Uri Geller making Youtube pull down James Randi's criticism?

I did see a Geller video up last night. It was, I suppose, a pro-Uri video, but the keywords included the topic "Fraud", which I liked.
 
Why doesn't JREF just host the removed videos on its own server? It would be just a stop-gap measure, but it's better than the online world being totally deprived of them, isn't it?

I can see two problems with self-hosting, but they are not insurmountable: 1) YouTube searching won't turn them up, but google will and 2) the bandwidth needed is large, but throttles and limitations could be imposed, perhaps by IP to prevent fraudulent frequent access and excessive bandwidth charges.
 
1162365292-1162261448589.jpg
 
i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss uri - he "predicted" a England-Israel draw at the weekend - i think he's psychic :D
 
This whole episode illustrates one of the main reasons I chose to host the videos on the StopSylviaBrowne site and not on YouTube.

Not only are those videos unavailable on YouTube, but every blog entry, every site which linked to them now leads to a dead end. And even if YouTube puts them back up, it may not be under the same URL, in which case all of those links will continue to be dead ends.
 
This is hilarious. So Uri Gellar or his other partner in crime is going around YouTube trying to have everything he doesn't like taken down so nobody will see. Anybody want to get James to write an article on this, or perhaps he could contact mainstream press about it? Or, for that matter, Israeli press..
 
SirPhilip said:
This is hilarious. So Uri Gellar or his other partner in crime is going around YouTube trying to have everything he doesn't like taken down so nobody will see. Anybody want to get James to write an article on this, or perhaps he could contact mainstream press about it? Or, for that matter, Israeli press..
Click to expand...

Already in progress.
 
I have a hypothesis on this that explains the efficiency of the Geller organization in deleting all the youtube videos that are critical to them:

1) Geller and company filed infringment complains to youtube which were not acted upon.
2) YouTube got sued for copyright infringement.
3) YouTube responded by activating all pending infringement complaints.
4) YouTube automated the infringement deletion system so the new videos were checked against a list of withdrawn videos, and were supressed if they matched the list of pulled videos.

We can test this by reposting a Geller-bashing video under the former name and a new name.
 
Mr. Scott said:
I have a hypothesis on this that explains the efficiency of the Geller organization in deleting all the youtube videos that are critical to them.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, that won't stop anyone from uploading them via Google however. Google has already 'intergrated' Youtube's search and it's own library of media.
 
i believe baseless dmca takedown notices like those filed by uri geller to get these videos removed are actionable.

apparently having an account on these forums for 5 years doesn't entitle me to post links, but if you google for Michael Crook you will find the story of a particular doofus who started tossing around fake dmca takedown notices, and it ended up biting him in the ass.
 
RichardR said:
:mad:

I thought it was good enough it deserved repeating.

Actually there was some punctuation missing too. It should read Uri Geller: Fraud.
Click to expand...

After I posted it I had a moment of worry, apparently Geller has a history of specifically suing anyone who calls him a fraud. But I've been informed he's been declared a nuisance to litigation, plus I was clearly joking...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom