The only bright spot is that Geller's actions to suppress criticism may expose him to legal liability (provided that one of his victims has the resources and will to fight this litigious spoon-bender).You can see one of the videos pulled from YouTube here. Link
His liability? Geller does not apparently own the copyrights to the videos that he demanded YouTube remove.
The DMCA allows copyright owners to file a "takedown notice" with a service provider such as YouTube, provided that the copyright owner swears under penalty of perjury that he or she owns the copyright in question ("I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is infringed").
It appears that on March 23, Geller or his representative filed with YouTube a series of these DMCA takedown notices, which should have included swearing to the stated facts under penalty of perjury. When internet griefer Michael Crook tried this method of critic suppression, it didn't work out too well for him.
— FEATURED —
— FOLLOW US —
— POLICIES —
— FONTS —