Get buy prednisolone on all fours on the floor or an exercise mat cheap cheap no prescription with hands directly below the shoulder and the knees directly discount azor below the hips.Gently arch the back toward the ceiling and discount atrovent tuck the head between the shoulders.Hold this position for a canadian pharmacy cheapest few seconds, then gently return to the starting position. It flovent no prescription is important to be gentle and slow when completing exercises remeron online stores to crack the lower back to reduce the risk of buy viagra adverse side effects. Before the rash occurs, a person may azor for order feel pain, itching, or tingling in the area where the buy discount rash will appear. Spondylolisthesis can occur due to back trauma fda approved cheap or other reasons, such as degenerative wear and tear of lasix for order the spine. Always consult a healthcare professional for personalized advice atrovent online and to understand the best ways to prevent or manage no discount buy online info these conditions. Sciatica arises from damage or pressure on the diclofenac online stores sciatic nerve, which runs through the leg to the lower back..

This week saw two significant developments in the world of copyright and digital information described in Blown to Bits chapter 6, “Balance Toppled.” They signal that things just might be starting to move back towards balance.

On September 24, Judge Davis set aside the jury’s October 2007 verdict in the Jammie Thomas case.¬† That’s the case discussed in B2B of the Minnesota single mother who who was fined $222,000, $9250 per song, for sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa network, the case that became the recording industry’s “we told you so” for why people accused of file sharing by the RIAA should settle even if they are innocent, because the stakes in losing can be so high.¬† As we described in the book, Thomas’s penalty demonstrates the egregiousness of the statutory damages for copyright infringement when applied to the Internet.

Last June, as I noted in this blog, trial Judge Thomas asked whether he had made a legal error in instructing the jury that simply making music available from a computer counts as unauthorized distribution under copyright law, even if no actual distribution takes place.  (See “Sending a Message”: Revisited.)

Now Judge Davis has decided that this was indeed an error, and has granted Thomas’s motion for a new trial.¬† This is a blow to the RIAA’s lawsuit strategy: Not only does it erase the current scariest example of damages, but it’s another court that has rejected the “making available” theory: to convict someone for music-sharing copyright infringement, they will have to demonstrate that actual distribution took place, not merely that files were available on the accused infringer’s computer.

Perhaps even more notable is Judge Davis’s plea to Congress to reconsider the law about statutory damages.¬† As he writes in his opinion:

“The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases…. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts…..[I]t would be a farce to say that a single mother‚Äôs acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market……. [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.”

Amen.

See Signs of a Move Towards Balance? (Part 2 of 2)

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 at 11:17 pm and is filed under Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.