An acomplia sales M. genitalium infection can cause complications, such as cervicitis, pelvic kenalog for order inflammatory disease, and pregnancy complications. The mitral and aortic valves buy serevent low cost pharmacy are structures that control the flow of blood around the diclofenac from canada heart and toward the aorta. Doctors test for the condition buy cheap serevent using specific physical tests, such as the finger to nose purchase pyrantel pamoate online test and the heel to shin test, and MRI scans. zyprexa online Individuals who are eligible for Medicare parts A and B, purchase cheap viagra low cost consultation and also have a chronic medical condition, qualify for this remeron prescription SNP. For more information about Lamictal's side effects in children, where to order viagra talk with your child's doctor or pharmacist. Although there is order prednisolone overnight delivery no treatment for HPV, treatments are available for the health conditions.

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.