Uri Geller to be sued by EFF

Patricio Elicer said:
OK, here's one (4:40 min)



And here's a second (7:00 min)

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for those, I've never seen them before.

It's quite interesting, in the second video from Switzerland, where at the end Randi mentions the crack in the spoon that Geller chose.

The woman holding the spoon says exactly this, at 1:50 towards the end (the timer of the embedded video is a countdown).

She says "Da unten ist es gerissen" ("It is cracked down there", meaning the joint.)

Apparently, she was not very surprised the spoon would break apart at that crack pretty soon.
 
CFLarsen said:
Not "forced to appear", then.
Click to expand...

CF... people can be "forced" to do something by circumstances, potential consequences for acting on something (or not acting, in this case), or even forced by peer pressure or public opinion. Physical force isn't the only form of coercion available, you know.

In the discussion at hand, I don't know what particular powers the court would have to compel or force Geller to appear; however, I know that some US Courts have the power to:

1) Order US-based financial assets frozen
2) Put out a warrant for contempt of court
3) Assess and fine someone financially
4) Have the US Justice Department (via the State Department) bring charges against the person in their home country, if we have relations with them
5) Extradite persons for trial
6) Have the individual put on "watch" with the State Department, so that they are immediately arrested should they enter the USA

And probably more things I don't know about. :)

So, in this case, the word "force" is being used to mean "compel". In fact, allow me to direct you to the third definition of force in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
Click to expand...

("compulsion" was italicized by me)

So, one use of the word "force" is as a synonym for "compulsion"... and need not be physical in nature. Compulsion, in Merriam-Webster is defined as:

1 a : an act of compelling : the state of being compelled b : a force that compels
2 : an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act (as excessive hand washing); also : the act itself
Click to expand...
(Again, italics mine)

1 a and 1 b, of course, are the definitions needed.

As for "compel"... definition 2 applies:

1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly <hunger compelled him to eat>
2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>
Click to expand...
(Once more, italics mine)

I hope this degree of evidence from an authoritative source is sufficient to clear things up? :)
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
If it is one of his RV appearances can he claim to have the copyright? It seems to be based on the mistaken impression that he owns any image or discussion of himself.
Click to expand...
Maybe Uri will apologize to the internet like Michael Crook? Well I can hope anyway...
 
I noticed this got the Slashdot treatment this morning.

I think Uri just doesn't realize what a big, big mistake he's made. It's just not a good idea to go slapping copyright-infringement threats around the web unless you really know what you're doing. A horde of pissed-off nerds is not something to be taken lightly.
 
Cleon said:
I noticed this got the Slashdot treatment this morning.

I think Uri just doesn't realize what a big, big mistake he's made. It's just not a good idea to go slapping copyright-infringement threats around the web unless you really know what you're doing. A horde of pissed-off nerds is not something to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...

He's gotten away with it before, mainly because he's gone after individuals without the resources to do much about it. Also, ISPs and the like don't want to spend money or time fighting. But he may well have stepped too far on this one -- his actions are potentially affecting more than just one guy/girl and his/her website.
 
jmercer said:
CF... people can be "forced" to do something by circumstances, potential consequences for acting on something (or not acting, in this case), or even forced by peer pressure or public opinion. Physical force isn't the only form of coercion available, you know.
Click to expand...

That's true, but we are talking legalese here.

jmercer said:
In the discussion at hand, I don't know what particular powers the court would have to compel or force Geller to appear; however, I know that some US Courts have the power to:

1) Order US-based financial assets frozen
2) Put out a warrant for contempt of court
3) Assess and fine someone financially
4) Have the US Justice Department (via the State Department) bring charges against the person in their home country, if we have relations with them
5) Extradite persons for trial
6) Have the individual put on "watch" with the State Department, so that they are immediately arrested should they enter the USA

And probably more things I don't know about. :)
Click to expand...

None of these would mean Uri Geller would be forced to appear in court.

jmercer said:
So, in this case, the word "force" is being used to mean "compel". In fact, allow me to direct you to the third definition of force in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

...

I hope this degree of evidence from an authoritative source is sufficient to clear things up? :)
Click to expand...

Nope. First, the dictionary doesn't define words, it only describes usage. Second, usage and legal implementation are two very different things.

Cleon said:
I noticed this got the Slashdot treatment this morning.

I think Uri just doesn't realize what a big, big mistake he's made. It's just not a good idea to go slapping copyright-infringement threats around the web unless you really know what you're doing. A horde of pissed-off nerds is not something to be taken lightly.
Click to expand...

If the story is good, the news will pick it up. Uri made a big doo-doo this time, and he is finding out the hard way.

NoZed Avenger said:
He's gotten away with it before, mainly because he's gone after individuals without the resources to do much about it. Also, ISPs and the like don't want to spend money or time fighting. But he may well have stepped too far on this one -- his actions are potentially affecting more than just one guy/girl and his/her website.
Click to expand...

There is one huge difference between then and now: With the Internet, it is far easier to drum up a good story, with a lot of support behind it.

BTI (Before The Internet), we heard about the stories when they were reported in the news. Today, we can hear about them before they reach the news.

