It’s been wickedly amusing to see the discussions regarding Hermetic Press’s book by Max Maven, “The Protocols of the Elders of Magic” — especially when the discussion surrounds ethics and secrets. (And, eventually, all discussions regarding magic lead to ethics and secrets.)

Steve Pellegrino admits to reading the Genii BBS thread about the thing, and all he comes away with is that people were arguing about the ethics of reselling the book? Maybe someone at Genii is playing a cruel joke on Steve, feeding him a special version of the thread devoid of the context of that particular aspect. On the other hand, maybe Steve didn’t actually read the entire thread and thus we have an explanation for the straw man he first constructed and then torched.

Rather than force you to endure the thing (the Genii thread, I mean) allow me please to summarize my contribution to the thread regarding the reselling doctrine. Please read them in order, slowly:

1. There were only 500 copies of this book made available

2. There are more than 500 people wishing to own this book

3. Several people purchased multiple copies of this book with the sole intention of reselling the additional copies at a higher price to those who could not order one, knowing full and well that a limited edition Max Maven book would command higher prices on the secondary market

4. This action prevented many people from obtaining a copy from Hermetic Press at the $50 price

5. I called that “distasteful” because I thought it was unkind to deliberately deplete a limited source for the sole purpose of causing others to pay a higher price. (There’s a one-word euphamism for this behavior, which I will leave to your imagination.)

In a nutshell, that’s my position on the reselling of the Maven book.

Do I care if individual owners sell their copy? No. Jeremy Medows is one of the many valuable Internet associations I’ve made over the years. He received his book and subsequently listed it on eBay. I took the time to send Jeremy a note asking why he sold it. His reply was perfectly in keeping with what I suspected.

But that’s not a situation I was referring to and only someone who read the thread would know that.

You think I’m off my rocker in this case? Fine with me. You are welcome to your opinion. But if you believe it is ethically alright to buy additional copies with the intention of reselling them to the people your own actions deprived of their own ability to buy one, and stick them for double or triple the price for the privilege, I’d prefer you continue to make that position known publicly. Really, I do. I’d rather know for a fact you’re not someone I care to do business with or associate with personally, than be left to wonder.

For some people, their world view looks like this: if it is perfectly legal, it is perfectly alright. A close cousin to this is: it’s just business. (Haven’t we been around this “it’s just business” tree before?)

Here’s a newsflash: Legal and Immoral entered into a co-habitation partnership years ago and their bastard offspring have been causing no end of problems since. On the other hand, the marriage between Moral and Ethical has been strong since the beginning of time, and continues to cause no end of trouble to those who prefer the more popular couple mentioned above.

Back to “if it’s legal, it’s alright.” That’s not entirely accurate, is it? That someone is perfectly within their legal rights to do something does not make it morally or ethically the right thing to do. The Supreme Court of the United States of America created a situation whereby abortion is a perfectly legal method of birth control. (Next to abstinence, it’s the ultimate in birth control, actually.) But is it morally right?

In the Genii BBS thread, I used the phrase “social ecology.” By that I mean how your actions impact the lives of those around you. If you have the flu, it is perfectly legal for you to visit a retirement home. But is it fair to the people in that home that you bring a virus among them, and upset their “ecology”? In my opinion, no it is not. But that’s just me.

Oh, I can see the eyes rolling around in your head now. Old John’s comparing selling a magic book to giving some old folks the flu, and to murdering a baby aborting a fetus. I fully understand there are more than just a few people who quickly find themselves out of their intellectual depth on their initial viewing of “Dumb and Dumber” (which is the only excuse I can find for subsequent viewings), but I suspect those aren’t the people reading this blog. (Yes, I know, I’m being snotty. If this surprises you, you’re obviously new in town.)

The process for rationalizing one is the same as that of rationalizing the other; the difference is where you draw the moral and ethical line in the sand. For instance, for some it’s okay to copy magic videos, but not to kill a baby. Or It’s not okay to copy magic videos, but downloading songs via Your Favorite P2P App is okay because, well, (insert your rationalization here).

How about this: how do your actions affect those around you? Selfish people cannot even read that sentence aloud, let alone contemplate it seriously and sincerely.

As I’ve mentioned to my friend Jim Sisti more than once, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In other words, I am the world’s biggest fan of free enterprise and, in fact, think it is the solution to most of the economic problems in the country — not the cause of them. At the same time, I do not believe in profiting by taking advantage of people. Financial success and not screwing people over are not mutually exclusive terms. If you find they are, perhaps you should examine your priority pyramid; it may be upside down.

And I didn’t even touch on keeping the subject and contents of the book secret. That’s a whole ‘nuther issue.