Uri Geller to be sued by EFF

[Dunstan]

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.

YouTube wasn't named in the EFF's suit, but the EFF has included a cause of action for declaratory relief, asking the court to issue a judgment that the clip does not infringe any copyright of Geller/Explorologist. YouTube would have no reason not to abide by that judgment, since all it cares about is avoiding liability for contributory infringement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

Anyone can block anyone's videos -- if you're willing to perjure yourself, should that apply, like in Uri's case.


This may help to explain. YouTube, in order to cover their..servers, doesn't make any decisions like that. (All with statements of accuracy under penalty of perjury) One party tells YouTube to take something down, they comply and notify the poster of the video. The poster can request it reinstated, and YouTube will. After that it's up to the courts.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

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.

You are welcome!

Interesting remark by the girl (damn, she's hot...). She doesn't look so impressed by Gellers's "powers", BTW.

The crack must have been there from the beginning, thing is that Geller does not touch the spoon part of the ladle till the last 2 minutes or so, when it "suddenly" becomes "plastic". The first 5 minutes were just showmanship.

It's also interesting to note how Geller blatantly refuses to accept the fork he's handed at first.

Here's another video, maybe you are already familiar with it, it's from the BBC'S "Noel's House Party".

 

[Darat]

I've split the discussion about English words and their uses and definitions to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82037.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Moochie]

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.

Can also be used by an exasperated parent who wishes to strike recalcitrant child upside the head.

M.

 

[strathmeyer]

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 don't seem to understand how this all works. A lot has changed since webpages started spreading others content in mass. When YouTube receives the takedown notice, they are required by law to immediately remove the content. This is why it is also so illegal to send "bad" takedown notices as Geller did (and Michael Crook did previously).