• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Uri Geller to be sued by EFF

Diamond

Illuminator
D
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
4,729
From here

We've all heard about wacky attempts to misuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "takedown" sections recently. There's been the Digg.com flap over a certain hex number beginning with "09 F9," the spat over a parody of the Colbert Report, and even one about a fake ID.

The latest attempt involves Uri Geller, the purported spoon-bending "psychic" who is trying to suppress a video on YouTube that claims Geller is a fraud and demonstrates sleight-of-hand tricks he could have used. The video was posted by the Rational Response Squad, a group of skeptics who take a scientific approach toward evaluating supernatural claims, and rely in part on YouTube to get the word out.

Geller's U.K. company, Explorologist Ltd., sent a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube, claiming copyright in a video posted by the squad. It depicted magician James Randi, a prominent skeptic of the supernatural, showing how Geller could have performed "magic" tricks. (Some of his critics go farther, alleging that Geller is little more than a successful con artist.)

YouTube replied by suspending the relevant account.

There was one problem: Geller doesn't seem to own the video. It's nearly 14 minutes long, and Geller's company apparently can claim copyright in only three seconds of it, a brief excerpt that would likely be permitted by U.S. fair use laws.
Click to expand...

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy ;)
 
Geller is in the UK though. Could be hard to get him to answer in the US.
 
The Skeptic's Dictionary says this of Geller: "He calls himself a psychic and has sued several people for millions of dollars for saying otherwise. His psychic powers were not sufficient to reveal to him, however, that he would lose all the lawsuits against his critics."
Click to expand...

Can't wait to read more about this Youtube thing, and how it will turn out.

Isn't Schadenfreude a wonderful thing? :D
 
Very glad to hear this.

I'm just curious as to how many more videotaped cheating moments have to be shown to the public before he can't explain it away anymore...
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
The hexadecimal value mentioned in the article is:
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Click to expand...
Shhhh!

Anyone reading this thread should not read that number out loud, or you may be in violation of the DMCA. The number is supposed to be a secret, and the US government will use the DMCA to protect its owner from the number's public disclosure.

Of course, wouldn't it be crazy if someone had a web site like http://09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63.com/ ?
 
NoZed Avenger said:
If his cease-and-desist request was directed to a US source, I'd say he can probably be forced to appear.
Click to expand...

Would make sense. If he can pull videos from US YouTube with his UK company, it should also work the other way round, EFF -> UK company.
 
Dunstan said:
I don't think NoZed meant that Geller would be physically dragged into a courtroom, just that a U.S. court would find him to be subject to personal jurisdiction in the U.S.
Click to expand...

That's a far cry from being forced to appear.
 
Not really; the penalties for not appearing (if the court orders his appearance) could be quite devastating, CF. You wouldn't get the FBI knocking on his door at home - but there can be substantial penalties for failing to comply with a court order, depending on the level of the court involved.

So "forced", in this case, may not be inappropriate - even if physical force is not involved.
 
jmercer said:
Not really; the penalties for not appearing (if the court orders his appearance) could be quite devastating, CF. You wouldn't get the FBI knocking on his door at home - but there can be substantial penalties for failing to comply with a court order, depending on the level of the court involved.

So "forced", in this case, may not be inappropriate - even if physical force is not involved.
Click to expand...

Not "forced to appear", then.
 
One more reason to love the EFF. I never thought they would help with something like Geller.


My sincere hope: This becomes a bigger story and a stink gets made over it. Pundits start talking about "Do you have the right to stop distribution of a video because it shows you cheating." Headlines for the article state "Geller sued for trying to suppress video showing trickery."

News organizations begin broadcasting it, possibly just some framegrabs or brief exerpts. They can do this because it's newsworthy documentary material which is being used to illustrate a valid story. It's generally considered fair use to show what you are reporting on, but they may blur his face or something to cover their asses.

In the end it becomes a moot point since the story is about the obviously fake actions in the video.


That would rock! I really hope this goes all the way!
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
Pundits start talking about "Do you have the right to stop distribution of a video because it shows you cheating."
Click to expand...

Or, rather:

"Do you have the right to stop distribution of a video you don't own the copyright to because it shows you cheating?"

I know it sort of answers itself, but that's what YouTube has allowed Uri Geller to do.
 
CFLarsen said:
That's a far cry from being forced to appear.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. In U.S. legal parlance, one can usually "appear" in court through a lawyer. But I don't really understand why you're fixating on this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom