Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Electronic Frontier Foundation Sues Uri Geller

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the totally-saw-that-coming dept.

reversible physicist writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued spoon-bender Uri Geller for using 'baseless copyright claims' to silence critics who question his paranormal powers. Brian Sapient posted on YouTube a 14-minute excerpt from the 1993 PBS NOVA program 'Secrets of the Psychics,' in which skeptic James Randi says Geller's spoon-bending feats were simple tricks. YouTube took down the video after Geller complained — his lawyers claim that 10 seconds of the video are owned by Geller. A shorter excerpt of the video is still up on YouTube."

2 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. ... still more ... by thermopile · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Still more can be found here, on Damn Interesting, which provides an entertaining read on the things he claims to have done, and the efforts to debunk them. From what I've read, they haven't ALL been debunked.

    His spoon covered cadillac, however, is laughable.

    --

    "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

  2. Geller is in the UK by HuskyDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am a supporter of EFF but having read the compaint, I am (as usual) a little confused. It says that both Geller and his company are based in the UK (paras 4 and 5) and then goes on to say that the court has jurisdiction (para 8). Isn't this going to end up rather like the SpamHaus case but possibly with better management from the UK end?

    I can see how the EFF might prevail with relief A (declaratory judgment) and possibly B (injunctive relief) although its not clear what would happen if Geller broke the injunction. Would that be a criminal offence for which he could be extradited? But reliefs C to F all seem to boil down to Geller handing over some money. What is going to happen when the court rules against him and he ignores them?

    So far as I can see, YouTube shouldn't have had to accept a DMCA takedown request from outside the USA in the first place. Perhaps they didn't have to? Does the DMCA say anything about this? What's to stop some bored teenager from (for example) China sending dozens of takedown notices every day in the certain knowledge that no-one can stop him?