecture and his explanation for the high price on this and his other routines (if I remember correctly) is that he feels the cost is justified as the fee for the performance rights. I do think the cost is exceptionally high, but I just cannot do anything but really like and admire the man, his thinking, his products, and his stellar facial hair.
I think that it's good to have the performance rights included with this item. I mean, just because you bought the damn thing, what makes you think that you have any right to use it? Without those performance rights, you'd only be buying a leather cup and some dice and would never be able to do anything with it other than look at it sit on a shelf. Yes, it it important to charge extra to allow someone to use the overpriced trick that you sold them, because just buying it doesn't allow you to use it.
I think that the auto industry should do the same - charge extra to allow you to drive the car that you bought...Driving rights. And home builders should charge extra for the rights to live in your new bought home...Dwelling rights. And publishers should charge extra to allow you to read your book...Reading rights. In fact, anyone who sells any kind of marketable item should start charging extra for you to use the item that you purchased from them - an entirely new way of making money in every industry on the face of the earth.
They all need to pay attention to magic industry because we are showing them how to extract extra money for NOTHING.
Today I must go and pay 200€ just to have the right to put the wheels of my car on the public streets and because I own a driving license! So as you see 'Driving rights' exist (at least in Italy). Dunno in other European countries..
I agree with you on the 'Performing rights' charge, though...
No, I'm not talking about paying tax on driving privileges, I'm talking about the company that you specifically purchased the vehicle from charging you directly for the right to drive that car. You're going to have to pay the 200€ to the government, but should the car company be able to charge you an extra 400€ to drive their BMW or Chevrolet? You bought it, but you're not allowed to drive it even if you do pay the 200€.
There's a major difference between selling magic and the terms of comparison you chose though.
When you buy a house, living in it does not get you competing with its builder. When you buy a car, driving it does not place you in competition with its maker either, nor does reading a book you bought (as opposed to just letting it sit on a shelf) affect its writer's business in any way.
As a matter of fact, when you buy, say, a DVD, there's a big price-tag difference between buying it for your own private use and buying it for renting or public screening. Same goes with books: if a book's rights haven't expired yet, you aren't meant to organize a public reading of it without the author's consent (only limited quoting is tolerated).
I do agree, however, that since professional magicians are (at least I dare assume so) the primary market for magic tricks, it should be assumed that the primary use of a magic trick is professional in nature and it would make sense that the performance rights, therefore, be included by default (as opposed to a book or a film, where the primary market is composed of "private use" buyers, thus making limited-use pricing the logical default).
Charging extra for the performance rights implicitly says that magic tricks sold without said rights should only be performed in private for friends and family and not in a professional setting - just like books, films, houses, etc. I personally think that the "private use only" buyers constitute too little a part of the magic market for that view to make sense.
That being said, I also respect the creator's right to charge whatever he sees fit for the performance rights of the routine he devised: if he wants to charge a thousand dollars for it just as a means to limit the number of its performers out there, well... his (poor) choice. Not very altruistic, for sure: better material has been made available for free by generous creators. But what can I say... You can't force people into altruism. ;)
You can re-sell a house, car or book thereby bypassing the builder, manufacturer or writer. In this way, you are in competition with them and should absolutely have to pay an extra fee to use the item that you've purchased.
Regardless of any arguments that we can bandy about, if I buy it, I own it and I will use it. Full stop.
As we've seen from Teller and his Rose, all that one can protect is the pantomime and a lot of effects I've bought lack any real pantomime, it's more the just a how to.
The situation (and legal protections) are VERY different in Europe to the US; we have much better copyright protections in most of Europe than the states have so the Teller case is only relevant to other US citizens.
The Teller case is an international case as the violator was operating out of Spain. And there's the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" which says that a work copyrighted in one country is effectively copyrighted in others.
While I know nothing of their laws I doubt that European laws are that different or better. I only use better in reference to their ability to protect content. I personally think the US laws have been pushed so far beyond where they started that it actually hurts industry.
