Doctors buy generic cheap alternative liquid derive these from umbilical cord blood and use them to atrovent online treat conditions that affect the production of blood. This creates order generic online prescription and alcohol complex issues, as people have different beliefs about what constitutes compazine no prescription the start of human life. This includes ensuring that donors buy generic viagra of biological material give proper consent to have iPS cells buy no rx extracted and carefully designing any clinical studies. Scientists are also cheap atarax working on ways to develop stem cells from other cells, amoxicillin for order using genetic "reprogramming" techniques. This means they can generate various buy cheapest no online cell types from the originating organ or even regenerate the buy accutane cheapest alternatives india original organ, entirely. In IVF clinics, the doctors fertilize several griseofulvin no prescription eggs in a test tube, to ensure that at least drug buy online purchase one survives. Researchers categorize stem cells, according to their potential buy griseofulvin internet to differentiate into other types of cells. There is a buy free canadian best price jelly shortage of donor organs but, by instructing stem cells to differentiate.

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.