Electronic Frontier Foundation Sues Uri Geller

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."

Comments

They're just jealous but

[C4st13v4n14]

There is no spoon!

Re:They're just jealous but

[monk.e.boy]

Uri Geller *always* has two spoons. Not hard to figure out his 'magic powers' when he only lets you examine one of them

monk.e.boy

Re:They're just jealous but

[NayDizz]

Actually, he would just bend the crap out of the spoon beforehand, until the middle pivot point was flimsy enough to bend easily. I love this clip from the Tonight Show where Johnny Carson provides him with unaltered props and Uri refuses to perform a psychic phenomenon. Oh, it's introduced by Randi... Link

He thought wrong!

[abionnnn]

He thought he could bend copyright laws too!

Re:He thought wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike spoons, copyright laws are self-bending.

Re:He thought wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

He thought he could bend copyright laws too! That's kind of futile isn't it? /. users have been bending and breaking copyright laws without the help of supernatural powers for many years now.

Re:He thought wrong!

[Mateo_LeFou]

I remember Moglen predicted that the DMCA would primarily be used -- not to thwart copyright infringmenet -- but to thwart competition and public participation. Cf. printer cartridges, SLAPPs, etc. It often seems to me like he was prophetic.

Of course, the only time I ever hear about DMCA usage is on /. so it's not exactly fair and balanced. Are there tons of legitimate DMCA takedowns happening that don't get reported?

More on this....

[BigBadBus]

Theres a bit more on this on http://www.badpsychics.co.uk/ and its forums. Well worth a read IMHO!

Re:More on this....

[Anonymous Coward]

And here is EFF press release and filings: (I'm disappointed these were not linked in summary.)
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_05.php#00524 4
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/

Re:More on this....

[PopeRatzo]

It kind of bugs me that these "skeptics" like Randi will go after these two-bit hucksters, but not touch the real frauds selling organized religion to suckers.

You think Uri Gellar little scam can touch the massive hocus pocus peddled by guys like the Pope or other so-called "religious leaders"? At least Gellar is somewhat entertaining and doesn't expect me to give him 10 percent of my income and the nicest few hours of a Sunday morning, and he doesn't promise I can wish away all the bad things in the world, despite all evidence to the contrary. And he doesn't try to make people feel guilty about sex.

Religion is the last bastion of political correctness. Now we're all supposed to look the other way when a candidate for president wears magical underwear and not ask him how he can believe that stuff about the golden plates in the desert and all. No wonder we end up with guys like Bush.

No, Uri Gellar, cheap flim-flam he may be, can't hold a candle to someone like this guy in Colorado, Ted Haggard, who's preaching "family values" and having prayer meetings with the President during the day and snorting crystal with male prostitutes in the evening.

Re:More on this....

[Bertie]

Actually, watch that very clip, and you'll see... Randi going after a faith healer.

Re:More on this....

[Ash Vince]

One again the slashdot mods showing they are unable to handle a point of view which differs from their own.

If you dont aggree with a post, try and be constructive and say why you disagree. Dont just mod the post as a troll because it offends your christian sensibilities.

Personally I gree with the parent poster. At least you can safely laugh at Uri Gellar in the knowledge that all he can bend is spoons. There are much more worring people out there who can bend other peoples minds into doing their bidding.

Re:More on this....

[holysin]

Uh... "Organized religions don't pretend to be able to demonstrate the paranormal, and so there's nothing concrete or repeatable for anyone like Randi to disprove."

You're not catholic are you? Exorcisms, Transubstantiation (bread into flesh, wine into blood), resurection, heaven, hell, the rapture (wait, that's evangelicals), saints (need a miracle to be a saint remember, and what's the definition of a miracle?)

Course if you're a Mormon, how about the magic underwear? Or john smith's magic hat?

Quakers (and southern baptists, and a few others) still speak in tongues when the "holy spirit" takes them over. They've even been known to... well... quake with feeling for the lord.

The devil? God? Creationism? The great flood? The concept of sin? Passover? Easter? Reincarnation? Any of these things ringing a bell?

However, you are at least partially right, over the centuries cults (erm, religions) have gotten very good at claiming things that are hard to disprove. However you might want to check out Richard Dawkins' new book "The God Delusion". You're also right, people tend to be easily fooled into believing nonsense, look at how many devout christians of various faiths there are in the US. Hell, the president believes the the jury is still out on evolution. For that matter a CBS survey back in 04 found that 45% of the people who voted for Bush and 24% of the votes for Kerry wanted creationism taught in schools instead of evolution. That's a crap load of people that think evolution is BS. (There's also 3 republican presidental candidates (for now) that state they do NOT believe in evolution.

Re:More on this....

[Miseph]

The difference is that even if there is no deity, the majority religions still provide useful and positive services to their members. There are some whackjobs in organized religion to be sure, but most clergy by whatever name they're called, as well as most believers, are good, honest people who try to do right in the world and from time to time succeed.

I realize that when you're a young "atheist", head all full of newfound rhetorical and "logical" techniques, it seems cool to paint organized religion as a blight upon the world using the broadest strokes, but I assure you that it just annoys the rest of us. I've gone through a fairly wide philosophical and religious spectrum during my lifetime so far, there have been points where I would agree with you, and there have been points where I'd wish your type would shut up and stay off my "side" because immature religion bashing in no way helps the atheist cause or ethos, and now I'm at the point where I just smack my forehead and hope that you get over it for your own sake.

For the record, I'm not much of a gambling man, but I'd put money on some serious atheists with mod points either shoving you down or refusing to waste one saving you. That's what happens when you start spouting inflammatory nonsense and making yourself, as well as atheism, look stupid and childish.

Re:More on this....

[kestasjk]

You can't because it's not reproducible. You can't "debunk" alien abductions because you can't be abducted under lab conditions.

Re:More on this....

[ericlondaits]

Don't forget the miracles. The catholic church has accepted many miracles over the years, which are actually a requirement to qualify for sainthood (and there's a lot of saints, so that's a lot of miracles). You have some popular ones, like those made by the Lady of Fatima and the virgin of Lourdes.

What's interesting is that the church investigates and aproves some of these miracles, but believing in them is not actually required to be a catholic... they leave it to personal choice.

To be fair, that IS a smart choice... because:

- Many people will choose not to believe in miracles and that's fine. I believe you can be a perfectly good scientist but still believe in god, follow the teachings of Jesus and practice the christian faith (some of them, at least).

- Many people will choose to believe in miracles anyway... they want to believe that Virgin Mary chooses to mark a grilled cheese sandwich with her face. There are a lot of these people, and the church just can't drive them away with a stick and deny their faith. The cure would probably be worse than the disease.

- Accepting the possibility of a miracle allows the church to send a very skeptic investigator to check things out... most likely to debunk it, since it's not good for the church to have someone with a direct line to god. However, even in absolute good faith it's a good idea for the church to debunk at minimum the most obviously fraudulent miracles, since letting them pass gives the faith a bad name.

Re:More on this....

[smellsofbikes]

I agree with the direction of your post, but there are some ... let's call them clarifications.

1. Joseph Smith, not John, was the one with the hat. 1a. It wasn't the hat that was magic, it was a stone, that he dug up and PUT in the hat, and then he'd stick his face in the hat and the stone would talk to him and he'd say what the stone told him to, so that his loyal amanuensis could write it all down.

2. Most Quakers these days aren't so into the crazies. Shakers were but they're mostly extinct. Likewise, most Southern Baptists and their crowd don't do the shaking and speaking-in-tongues (glossolalia, it's called) and handling snakes and other weird things like that: many consider those to be sinful. Pentecostals, however, are WAY into the shaking and the gibbering.

A lot of religious Christian types absolutely do believe in big, world-affecting miracles, at least in the past: many of them will tell you earnestly that NASA had to repeatedly recalibrate the Apollo landings to account for a missing day -- but not quite a full day, because two different time-stop miracles are described in the Bible. They're thorough, even if the whole idea of weird time issues thousands of years ago would have any relevance whatsoever on the Earth/Moon system being ludicrious. (Of course, it's not ludicrous if there was a defined start time, at which the Earth and Moon were created like they are -- which they believe -- but it is if the E/M system is a few billion years old and doesn't really have a discernable start.)

Re:More on this....

[db32]

I agree with your sentiment, but the whole do good thing is a little broadly painted itself. It depends on where in the world you are at, when you get to dealing with that crowd of "I'm saved because I accept Jesus, and you can choose to be saved" crowd...wow. Some of the most worthless excuses for humans I have run into. Irritating, pushy, arrogant, completely blind to anything Jesus actually taught (I am reasonably convinced he was a real man, just not so convinced of the whole Son of God business). These clowns frequently behave as if they can do no wrong, that act based faith is silly and pointless, and that there is no need to do good, only to convert or crush everyone who is not on board with their ideology.

That being said, I think the religion end of it is irrelevant and more often than not is used as a tool to justify inflicting great crimes "in the name of God" on various other differing groups. Christians are by no means the only guilty party, but given that they come in such high numbers you just see it a little more often...well unless of coarse you are in the US then its only islamic folks that do it. The key here is that quite a few people DID catch on to the whole "love thy neighbor is the most important commandment" stuff that Jesus taught and they DO get together and they DO help out. These people I believe would do this without some God figure watching over them, they took to the teachings of a good and honest man and followed them. They are to be commended for their compassion, and behavior rather than their beliefs. I only disagree with the MOST part because that has not been my experience at all, some are insane lunatics, some are genuinely good people working for the benefit of mankind, MOST sit around tithe their 10% discuss the latest gossip and while they may believe in being good, generally pay lipservice and frequently do little in terms of getting their own hands dirty doing good.

Re:More on this....

[Miseph]

"Like brainwashing them to believe that if they strap on a bomb and kill the infidel, they'll go straight to heaven where virgins await them?"

Since that is apparently directed at Muslims... the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that in any way, and the Koran is actually very clear on the rules of war, prohibiting things like the targeting of civilians, kidnapping, wanton destruction of buildings, torture, or killing any more than necessary to achieve the objectives. The fact that, out of over 1 billion people, a few thousand are so dangerously sociopathic as to believe that drivel is 9sadly) unsurprising, and criticizing the entire religion for it is simply unfair.

"Prove it. I'm not buying it for a second. I've found religious types to be among the most intolerant people on the planet. Let's see, atheists are bad. Homosexuals are bad. Science is bad. People who believe in a different religion from you are bad. And so on, ad infinitum. Guess what happens to bad people? They often get beaten, locked up, or killed. Yeah, religion is great."

You realize that the entire Civil Rights Movement was built on the efforts of religious groups, right? I've never heard the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as 'intolerant" before. The ministers at the Episcopalian church in the town I grew up have decided not to perform any weddings in protest of their denomination's decision not to recognize same-sex marriage or allow the ceremonies to occur in their churches. Pope John Paul II was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end "communist" (quotes mine, for ideological clarity) oppression, and was very active in trying to mend millenniums old rifts with other religions (Judaism, Islam) and denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Anglicanism), as well as being a friend of the Dalai Lama. The number of very highly regarded homeless shelters, soup kitchens, mission schools and hospitals, grief counseling centers, scholarships, and other charity and community service efforts organized and operated by religious groups is beyond count.

You're letting a few bad apples ruin your opinion of a group larger than you can imagine, and then acting as if you're smarter than anyone else because of it. Sure there are some bad people who justify doing bad things with all sorts of reasons, and unfortunately religion is a very popular one to use, but they are far from the majority, though they do tend to shout considerably louder.

I'm not a member of any organized religion, by the way.

Re:More on this....

[abb3w]

The difference is that even if there is no deity, the majority religions still provide useful and positive services to their members.

Like brainwashing them to believe that if they strap on a bomb and kill the infidel, they'll go straight to heaven where virgins await them?

It's more accurate to say that the religions provide useful and positive services to their societies. In the case of "strap on a bomb and kill the infidel", it encourages surplus male population to go out and annoy outsiders, rather than make trouble in the local community. As long as you have at least modest genetic diversity, this isn't a serious problem in a polygamous society. If you have 72 nubile young women, then it doesn't matter much to the size of the next generation whether you have 144 irritatable young men, or just one very tired and happy one: you still end up with the same number of babies.

It may help if you think of religions as a trait of societies similar to genetic traits in an organism. They arise due to mutations (genetic or conceptual), and are subject to evolutionary pressures. Those which are more of a benefit than harm to the society are more likely to thrive. It doesn't have to do a LOT of good, just more good than not having it.

Religion is useful for inculcating basic ethical habits into those too young, simple, and/or stupid to independently develop them. Smile; if you think religious rednecks like Pat Robertson are annoying now, just imagine what they'd be like without it. (Watching "The Hills Have Eyes" again might help.)

Re:More on this....

[SoulRider]

The whole speaking in tongues thing really gets me. Speaking in tongues originally meant that when I praise god everyone understands me, even if they dont speak/understand the language I am speaking in. How did this bastardized gibberish that the evangelicals and Quakers speak get equated to speaking in tongues? Its not its own language, its a symbolism to represent that Gods word is more powerful than our petty language differences.

Re:More on this....

[Coryoth]

If it can't be debunked, i.e. is not falsifiable, you are justified in believing it does not exist by Occam's Razor. Wow, that has to be the weirdest interpretation of Occam's razor I've ever seen. You seem to be conflating it with the popularised version of Popper's philosophy of science. Occam's razor is simply a rule of thumb for picking the most effective explanations (it suggests you lean toward those that require the least complication). Popper had a philosophy of science that used falsifiability as an important criterion. The popularised version (which is what we get here on Slashdot) reduces that to "Science == Falsifiability". There are alternatives -- you might like to try Kuhn for instance. In practice falsifiability is most certainly not a criterion for truth, nor existence, but it does provide a handy rule of thumb as to whether something is worth investigating: if it isn't falsifiable then, regardless of whether it is true or not, it probably isn't worth expending much time on because you'll never be able to tell if it is false.

Re:More on this....

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

It kind of bugs me that these "skeptics" like Randi will go after these two-bit hucksters, but not touch the real frauds selling organized religion to suckers.

Do you really think that the world would be better off without religion? Many people -- those not so enlightened as you clearly are -- need the idea of a religion to give their life meaning. These people are not bad folks, they're doing the best they can to make for themselves and their fellow man to make sure they reach their reward in the afterlife.

There's nothing wrong with atheism either, but you do it a disservice when you spend your time and energy spouting your hatred of religion. Did it ever occur to you that trying to force atheism onto people who are quite happy with their beliefs is as repugnant to them as you would find it if they tried to convert you to their religion?

People have their beliefs for good or ill. Trying to force them to change their beliefs to suit your purposes (whether it be for worship of the god Logic, or worship of God, or just because you're feeling sadistic) is just obnoxious in either case.

Re:More on this....

[asninn]

Without wanting to comment on your post and the issues discussed in this thread as such, I'd like to point out that it seems to make little sense to - on one hand - say that the actions of people doing bad things in the name of religion do not actually have anything to with that religion, and then - on the other hand - point out that people who did *good* things (like Dr. King) were religious people.

Yes, religion does influence what people do; but either the religion *as such* (no matter whether it's islam, christianity or whatever) is responsible for the actions of its members, in which case you can't say that suicide bombers acting in the name of islam have nothing to do with it, for example, or it's not - and in that case, the fact that Dr. King, for example, was a christian is wholly irrelevant, too, at least insofar as that christianity cannot take credit for what he did. It may have inspired him, but then, suicide bombers' actions are inspired by islam (assuming they're muslims, although most suicide bombers seem to be), too.

You can't have it both ways.

Re:More on this....

[UnknownSoldier]

> the vast majority of Muslims do not believe that in any way, and the Koran is actually very clear on the rules of war,

Have you even _read_ what the Koran says? The Koran is corrupted just as much as the Bible.

* "Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

* "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

* "Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

* "The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

* "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

* "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

* "...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

* "It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

* "If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

* "Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

* "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

* And the reward for those who kill those who are not Muslim: "Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

Let me guess...

[daranz]

During these 10 seconds he placed the spoon in a clamp and started hammering at it vigorously?

Mr Spoons

[CmdrGravy]

This is an excellent illustration of how people can abuse things like copyrights to attempt to prop up their own dubious practices.

Clearly Uri Geller has no "psychic" abilities whatsoever and yet he has built his career on claims that he does and this is how he earns his money. Rather than offering scientifically measured demonstrations of his "powers" he attempts instead to simply keep his critics silent. Obviously this is totally reprehensible behaviour which shares some similarity with the behaviour of record companies whoes original purpose is rapidly diminishing and are also using copyright laws to prop themselves up.

I don't think the answer is necessarily changing the laws of copyright ( except correcting the ludicrous length of time protection can be claimed ) but making sure that people claiming it's protection are doing so properly. It would appear in this case there are no copyright violations since Mr Gellers material is only be critised and excerpted which is perfectly legal. Instead I advocate the slaughter of anyone, individuals or entire companies who attempt to abuse copyright laws in this manner. This should send a strong message that the public do want their rights trampled on and will not let individual members suffer bullying and intimidation for larger individuals or companies.

Re:Mr Spoons

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Just for the sake of argument.

Lets take magicians, we all know they don't know magic, they can't do half the things they claim, so how come they can claim to do so and be used as entertainers as such? Uri Geller is a creepy asshole, we all know this, but it does not take away from his entertainment value and if you consider him on par with a kids show magician or a clown then his "act" is perfectly legit.

Why circle out this guy and not the others?

Re:Mr Spoons

[daeg]

Everyone knows magicians operate with slight of hand and plays on the human senses. Sure, they may claim otherwise as part of their act, but that's all it is: a well-done act for entertainment.

Uri Geller, on the other hand, claims his abilities are true. He is partly responsible for the wasting of tens of millions of dollars in research around the world from governments doing research on him and people like him, particularly during the cold war. Some people base their lives off of these frauds. They do not benefit society at all.

We can equate them to one another when magicians start ruining lives when they pick the correct card out of a deck.

Re:Mr Spoons

[plover]

I'm not so sure that money was as big a waste as you believe it to be.

Geller heralded a flood of legitimate parapsychological research. Not that the subject itself was legitimate, but the science and the studies were. Virtually every one of them proved psi, ESP, etc., to be nonsense, with a few notable exceptions that were themselves proven to be flawed studies. The end result is more people are now better educated about the chicanery.

Sunshine is a great disinfectant.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like there's been a battle that was won. There are still plenty of people who will continue to fall for these tricks, out of desperation or ignorance. But the chances are better than they'll be acquainted with someone who can recognize the scam for what it is, and hopefully correct them before they've squandered too much time or money on the scammers. That would be a big social benefit.

In a way, this is like any other case of social engineering, like phishing. Before phishing became so common, people would easily fall for any trick email that came their way. Now, thanks to the visibility of the exploits, many more ordinary people are more suspicious than ever about seemingly ordinary things that used to be exploited. The result is the doors are more tightly closed to the crooks. That doesn't make phishing (or lying about your non-existent psychic abilities) right, but we now have a generally more wise population as a result.

Anything to Perpetuate the Fraud

[NeverVotedBush]

OK, copyright law is one thing, but frauds like Uri Geller do whatever they can to keep anyone from showing their tricks. He's no more than the tent evangelist that has shills in the audience or people who listen to conversations so the perp can somehow know something personal about their next mark.

Geller is only one step away from the televangelists that want you to lay hands on your TV and feel the power... and then send in your contribution.

Re:Anything to Perpetuate the Fraud

[arivanov]

One step away? He is just a different manifestation of the same problem.