Copyright protects copy in Hecklau's case this would be the DVD and Paper instructions. If there was a script for a performance on one of those he would have the rights to that too. If he did not include a script there's not a performance for him to give or deny rights too, he doesn't own leather and dice chop cup routines. (was the point I was trying to make)
I remember seeing Axel Hecklau lecture and his explanation for the high price on this and his other routines (if I remember correctly) is that he feels the cost is justified as the fee for the performance rights. I do think the cost is exceptionally high, but I just cannot do anything but really like and admire the man, his thinking, his products, and his stellar facial hair.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's good to have the performance rights included with this item. I mean, just because you bought the damn thing, what makes you think that you have any right to use it? Without those performance rights, you'd only be buying a leather cup and some dice and would never be able to do anything with it other than look at it sit on a shelf. Yes, it it important to charge extra to allow someone to use the overpriced trick that you sold them, because just buying it doesn't allow you to use it.
ReplyDeleteI think that the auto industry should do the same - charge extra to allow you to drive the car that you bought...Driving rights. And home builders should charge extra for the rights to live in your new bought home...Dwelling rights. And publishers should charge extra to allow you to read your book...Reading rights. In fact, anyone who sells any kind of marketable item should start charging extra for you to use the item that you purchased from them - an entirely new way of making money in every industry on the face of the earth.
They all need to pay attention to magic industry because we are showing them how to extract extra money for NOTHING.
Today I must go and pay 200€ just to have the right to put the wheels of my car on the public streets and because I own a driving license! So as you see 'Driving rights' exist (at least in Italy). Dunno in other European countries..
DeleteI agree with you on the 'Performing rights' charge, though...
No, I'm not talking about paying tax on driving privileges, I'm talking about the company that you specifically purchased the vehicle from charging you directly for the right to drive that car. You're going to have to pay the 200€ to the government, but should the car company be able to charge you an extra 400€ to drive their BMW or Chevrolet? You bought it, but you're not allowed to drive it even if you do pay the 200€.
DeleteThere's a major difference between selling magic and the terms of comparison you chose though.
DeleteWhen you buy a house, living in it does not get you competing with its builder. When you buy a car, driving it does not place you in competition with its maker either, nor does reading a book you bought (as opposed to just letting it sit on a shelf) affect its writer's business in any way.
As a matter of fact, when you buy, say, a DVD, there's a big price-tag difference between buying it for your own private use and buying it for renting or public screening. Same goes with books: if a book's rights haven't expired yet, you aren't meant to organize a public reading of it without the author's consent (only limited quoting is tolerated).
I do agree, however, that since professional magicians are (at least I dare assume so) the primary market for magic tricks, it should be assumed that the primary use of a magic trick is professional in nature and it would make sense that the performance rights, therefore, be included by default (as opposed to a book or a film, where the primary market is composed of "private use" buyers, thus making limited-use pricing the logical default).
Charging extra for the performance rights implicitly says that magic tricks sold without said rights should only be performed in private for friends and family and not in a professional setting - just like books, films, houses, etc.
I personally think that the "private use only" buyers constitute too little a part of the magic market for that view to make sense.
That being said, I also respect the creator's right to charge whatever he sees fit for the performance rights of the routine he devised: if he wants to charge a thousand dollars for it just as a means to limit the number of its performers out there, well... his (poor) choice.
Not very altruistic, for sure: better material has been made available for free by generous creators. But what can I say... You can't force people into altruism. ;)
You can re-sell a house, car or book thereby bypassing the builder, manufacturer or writer. In this way, you are in competition with them and should absolutely have to pay an extra fee to use the item that you've purchased.
DeleteRegardless of any arguments that we can bandy about, if I buy it, I own it and I will use it. Full stop.
As we've seen from Teller and his Rose, all that one can protect is the pantomime and a lot of effects I've bought lack any real pantomime, it's more the just a how to.
ReplyDeleteThe situation (and legal protections) are VERY different in Europe to the US; we have much better copyright protections in most of Europe than the states have so the Teller case is only relevant to other US citizens.
ReplyDeletei want to have this but it's too expensive to me :(
ReplyDeleteThe Teller case is an international case as the violator was operating out of Spain. And there's the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" which says that a work copyrighted in one country is effectively copyrighted in others.
ReplyDeleteWhile I know nothing of their laws I doubt that European laws are that different or better. I only use better in reference to their ability to protect content. I personally think the US laws have been pushed so far beyond where they started that it actually hurts industry.
Copyright protects copy in Hecklau's case this would be the DVD and Paper instructions. If there was a script for a performance on one of those he would have the rights to that too. If he did not include a script there's not a performance for him to give or deny rights too, he doesn't own leather and dice chop cup routines. (was the point I was trying to make)