It wasn't until Edward Snowden revealed the massive secretive spying that every government was conducting that jumpstarted the push for everyone to hide their browsing.
As usual, every government on the planet claimed this massive doomsday scenario that everything was at risk.
Don't you just love doomsayers and how our browsing hasn't become "at risk".
Aren't these the same complaints that Amy and Samy from that horrendous episode of Kitchen Nightmares claimed? You would think that Malibu media would learn its lesson from Amy and Samy about when to leave well enough alone.
AC, that wouldn't work because the request for a link to be removed must be a link in reference of a specific person. NAZI links regarding the Holocaust cannot be removed, to do so would encourage many to believe that the Holocaust didn;t actually happen.
The absurdity of the claim that "Congress did not mean "warrant" when using that term" is ridiculous because if Congress was really meaning "subpoena", then they would have included that particular distinction in the law.
Doesn't Calvin C. Jackson realize that he has now enabled the Streisand Effect which will prompts everyone with access to the internet to start posting the 'allegations' on as many websites as they possibly can?
Netflix customers are not paying Verizon for Netflix's service. Everyone is confusing the issue. If Netflix is having problems with its streaming service, it's not the fault of Verizon.
Netflix messed up. They paid Verizon for access but didn't have their own service prepped for the connection. I don't see how this is Verizon's fault, which it's not.
What I find truly despicable is that the U.S. Government is using our own tax dollars to keep public information out of the hands of our public.
The Obama Administration and the court system are nothing more than a circus of morons who are using our own money to keep their secret private activities from being exposed to the public.
If they aren't doing anything wrong then they shouldn't be concerned with keeping these documents out of the public's hands.
We're not living in a free society, we're living in a communist society with an evil dictator running things from the Oval Office.
Companies should be prevented from applying for any copyright, trademark or patent that is in direct relation to government, such as military or government and I'm shocked that the Patent and Trademark Office hasn't developed policies of its own that refuse to accept applications in this matter.
What's next? Disney tries to trademark the seal of the U.S. President?
You guys keep forgetting that UPS gets paid by the Federal government every time UPS allows the Federal government to inspect/search packages, since they are also installing spyware on said tech devices shipped through UPS.
This sort of thing has been going on for a long time. It's only now that people are making a big issue out of it? The Supreme Court always made adjustments to their own rulings and it's perfectly within their right, unless something is done to reform the Supreme Court.
I think you guys who are arguing about this are missing the point. If I own a building and sometime after, a painting that is the physical part of the building I own, I have the right to remove the painting if I decide to demolish the building or repair the wall that exists behind it.
The NYLC is trying to usurp the property rights of RFR and they aren't doing a very good job at it. The fact remains, the NYLC doesn't own the Four Seasons, now, do they? No THEY DO NOT.
I'm not arguing whether the Picasso painting is a work of art, it undoubtedly is. But the NYLC can't just arbitrarily declare it a historical landmark because they are usurping someone else's property rights.
If I own a building on my property that has a large painting on it, then I have the right to either remove it or demolish it. Some penny fogging liberal agency doesn't have the right to tell me what I can or can't do with it.
RFR wants to remove the painting and restore it and move it elsewhere but the NYLC doesn't want it removed from the property owned by RFR. If the NYLC wants to preserve the painting, then it's their responsibility to either purchase the building outright or remove it from the property. They cannot force an owner of the building to continue to host that painting of the owner needs to repair the wall behind it.
The NYLC keeps arguing that the wall doesn't need to be repaired. Exactly when did they become experts in structural engineering? What is the NYLC going to do, wait until that wall falls over and seriously injures someone before they realize that the wall actually needs to be repaired? If the courts rule for the NYLC, then the NYLC becomes 100% liable if someone is injured when that wall falls over. Why? Because the NYLC forced a court to prevent any attempt to remove the painting so the wall can be removed. Also, what happens when the wall does fall over? It destroys the painting and it's destroyed forever.
The NYLC needs to remove that painting from the Four Seasons because whatever happens, the NYLC is going to be liable for it. I'm also curious why nobody has called for a building inspector to examine the wall behind the painting. The NYLC is simply setting itself up. If the court rules against the removal of the painting, the owners of the Four Seasons cannot be held liable if the wall falls over and injures someone.
This is nothing but a lose/lose situation for the NYLC because they have tunnel vision and won't let anyone move the painting for any reason.
Sorry, I don't buy it. This isn't about the painting, as RFR's lawyer has explained it in court papers.
RFR's lawyer, Andrew Kratenstein said in court papers, it is about whether an art owner can insist that a private landlord hang a work indefinitely, the building's needs be damned. "The answer to that question is plainly no."
The fact is, the Landmark Conservancy, which owns the artwork, is trying to force the owner of the building to to hang this work of art indefinitely, and the LC can't force a building owner to do that.
The fact is, if the NYLC wants to preserve the artwork, it needs to find a way to move it so that the wall can be repaired. I think the court is going to find for the NYLC but force them to remove the artwork.
The painting is going to be removed. While I do see the court ruling for the NYLC, it's going to be a decision that the NYLC isn't going to like.
This is like someone taking the original Mona Lisa and super-gluing it to the wall of a building and then trying to declare it a cultural or historical landmark. You can't declare something a cultural or historical landmark when someone currently owns the building.
Just sounds like the NYLC is throwing a temper tantrum. How will they feel if a building inspector orders the wall to be repaired? The wall has to be repaired; there's no getting around that. If the wall over and someone is injured because of it, is the NYLC going to take full responsibility for it?
Anonymous Coward, they can't declare the painting a historical landmark. For one, they would have to declare the entire building a landmark.
Here in Flint, Michigan, we had this building that hosted this massive wall mural on the outside of the building. The building caught fire but there was a lot of crap started over the building because the building fire created an issue where the building had to be torn down.
In the end, half of the building was torn down and our city's art's council ended up buying the building to save this large wall mural, while tearing the other half of the building down.
The NYLC simply has no standing. They are only trying to declare the Picasso painting a landmark. First, since the painting is a physical part of the building, the building itself would have to be declared what's known as an "architectural landmark", meaning the entire building. They can't declare the wall a historical landmark because the wall needs to be repaired.
I just don't see the NYLC succeeding in declaring the painting a landmark and I believe the court would simply rule to have the painting cut out of the wall or to let it simply be demolished. Since the building is owned by a private owner, they are going to have a hard time convincing the courts to declare the painting a landmark.
The morons are the idiots who decided to make the painting a permanent fixture of the building. If the building owner decides he wants it removed, then there's nothing the NYLC can do about it since the NYLC doesn't own the building and neither does the government.
Fact is, there isn't anything that any group can do to preserve it. They can't leave it be because the wall needs to be repaired and it's on a property that is privately owned. UNless the group plans to cut the painting out of the wall, they really don't have a leg to stand on.
This is a circumstance where a wall needs to be repaired because of the threat to the safety of the Four Seasons' patrons ...
Not only that but there's another problem. The New York Landmark Conservancy cannot own something that is part of the structure of a building owned by the current owner of the building. Either the NYLC removes the painting or allow it to be destroyed.
On the post: City Of London Police Claim That 'The Tor' Is 90% Of The Internet, And Is A Risk To Society
As usual, every government on the planet claimed this massive doomsday scenario that everything was at risk.
Don't you just love doomsayers and how our browsing hasn't become "at risk".
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Tells Court That Its Critics (And Opposing Lawyer) Are Part Of A Psychopathic Hate Group
On the post: Texas Appeals Court Vacates Order Commanding Google To Hunt Down Third Party Content And Destroy It
Re: Re: John
On the post: Microsoft Challenges Idea That US Government Can Go Fishing For Emails Stored Outside The US
On the post: Texas Appeals Court Vacates Order Commanding Google To Hunt Down Third Party Content And Destroy It
LOLS
STREISAND EFFECT IS A GO!
On the post: Former NSA Lawyer Asks Google To 'Forget' All Of Techdirt's Posts About Him
On the post: Yes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold Customers
On the post: Yes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold Customers
On the post: District Court Judge Orders Last-Minute Sealing Of Documents Related To Stingray Devices And Cell Tower Data Dumps
The Obama Administration and the court system are nothing more than a circus of morons who are using our own money to keep their secret private activities from being exposed to the public.
If they aren't doing anything wrong then they shouldn't be concerned with keeping these documents out of the public's hands.
We're not living in a free society, we're living in a communist society with an evil dictator running things from the Oval Office.
On the post: Pentagon Gets Busy Trademarking After Seeing Disney Try To Cash In On SEAL Team 6
What's next? Disney tries to trademark the seal of the U.S. President?
On the post: Labels Decide Not To Appeal Spanish Court Ruling That Found P2P File Sharing Software Perfectly Legal
On the post: If Comcast CEO Brian Roberts Really Believes Netflix Gets Bandwidth For Free, Will He Pay Netflix's Bandwidth Bill?