And so spoke Lazarus: It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics

Psychic or Shaman same rule apply: Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent.

Re:Anything to Perpetuate the Fraud

[Hognoxious]

Just look at what happens when cults get power.

Tey invade Iraq? Oh, you said cults, my mistake.

The Amazing Randi

[Marcion]

I am not a lawyer but 10 seconds for the purpose of criticism is surely fair use?

Re:The Amazing Randi

[nosferatu1001]

I thought it was even less than that, around 3 seconds of actual footage - hence fair use (especially as it is criticism) should be trivial to show.

It seems like they erroneously issued DMCA takedown and, as such, are liable for damages. IA mostdefinatley NAL however!

Re:The Amazing Randi

[91degrees]

Generally, yes. In this case, most probably. It all depends on the nature of the use, including length, effect on the marketability of the original, and the nature of the use.

So if these 10 seconds happened to be the most amazing trick ever and would be the sole reason that people would buy his videos, and you used only those 10 seconds without any commentary at all, then there's a possibility it wouldn;t be fair use.

Re:The Amazing Randi

[Tuoqui]

According to the article the biggest trick ever is silencing skeptics.

Of course anyone can do that if they can buy themselves an elite ninja death squad.

Re:The Amazing Randi

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article the biggest trick ever is silencing skeptics. It's worked for scientology...

Re:The Amazing Randi

[Yvanhoe]

This is actually a big issue in Slashdot, I think that when a lot of people on /. will get this trick, it will soon become umanageable. I, for one, believe that comments should be listed in their moderation order, +5 posts being at the top and +5 answers being first in their answers.

In order to make moderation easier, I also think that it would be a good idea to sort equally modded comments in reverse-chronological order. In fact, one can assume that a post that didn't get modded up during several hours will stay at 0 or 1 so most moderators could see the most recently posted stuff, which bear a greater probability of being worth a mod point.

The current moderation system assumed that most stories would not get more than 50 comments but nowadays 200/300 somments are fairly common.

Just my two euro-cents

Re:The Amazing Randi

[rbanffy]

+1 insightful for you.

Sorry. but I ran out of mod points.

Re:The Amazing Randi

[gazbo]

You know there's a dropdown at the top of every comments page that lets you view comments in both of the ways you suggested, right?

Re:The Amazing Randi

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

According to the article the biggest trick ever is silencing skeptics.

It's worked for scientology...

Because nobody on the Internet knows about Xenu or other crap. It's never been portrayed and mocked in popular cartoons, for that matter.

Re:The Amazing Randi

[asninn]

"On the Internet", or "in geek(ish) circles"? The (vast?) majority of Internet users these days aren't geeks that read Slashdot every day, stay up to date on sites like xenu.net and so on anymore - they're just regular people.

Over here, "ordinary" people who don't know what scientology (the church/company/crime syndicate/terrorist organisation) is really like will generally view them as fraudsters at best, but not necessarily as criminals who will do anything that's necessary to achieve their goals, with no concern for laws; those few in the USA I've talked to about this who weren't geeks generally saw them even less critical, thinking of them as weird but ultimately still being "just another religion".

I can only talk about my own experiences, of course, but I don't think that society in general is really aware of what scientology is and works like, neither in Europe nor in North America.

Randi has full videos

[gsslay]

Randi has a copy of the full videos on his website

http://www.randi.org/uri/index.html

Toad the Wet Sprocket knew this all along...

[Alpha77]

when they sang 'bend your words like Uri Gellers' spoons'.

How will he defend it...

[simm1701]

If it does go to court it will be interesting to see how he travels to defend it.

iirc he is on the US no fly list plus a couple of terrorist watch lists... (something to do with organisational affiliations I think)

Geller sues people who doubt his amazing ability

[DrXym]

So let me first to say that he is NOT a charlatan, a huckster, a cheap parlour act, a one trick pony, a snakeoil salesman, a vulture preying on the weak minded, a media whore, an insult to intelligence, a talentless liar or a boil on the face of humanity.

