Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uri Geller Accused of Bending Copyright Law

Posted by kdawson on from the more-pliable-than-spoons dept.

JagsLive writes in with a Fox News report about Uri Geller's apparently playing fast and loose with copyright law in order to silence his detractors. "'All it takes is a single e-mail to completely censor someone on the Internet,' said Jason Schultz, a lawyer for the online civil rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing Geller over an unflattering clip posted on YouTube for which he claimed a copyright ownership."

6 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Obviously... by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    he should have seen that one coming.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Obviously... by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Funny
      Apparantly not. From the article...

      Geller, who lives in London, referred calls to his Philadelphia lawyer, Richard Winelander, who conceded that Geller probably didn't foresee the firestorm his lawsuit would inspire.
      We're stilling waiting for the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."
    2. Re:Obviously... by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're stilling waiting for the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery."

            IMO that wouldn't mean shit. I personally am waiting for the one that says: "Psychic asked to stop buying lottery tickets".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  2. What's good for the goose... by BoberFett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Abuse of the DMCA through fraudulent takedown notices should result in no less of a penalty than an actual violation of copyright. If a copyright owner can collect $150K per instance of copyright violation, then someone who fraudulently claims copyright on an item they do not in fact have a copyright on should be up against the same penalty.

    1. Re:What's good for the goose... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but YouTube also doesn't follow the provisions of the law that say that if the poster of the material reply's back with a statement claiming ownership and authoritative information about who they are that will allow the claimer of copyright to sue then YouTube can then repost the material until a court order is obtained. In fact NONE of the ISP's follow this second provision of the law and I haven't seen one that once provided this lawfull statement will repost the material. If someone like the victim here hired a lawyer and sued YouTube for violation of the safeharbor rules then there would be posted procedures for waiving the DCMA notice.

  3. Re:oh geez by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is that true magicians admit they're illusionists. Part of the contract with their audience is that they will fool them and that the audience will try to figure out their tricks. Geller does not claim to be a magician. He claims to actually do what he appears to be doing with the power of his mind.