Additionally, cheap buy pharmacy uncontrolled high blood pressure can lead to disease progression and purchase cheapest buy no prescription tablets ESRD in those with CKD. Hernias may occur due to discount arcoxia strain in the abdominal muscles from retaining fluid in the cialis india peritoneal cavity for prolonged periods. Avoid diets that make claims prescription for order about losing weight quickly, as this may cause issues with purchase diclofenac online dialysis or potentially severe illness. HD and PD may cause cheap cialis overnight delivery itchy skin, but it is often difficult for someone to cheapest cialis price determine if this is a side effect of dialysis or buy professional symptoms of long-term kidney disease. If a person who regularly levitra undergoes dialysis develops high temperature or any symptoms of sepsis, viagra from canada they should immediately contact a doctor. A person's doctor can get cheap buy online effects ask them questions about their symptoms and may order tests to.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and I have no idea if Professor Charles Nesson is going to prevail in his defense of Joel Tenenbaum and his counterclaims that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is unconstitutional. But the recording industry sure is taking him seriously. When Nesson asked for a hearing in the case to be webcast, the RIAA reacted with horror — rather oddly, as the judge noted in granting Nesson’s request, given that the RIAA claims that it wants publicity of its anti-piracy campaign. Now the judge has delayed the hearing so the RIAA can appeal to a higher court her ruling about webcasting the proceedings.

Meanwhile, the RIAA sent Nesson a letter (pdf) demanding that he drop a request for a deposition by one of the RIAA’s former lawyers, stating that it would ask the court to sanction him if he didn’t comply. Nesson’s classic reply, quoted verbatim:

our motion stands

we welcome your opposition

And the next day the RIAA went ahead and filed court papers stating that “Defendant‚Äôs Motion has no factual or legal basis whatsoever” and asking Nesson to pay for their costs in opposing it (as apparently the law provides in the case of certain patently gratuitous motions).

There are serious and important issues at stake here, as we discuss in Chapter 6 of Blown to Bits. But on top of that, the lawyers’ duel makes good theatre.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 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.