No indeed. He is a great man whom aliens have seen fit to bestow the ultimate of powers - spoon bending. All hail our galactic overlords and their glorious Earth bound representative!

Defamatory

[kahei]

Clearly Uri Geller has no "psychic" abilities whatsoever

I'll thank you not to post baseless, unprovable defamatory statements about Mr. Geller. His 'Orange Dot' (see google) was almost certainly the single most amazing thing ever done in the sphere of psychic activity. Seriously, which is more likely:

Proposition A: Uri Geller does have psychic abilities
Proposition B: A high proportion of the human race, if you print an orange dot in a newspaper and tell them touching it will make their dreams come true, will take it *very seriously indeed*.

I think you'll agree the latter proposition is simply ludicrous. Therefore it behooves anyone who'd consider themselves a free thinker to consider proposition A.

Incidentally, I myself possess something of Mr. Geller's gift. While he is able to energize a large orange dot on high-quality newsprint, I can only perform the lesser feat of energizing a small black dot on the flimsy medium of a cathode ray tube or TFT. I have focused my spirit energy on this dot and it is now fully energized. Empty your mind, gaze on the dot and let the spirit energy fill you and uplift you.

Here is the Dot: .

Reach out. Touch it. Imagine you are floating on a bed of marshmallows(*). Who knows? Your dreams might just come true!

(*)Genuine quote from Uri Geller, used here as "fair use" as I know Mr. Geller would never stoop to abusing copyright law.

Re:Defamatory

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Damn... Fingerprint on my LCD screen.

Re:Defamatory

[DwarfGoanna]

Knock it if you want, but my stuck pixel... JUST DISAPPEARED!!

=)

Uri Geller's Show in Israel

[zukinux]

He had a T.V Reality show here in the last season, and some of his tricks had been revealed including magnets he had pulled off his head and got caught. He's nothing more than magician.
Uri Geller is a joke on youtube
it should give you a proof or so just search there : Uri Geller.

As a "psychic"...

[CriminalNerd]

...I'm sure he saw that lawsuit coming. =D

... still more ...

[thermopile]

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.

Re:... still more ...

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Technically, neither has Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and I'll put about the same probability of truth on each.

Expect this lawsuit to be withdrawn shortly...

[Hanners1979]

"I'm not the psychic you're looking for..."

Fabulous!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always *dreamed* of having a fingerprint on my monitor...

For my final trick...

[packetmon]

I shall now make this article waste a few minutes of my life. But on a rebounding note, I shall sue Slashdot for using 10 seconds of my time and bandwidth in getting me to make a pointless response.

Not just Randi....

[iknownuttin]

Penn and Teller did a show once where they showed the spoon bending trick, and other tricks that Geller does without mentioning his name. They just said "phonies" use those tricks to show that they're "psychic". They even said that they won't mention his name because he sues everyone. It was plainly obvious that they were targeting Geller since at the time of the show, Geller was suing some mathematician - can't remember his name now..

Geller is in the UK

[HuskyDog]

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?

Re:Geller is in the UK

[HuskyDog]

Well, first of all I am also a UK citizen.

Now, as to your main point, whilst I agree with the main thrust, I think that you may have missed the key point. I think we all agree that if Uri Geller owns some copyright in some material and someone in the USA breaches that copyright in some way which doesn't constitute fair use then Geller can in principle sue them in the US courts for breach of copyright, but that is not the situation under debate.

The Bern convention does not extend copyright transnationaly in quite the way you are perhaps implying (i.e. completely equal rules everywhere). It lays down certain minimal requirements, but the details vary from country to country. The UK and USA are both signatories, but never the less there are differences in what is protected. Examples include the period of protection (50 years for music in the UK, significantly longer in the USA) and what exactly is defined as 'fair use' (in this latter case US rules seem to be rather less stringent). I agree however that Geller probably has the same right to sue in the USA as US citizens have.

But the key point here is that Geller is not suing anyone. He issued a DMCA takedown notice. A concept which I don't believe the Bern convention addresses at all. It may well be that anyone in the world is allowed to issue such a notice in the USA, but the presence of the Bern convention doesn't demonstrate that this is necessarily the case, hence my question. I suggest that it would be perfectly legal for the USA or any other country to have a DMCA like law which says "Only our citizens may issue takedown notices" without any fear of breaching the terms of the Bern convention, because those who were not citizens would still be able to exercise their Bern rights by initiating a conventional suit for copyright infringement.

On your final point, it has been discussed here on many previous occasions that extradition law only applies to criminal cases and not civil ones such as this. Hence my suggestion that breaching an injunction may be a criminal act (I don't know, IANAL) capable of invoking extradition proceedings.

Moving a compass

[xerxesnine]

I was recently watching a google video of an old special featuring Geller moving a compass "with his mind". At 9 min 47 sec you hear a distinct click as he places his fingers below the handrail, which I presume is the sound of two magnets snapping together --- the magnet in his fingers and the magnet attached to underneath the handrail. Even if that isn't the case, there were many cut-aways which provided ample time for him to palm a magnet to and from the waistband of his shorts, for example.

Sometimes I wonder if Geller is not merely a simple con man. There must be at least a few partially insane individuals who deceive people with one part their mind and believe their own words with another part of their mind. (As distinct from professional magicians who do not seriously claim supernatural powers.) The wise sage George Costanza expressed it well: "It's not a lie, if you believe it."

Re:Moving a compass

[Rinikusu]

I'm going to type this slowly:

He is a magician. Magicians make their living creating illusions of magic which are usually no more than sleight of hand, props, etc. Even though I know every magic trick is not "magic", I still enjoy the show. Having known several professional magicians, it still amazes me when someone pulls off a great looking trick. Hell, at work the other day, I did a Balducci lift, explaining how it works, and a coworker thought I really did it (it's all in the angle/body positioning).

I find it more amusing the people will spend the time and energy trying to debunk guys who are out there trying to do it for a living. It's entertaining to some, I suppose, but there seem to be people genuinely angry that someone out there can perform a magic trick. I don't get these people, but hey, whatever.

In this case..

[z4pp4]

Uri Geller should get bent

The law is an ass, but it's still the law.

[tepples]

1) Different search results for different countries. Reality distortion field. The alternative to following the laws of each country in which your business operates would be following the laws of all countries simultaneously in all territories.

4) Pull clips from youtube based on complaints rather than content. Stifle free speech and commentary. This is U.S. law. The clip gets pulled from YouTube, and then the uploader can file a counternotice to get the clip restored. If the original notice was obviously fraudulent, you get this, which might set a precedent against other authors and publishers who would file fraudulent notices.

You could stand to watch more Geller

[benhocking]

Well, maybe. Anyways, when you say:

At least Gellar ... doesn't promise I can wish away all the bad things in the world, despite all evidence to the contrary

It suggests to me that you don't know Uri Geller very well. I guess that could actually be considered a compliment, though.

Back to the point

[UnknowingFool]

Regardless of whether Gellar is a hoax, regardless of his motives in his takedown of the video, the issue here is that is an example of how some people use the DMCA in conflict of copyright laws. It appears that a documentary used a 10 second clip of one of his performances. His lawyers are claiming that is a violation of the DMCA and pushed YouTube to remove the whole video because of this 10 second clip. I haven't kept up with the DMCA but have they changed it so that Fair Use is clearly defined? Under Gellar's logic, most news shows and other shows like "Talk Soup" or "The Daily Show" are violating the DMCA when they show clips of movies and TV shows as they often show more than 10 seconds.

The worst is that he does NOT own the copyright

[aepervius]

The tape themselfes are owned by the channel on which it was shown, and AFAIK they released the show for fair use on its full length. Heck, the same tape is on randi.org. Geller cannot pretend to own the copyright on the tape, which is all the DMCA authorize him to take down. As for the trick, I do not see how you can coypright that, since there is prior art in the previous century.

james randi is sexy

[timmarhy]

seriously when he goes off at these frauds it's sexy. if he was younger, less hairy and a woman i'd fuck him.