Electronic Frontier Foundation Sues Uri Geller 240
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."
How will he defend it... (Score:4, Interesting)
iirc he is on the US no fly list plus a couple of terrorist watch lists... (something to do with organisational affiliations I think)
... still more ... (Score:5, Interesting)
His spoon covered cadillac, however, is laughable.
Re:The Amazing Randi (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems like they erroneously issued DMCA takedown and, as such, are liable for damages. IA mostdefinatley NAL however!
Geller is in the UK (Score:5, 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?
Moving a compass (Score:2, Interesting)
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."
The law is an ass, but it's still the law. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More on this.... (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [about.com] -- 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.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More on this.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Mr Spoons (Score:3, Interesting)
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.