And if you have the right story - suppression of freedom of speech is sure one - you will get your story accepted somewhere in the world.

Reporters are always hungry for good news.
 
CFLarsen said:
That's true, but we are talking legalese here.



None of these would mean Uri Geller would be forced to appear in court.



Nope. First, the dictionary doesn't define words, it only describes usage. Second, usage and legal implementation are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Clausi, with all due respect. I assume English is not your first language, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you really going to argue with a fellow skeptic and native speaker about the meaning of an English word? Just my two cents, but there's more important stuff you can (and do) use your intelligence and dedication for.

Besides, it's quite a non-issue. Whatever forced might mean in this context, I guess we all agree that it does not imply a US Marines Squad kicking in the door of Uri's apartment in the UK and serve him the warrant. :)
 
wahrheit said:
Clausi, with all due respect. I assume English is not your first language, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you really going to argue with a fellow skeptic and native speaker about the meaning of an English word? Just my two cents, but there's more important stuff you can (and do) use your intelligence and dedication for.
Click to expand...

Accuracy is paramount.

wahrheit said:
Besides, it's quite a non-issue. Whatever forced might mean in this context, I guess we all agree that it does not imply a US Marines Squad kicking in the door of Uri's apartment in the UK and serve him the warrant. :)
Click to expand...

I should hope so. Then, there is Gitmo...

















"Clausi"??
 
wahrheit said:
Clausi, with all due respect. I assume English is not your first language, correct me if I'm wrong. Are you really going to argue with a fellow skeptic and native speaker about the meaning of an English word?
Click to expand...

Native speaker. . . . Oh, and attorney. Over my use of a term that I have indicated is a term of art in the legal field concerning jurisdiction, and which he indicates is 'legalese.'

But please, don't let those facts stop my education from continuing. I await further enlightenment concerning what I meant.
 
CFLarsen said:
"Clausi"??
Click to expand...

Adding an i to a first name in German is a kind of diminutive, making it more "cute". Not in the strict linguistic meaning of diminutive.

There are two mayor uses:

a) You kinda like someone
b) Mom caught her boy doing something naughty

Pick your favorite. :p
 
CFLarsen said:
I'm not the one claiming that Uri Geller can be forced.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making a claim about what "forced" means in this context (i.e., "legalese" regarding jurisdictional matters).

What definition of "forced" are you using? What is your source?



If you say that you are making no claim about the definition of "forced" in this context, then can you still state what definition of "forced" you are using (and detail your source)?

If you are saying that you don't know what it means in this context, then could you explain what this big semi-derail and virtually complete waste of time is for?
 
wahrheit said:
Adding an i to a first name in German is a kind of diminutive, making it more "cute". Not in the strict linguistic meaning of diminutive.

There are two mayor uses:

a) You kinda like someone
b) Mom caught her boy doing something naughty

Pick your favorite. :p
Click to expand...

Both. :)

NoZed Avenger said:
You seem to be making a claim about what "forced" means in this context (i.e., "legalese" regarding jurisdictional matters).

What definition of "forced" are you using? What is your source?



If you say that you are making no claim about the definition of "forced" in this context, then can you still state what definition of "forced" you are using (and detail your source)?

If you are saying that you don't know what it means in this context, then could you explain what this big semi-derail and virtually complete waste of time is for?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. You were.
 
CFLarsen said:
That's true, but we are talking legalese here.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see proof that this word is treated differently in legal circles. Evidence?


CFLarsen said:
None of these would mean Uri Geller would be forced to appear in court.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. :)

CFLarsen said:
Nope. First, the dictionary doesn't define words, it only describes usage. Second, usage and legal implementation are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Dictionaries define both a word's meaning and it's usage.

The meaning of the word "Dictionary" - according to Merriam-Webster - is:

1 : a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses
2 : a reference book listing alphabetically terms or names important to a particular subject or activity along with discussion of their meanings and applications
3 : a reference book giving for words of one language equivalents in another
4 : a computerized list (as of items of data or words) used for reference (as for information retrieval or word processing)
Click to expand...
(Italics and bolding mine)



As for the rest... again, I'd like to see proof of your assertion that the word is treated differently in legal circles. Evidence?
 
CFLarsen said:
Ah, yes. You were.
Click to expand...


You must have been replying to someone else and mixed up the quote feature.

Here were the questions:

You seem to be making a claim about what "forced" means in this context (i.e., "legalese" regarding jurisdictional matters).

What definition of "forced" are you using? What is your source?

If you say that you are making no claim about the definition of "forced" in this context, then can you still state what definition of "forced" you are using (and detail your source)?

If you are saying that you don't know what it means in this context, then could you explain what this big semi-derail and virtually complete waste of time is for?
 
Was YouTube also named in the suit? The way I see it, Geller doesn't have the technical ability to "block" any video. He just told YouTube that it was his intellectual property, and they did the blocking or removing or whatever.

Surely YouTube has to be educated (by the courts) on the subject of copyright and fair use. My guess is that some clerk or tech somewhere made the decision to go along with Geller's demand, and now YouTube's legal department might do well to offer some training or oversight of these kinds of decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom