Curtis’s Techdirt Profile

curtisneeley

About Curtis




Curtis’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 21st, 2013 @ 5:06pm

    My linked case above...

    resulted in GOOG spending SEVERAL hundreds of thousands to help guide the elderly Article III judge to claim or misinterpret the US moral copy[rite] regime of 106A does not protect [sic]"online".
    http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org Current complaint served yesterday in most common text formats. Doc/PDF/ODT/rtf/txt
    http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org/docket Free mirror of the docket and all filings.
    The idiotic US ruling that indecent thumbnails can be fair-use is called per se unconstitutional in this suit and the ENTIRE backwards US Copy[rite] regime with fair-use is called per se unconstitutional.
    ALL PORN SHOWN TO THE UNAUTHENTICATED IS CALLED CRIMINAL because it has been since Wi-Fi radio developed.
    --------------------------------------------
    Yes; I failed to protect one pornographers' moral right{mine} to exclusively control showing morally questionable art to children in the case linked above.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    ANY display of a porn image to the anonymous by GOOG, MSFT or ANYONE ELSE is criminal. The emperor has been naked for twenty+ years.
    Neeley v FCCs, et al, (5:13-cv-5293) can be seen above or be ignored.
    I know GOOG/MSFT/US Attorney General/FCC/US Senators/US Representatives will NOT ignore this litigation like everyone else will to help keep porn flowing to the anonymous for free.

  • Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:55pm

    Re: Moral rights don't even apply!

    Duh, what about presentation of scanned indecent material to anonymous children.

  • Dec 10th, 2011 @ 11:17pm

    censorship called instead regulation...

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

    There is NO NEED for ANYTHING but following the laws that have existed since 1934.

    Its all over but the ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court panel of three judges who have worked now since Sept 19, 2011 to figure out a way to keep pornography freely flowing by "Internet" wire communications despite the Communications Act of 1934. I will appeal, of course, to the Supreme Court regardless of why they allow nudity to be transmitted by wire communications despite the LAW.

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

    ----------------------------------------
    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)
    ---------------------------------------------
    This is NOT secret but this legal proceeding is being ignored by all media thus far.

    Links above are to the documents as filed and to US Statutes as passed. The dockets are linked above with the case listing and all Court PACER links are listed there as well. Clicking links in this post does not support ANY ADS and is for free informational purposes only.

  • Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Limiting these ridiculous laws to foreign sites is a HOAX just like the DMCA always has been.
    The FCC will regulate Internet wire communications after an Eighth Circuit appeal as demanded in United States Court.
    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.
    Neeley v NameMedia Inc., et al (5:09-cv-05161)(11-2558)

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)

    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.

    Dangerous law? All laws are dangerous to criminals.

  • Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 10:47am

    tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock

    Limiting these ridiculous laws to foreign sites is a HOAX just like the DMCA always has been.
    The FCC will regulate Internet wire communications after an Eighth Circuit appeal as demanded in United States Court.
    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.
    Neeley v NameMedia Inc., et al (5:09-cv-05161)(11-2558)

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)

    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.

    Dangerous law? All laws are dangerous to criminals.

  • Jun 3rd, 2011 @ 4:51pm

    Well that is interesting but....

    I have sued GOOG for returning nudes when you type in my name and shall add the FCC for failing to obey the Communications Act of 1934 that makes display of nudes illegal. They, of course, asked the Court to grant them Summary Judgement again but after three years it might get to a jury in about a month. Everyone else stopped except GOOG=PORN!
    Docket FREE - 265 pre-trial filings
    -Google-, Bing, Yahoo, Ask.
    Somebody is too big for their own good and thinks they can write new copyrite laws.
    Congress usually does that rather than Google Inc book search or other search!

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 11:13pm

    "Do no evil?" Yeah - right.... more like "obey no law".

    Sure it would be great if GOOG could re-publish anything they found online or in libraries. Everyone could just surf google.com instead of going anywhere else online or ever visiting libraries or bookstores? "Do no evil?" Yeah - right.... more like "obey no law".

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

    fair-use is not fair

    Keep your eyes on the law that was passed in 1990 in the USA that gave artists moral exclusive rights to their visual art.

    It is no longer only a European right.

    It is destined for the Supreme Court and Congress again as you read this May 30, 2011.

    "Fair use" was alleged by GOOG to be scanning a book "posted" in a library and re-publishing it online regardless of copyrites. GOOG is not likely to redefine "fair-use" or "copyrite" in lawsuits.

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Google and porn

    GOOG were advised of infringing images displayed in violation of VARA via DMCA processes and failed to cease display of unauthorized images. See the post or follow my GOOG lawsuit via my link.

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 10:48pm

    This lawsuit was decided in error...

    This lawsuit was decided in egregious error and the ruling does not have any impact except for parties afraid to defend their personal rights granted in the Visual Artists Rights Act("VARA").

    Thumbnail do not violate 17 U.S.C.? ONLY in the confused courts of the United States until they are educated about copyrites in New York, CA, and Arkansas by this particular Plaintiff.

    Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al (2:2004cv09484)

    Has the appeal been decided? Not hardly....(10-56316) Argued April 11, 2011 and not decided yet by the confused judges.
    Perfect 10 Opening Brief PDF
    Google Redacted reply Brief PDF

    Read linked Briefs and try to understand.
    It is not rocket science!

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 9:50pm

    Ha - you "domain real estate" guys thought I was kidding?

    Domain names are NOT real estate and the domain name market it nothing but a ponzi-scheme joke.