On the post: UPS Insists That It Is Not Helping The NSA 'Interdict' Packages To Install Backdoors
On the post: UPS Insists That It Is Not Helping The NSA 'Interdict' Packages To Install Backdoors
On the post: Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings After Releasing Them; Refuses To Reveal What Those Changes Are
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
The NYLC is trying to usurp the property rights of RFR and they aren't doing a very good job at it. The fact remains, the NYLC doesn't own the Four Seasons, now, do they? No THEY DO NOT.
I'm not arguing whether the Picasso painting is a work of art, it undoubtedly is. But the NYLC can't just arbitrarily declare it a historical landmark because they are usurping someone else's property rights.
If I own a building on my property that has a large painting on it, then I have the right to either remove it or demolish it. Some penny fogging liberal agency doesn't have the right to tell me what I can or can't do with it.
RFR wants to remove the painting and restore it and move it elsewhere but the NYLC doesn't want it removed from the property owned by RFR. If the NYLC wants to preserve the painting, then it's their responsibility to either purchase the building outright or remove it from the property. They cannot force an owner of the building to continue to host that painting of the owner needs to repair the wall behind it.
The NYLC keeps arguing that the wall doesn't need to be repaired. Exactly when did they become experts in structural engineering? What is the NYLC going to do, wait until that wall falls over and seriously injures someone before they realize that the wall actually needs to be repaired? If the courts rule for the NYLC, then the NYLC becomes 100% liable if someone is injured when that wall falls over. Why? Because the NYLC forced a court to prevent any attempt to remove the painting so the wall can be removed. Also, what happens when the wall does fall over? It destroys the painting and it's destroyed forever.
The NYLC needs to remove that painting from the Four Seasons because whatever happens, the NYLC is going to be liable for it. I'm also curious why nobody has called for a building inspector to examine the wall behind the painting. The NYLC is simply setting itself up. If the court rules against the removal of the painting, the owners of the Four Seasons cannot be held liable if the wall falls over and injures someone.
This is nothing but a lose/lose situation for the NYLC because they have tunnel vision and won't let anyone move the painting for any reason.
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
RFR's lawyer, Andrew Kratenstein said in court papers, it is about whether an art owner can insist that a private landlord hang a work indefinitely, the building's needs be damned. "The answer to that question is plainly no."
The fact is, the Landmark Conservancy, which owns the artwork, is trying to force the owner of the building to to hang this work of art indefinitely, and the LC can't force a building owner to do that.
The fact is, if the NYLC wants to preserve the artwork, it needs to find a way to move it so that the wall can be repaired. I think the court is going to find for the NYLC but force them to remove the artwork.
The painting is going to be removed. While I do see the court ruling for the NYLC, it's going to be a decision that the NYLC isn't going to like.
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
Just sounds like the NYLC is throwing a temper tantrum. How will they feel if a building inspector orders the wall to be repaired? The wall has to be repaired; there's no getting around that. If the wall over and someone is injured because of it, is the NYLC going to take full responsibility for it?
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
Here in Flint, Michigan, we had this building that hosted this massive wall mural on the outside of the building. The building caught fire but there was a lot of crap started over the building because the building fire created an issue where the building had to be torn down.
In the end, half of the building was torn down and our city's art's council ended up buying the building to save this large wall mural, while tearing the other half of the building down.
The NYLC simply has no standing. They are only trying to declare the Picasso painting a landmark. First, since the painting is a physical part of the building, the building itself would have to be declared what's known as an "architectural landmark", meaning the entire building. They can't declare the wall a historical landmark because the wall needs to be repaired.
I just don't see the NYLC succeeding in declaring the painting a landmark and I believe the court would simply rule to have the painting cut out of the wall or to let it simply be demolished. Since the building is owned by a private owner, they are going to have a hard time convincing the courts to declare the painting a landmark.
The morons are the idiots who decided to make the painting a permanent fixture of the building. If the building owner decides he wants it removed, then there's nothing the NYLC can do about it since the NYLC doesn't own the building and neither does the government.
On the post: Moral Rights, Property Rights And Picasso: An Artistic And Legal Conundrum
This is a circumstance where a wall needs to be repaired because of the threat to the safety of the Four Seasons' patrons ...
Not only that but there's another problem. The New York Landmark Conservancy cannot own something that is part of the structure of a building owned by the current owner of the building. Either the NYLC removes the painting or allow it to be destroyed.
Next >>