A amoxicillin generic order person should follow a healthcare professional's instructions or the information retin-a for order that comes with the product. Steroid nasal sprays do not information no buy prescription buy cheap usually cause significant side effects if a person uses the discount canada correct doses. Reye's syndrome, a potentially fatal condition, is a clomid for order serious side effect of aspirin use among children. Many OTC buy generic remeron no prescription usa and prescription products, such as decongestants, antihistamines, steroid nasal spray, flagyl menthol, pain relievers, and home remedies, can treat it. However, viagra free sample it's still important to check with your doctor or pharmacist buy medicine before taking any of these products during Benadryl treatment. However, compazine prescription as with any drug or supplement, talk with your doctor buying cheap buy alternatives professional before taking cannabis in combination with Benadryl. If you're taking melatonin,.

In a precedent-breaking ruling, Federal Judge Nancy Gertner will allow next week’s hearing in the case of Joel Tenebaum to be webcast. You’ll be able to view it via the website of the Berkman Center. This is the case (previously blogged here) in which Harvard Professor Charles Nesson is arguing that the copyright statute is unconstitutional because it is excessively punitive, — essentially a criminal statute in the garb of civil law. The decision includes some perspectives not usually penned by federal judges:

In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation — the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the Internet in particular, as commonplace. It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if almost exclusively, over the Internet.

The recording industry was not amused by Nesson’s request, stating that he made it “to influence the proceedings themselves and to increase the Defendant’s and his counsel’s notoriety.” Judge Gertner takes up the RIAA’s objections:

While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, … their objections are curious. At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material.  Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities.  Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation.

This case is going to be interesting to watch — the stakes are very high for the industry, and rulings like this will be scrutinized for patterns in the tea leaves.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 at 3:28 am and is filed under Open Access, Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.