    Seizure of a domain operating illegal sites is easier than placing the site owners and operators in jail.(Domain registration privacy or hiding of owner identities)

    The seizure of previously registered and used domains is going before a jury and the joke called the "domain name market" will soon disappear. Google Inc and NameMedia Inc seized notable short domains and ran AdSense for domains ads on them till one sold.

    (5:09-cv-05151)
    Not a secret or quiet lawsuit but it is being ignored valiantly by the "domain name" press.

  • Apr 5th, 2011 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Redefine robots.txt


    Indexing images using thumbnails IS COPYING!
    Yahoo is no longer the second place search engine because Microsoft Corporation or Bing does the Yahoo image search.

    Indexing of text has been excused as fair use when it is a summary of text with a link.

    Indexing of images was called fair use by United States Courts in a bare legal error by a horny judge that will soon be fixed in the following case.
    (5:09-cv-05151)


    http://www.Go-Oogle.net

  • Apr 5th, 2011 @ 5:44am

    Re: Redefine robots.txt

    Google already used the robots.txt as implied permission to index if not supplied in Germany. The open Internet has violated the Communications Act of 1934 since first called the Internet.
    I have sued Google Inc and will not cease pursuing them till Google Inc exists no longer except as a word for searching the Internet.
    The statutory Damages for copyrite violations are already more than GOOG ever has made.
    Last three years of the Docket.
    (5:09-cv-05151)
    Search the Internet without seeing my nude and figurenude original art with a custom search interface.
    www.Go-Oogle.net

  • Oct 21st, 2010 @ 8:46am

    A legislation using should words old judges understand?

    PORN broadcast by wire has been illegal since the Communications Act of 1934 but is ignored and called the Internet for disguise.

    (5:09-cv-05151) will end this.

    (10-6091), and (10-6240) demand the FCC begin regulating wire communications called the internet to protect PORN.
    See both online 100% for free below.
    Writ of Mandamus, Supplemental Brief Supporting Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

    The last two above are scheduled to be ignored 10-29-2010 or granted. Most filed at the supreme Court are ignored.

    (5:09-cv-05151) goes to a JURY March 28, 2011 and juries do not ignore anything!

  • Sep 13th, 2010 @ 8:07pm

    Curtis J Neeley Jr v Google Inc et al.....

    the United States is only a few years behind Germany and this case will be considered by the United States Supreme Court while throwing out US Title 17 and finally fixing it. (10-6240) and (10-6091) will probably be denied to protect porn trafficking.

    Google Inc gets to face an Arkansas J-U-R-Y next year and every other United States search engine will join them by March 31, 2011 or the 221st anniversary of United States' April Fools HOAX called "The copy-right Act" without using the hyphen to fool artist into believing a fundamental right was recognized.

  • Aug 29th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    FCC nonfeasance

    This lawsuit has demanded that the FCC start regulating the FCC as has ALWAYS been their statutory duty according to the Communications Act of 1934 on page eight in paragraph 51.
    Curtis J Neeley Jr v. NameMedia Inc., et al,(10-6091)
    Read it yourself from my evidence! Communications Act of 1934 page eight
    or directly FROM the disobedient FCC=>[PDF] Communications Act of 1934: as ammended by Telecom Act of 1996

  • Jul 7th, 2010 @ 6:30pm

    The nonfeasant FCC

    They are an added Defendant in my lawsuit for failing to regulate communications broadcast by wire. That is all the Internet is!

  • Jul 4th, 2010 @ 6:16pm

    copy-right v science v patent

    The moral right to be attributed to an original writing or image has been missing intentionally in the USA for two hundred and twenty years although it was alleged to be covered by various other US laws during debate and passage of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. What hogwash. Knowledge can't be copy-righted but uses of knowledge can be. The entire purpose for the Unconstitutional US Title 17 was to encourage science by allowing the author to EXCLUSIVELY control publication.
    When my Federal lawsuit resolves copy-right will finally properly lose the hyphen and recognize moral rights enjoyed in many less morally backward countries like Canada and china.

  • Jul 2nd, 2010 @ 7:21pm

    Intersesting lawsuit, but not significant compared to mine.

    I have sued Google and have tried to add every American Search Engine and Google already tried the frivolous motion to dismiss. Portions of the claim were dismissed due to improper anchorage of limitations as a defense at the initial infringement date instead of the last. The Supreme Court already declared that a mistake and although proceeding toward a jury trial I have filed an interlocutory appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. They will receive five copies of the Appellant brief early next week. They will then have fourteen days to file a reply. Google will not settle because their lawyers claim complying with my primary request is impossible.

    I filed an objection to the Google v. Authors Guild settlement and will appeal any settlement allowed to be granted there.
    Short list of tortuous actions.
    1. "Copy-right" claim.
    2. Selling AdWords for keywords displayed on fraudulent websites licensed to AdSense for Domains.
    3. Defamation due to displaying my pornography to children, Muslims, and Atheist, while claiming my specific approval of this. One child was my own.
    4. Scanning my pornography that was in a book in a library in New York and republishing it without my permission.
    5. Profiting from Cybersquatting or US Title 15 1125(d) violations.
    I have asked for establishing a not-for-profit search engine.

    ------Game over
    Money is already not an object for me in this suit.
    Very few litigation cases are about principle and this is as close as I can get.
    I have asked that the FCC be required to regulate communications by signals transmitted by wire. This is NOT a novel idea since it has been their mission since 1936 or the day the FCC was created.
    ------Game over