I assume you arent allowed to comment any more than is in the original post?

That's about the jist. 

MY ENTIRE COMMENT: We reached a monetary settlement and I'm satisfied with the terms.  Explorologist has agreed to license the Hughes Film and Photos pursuant to a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial license.

Derren Brown is a much better psychic than Uri Geller, and D.B. is a skeptic. He does what he does and then explains he did so without the help of supernatural powers.

Nothing wrong with illusion as long as you don't forget it is illusion. I love horror films vampires, zombies ghosts even religion is great in fiction its where it belongs (Original Omen was a classic the remake well hmmmm)

Story from CNET news...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10006143-38.html

I have always respected Derren Brown for not claiming psychic powers. He could fool most of the population and make a great fortune for himself if he wasn't such a good guy. He is more humanist than most humanist. I'd buy him a beer any day.

Congrats to RRS for their victory, it is a victory for freethinkers and people who value freedom of speech everywhere!! Any material released to the public should be subject to scrutiny or disagreement, no matter how deep the presenters pockets. The offending material should always be legal to present as background or caricature. Thanks to RRS for taking the heat and making this world a little better for all of us.

I read the link and I can only guess who the court favored.

It is nice to know that the courts still protect critics.

Now if someone could take down Sylvia Brown and her nonsense.

AND super con Benny Hinn.

 you had both sued each other...

who got the settlement?

Someone else said he thinks this is a win for the side of the rational and critical thinkers.... to me, it almost sounds like Geller's side won the settlement, but agreed the footage could be used from now on...

??

LH

Another news story on the issue...

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080804/geller-dmca-update/

And for My Next Trick, I’ll Turn Myself Into a Complete Jackass

by: John Paczkowski

If you’re going to demand that YouTube remove a video to which you object under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, it’s probably wise to make sure that you understand the DMCA. Wiser still to make sure that you actually hold the copyright to the video in question.

Uri Geller, the purported spoon-bending paranormalist, apparently did neither when in May of 2007 he sent a DMCA take-down notice to YouTube demanding that it remove a clip debunking his “supernatural” abilities. And boy, did he ever pay for it.

You see, Geller didn’t own the video. And that made his DMCA take-down notice unlawful, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out when it filed suit against him for misrepresentation of copyright claims. “We’ve seen a rash of people abusing the DMCA lately, attempting to take down legitimate criticism and commentary online,” EFF staff attorney Jason Schultz said at the time. “To allow thin-skinned public figures like Uri Geller to abuse this system forces critics to remain silent and creates unfair hurdles for free speech to thrive online.”

Well, the hurdle to which Schultz was referring was knocked down today when Geller settled the EFF suit. Under the terms of the settlement, Geller will license the disputed footage, all eight seconds of it, under a noncommercial Creative Commons license. A monetary settlement was also reached, but the terms are not public–unless you too are a paranormalist and can divine them.

Another one...

By Fred Benenson at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8716

YouTube has become quite the battleground for copyright claims and our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have found some great opportunities to defend fair use and put our licenses to work. Just yesterday they settled a deal between Brian Sapient and Explorologist Ltd. over the fair use of clips critiquing performer Uri Geller’s claims to mental powers. What’s really fantastic (and what motivated us to post) is that the EFF has leveraged the power of our licenses in the settlement itself:

The agreement should allow the healthy debate about the existence of ’supernatural powers’ to continue without interference. As part of the legal settlement, Explorologist has agreed to license the disputed footage under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, preempting future legal battles over the fair use of the material.

This case follows in a tradition the EFF established when they settled another case in May 2007 with Rick Silver, the creator of the “Electric Slide” dance where Silver was ordered to put the dance itself under our Attribution-NonCommercial license so that derivatives could be made for non-commercial purposes.

From this webpage.

I hope the flat-earthers are right, so that some day Uri Geller might fall off the face of the planet.

I don't have a comment about a lawsuit, but I've got to say that footage is great!  I've never seen it before.  That Tonight Show episode with Uri was from before I was born.

More stories on the Explorologist and Sapient/EFF court case...

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/05/eff-forces-spoonbend.html

also with boing boing:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/08/05/psychic-spoonbender.html

http://www.dailygrail.com/news/geller-settles-youtube-lawsuit

http://lintbox.com/2008/08/05/uri-gellar-attempts-bending-the-law-fails/

Congratulations.

Well done, Brian and EFF!

Here's another news story about it...

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/8/how-does-someone-with-psychic-powers-silence-critics-with-the-dmca-

Congratulations on the settlement, guys. I hope it damaged Geller enough into dissuading him from attempting further frivolous claims like this.

I had a friend in the 90's that had real supernatural powers. He was a medium. I saw him levitate objects and conjur demons with my own eyes.  I saw him do things you woulnd't believe. I REALLY saw this stuff, I swear.

The Church told me to get away from him, so I did.

I used to have a friend in the 90's who was a medium and had real supernatural powers. I saw things you wouldn't believe. He could levitate objects and do all kinds of things. He conjured demons. One of the demons even physically assaulted another friend of mine. I have direct proof of the existence of evil spirits.

I might be able to contact this person. If I do, I will contact the Rational Responders and maybe we can arrange somekind of experiment.

I have seen the supernatural with my own eyes. I SWEAR.  You have no idea what I have seen. We do not live in a materialistic universe only. I have proof.  Atheism is false.

Levitating objects is about the simplest magic trick in the book.  Get yourself a $30 DVD called "float" and it'll come with the almost microscopic thin string you need and the wax you adhere to the string, the object, and your finger.   Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsYZNNT4PUI

As for your demons, any good actor can fake a demon, and I'd have to witness the demon assault to tell you how it was done.  Possibly the person assaulted was in on it.

Get away from the Church.  

I'm curious, will you take my advice about Church, or is it only church leaders that you follow like a sheep?  BAAAAHHHHHH

According to the court documents, the copyright claim on the video was time period of about 50-58 seconds "He has a remarkable affinity..."

"I have seen the supernatural with my own eyes."

Delusion is commonplace among fundamentalists.

"I SWEAR."

Don't cuss. It's not nice.

"You have no idea what I have seen."

You're right. But I'm willing to bet real money that your account cannot be independently validated.

"We do not live in a materialistic universe only."

Science cannot comment on the supernatural. With this in mind, you might want to remember that asserting the superatural as truth is a logical fallacy simply because you CANNOT provide observational evidence for your proposition to be right.

"I have proof."

Sure. That's why you're here, and not out there presenting it to scientific journals. And again, science cannot comment on the supernatural.

"Atheism is false."

Not collecting stamps is false too.

In reality of course, not collecting stamps is the abstinence from getting involved in a hobby. Not believing in supernatural fairytales is the abstinence from getting involved in a religion. In both cases, they cannot be false due to their very nature of NOT getting involved.

The CNET story is in the upcoming section of DIGG.com:

http://digg.com/tech_news/Uri_Geller_Settles_In_YouTube_Copyright_Lawsuit