The generic glucophage amount of radiation exposure is low and, in most cases, cheap cialis internet the benefits of the procedure outweigh the radiation risk. They cheap cialis in usa usually do not take place while the chemotherapy is still discount augmentin going on because the scan readings may not accurately show find amoxicillin online how well the treatment is working until a few weeks buy cheap cialis internet after the end of the treatment. Every stroke has the no in uk potential to damage the brain, and multiple strokes may mean purchase clonidine online more extensive damage and disability. A hemorrhagic stroke, which occurs cheap generic tablets when there is bleeding in or around the brain, requires cialis in malaysia a doctor to stop the bleeding. Managing controllable risk factors, buy generic cheapest such as quitting smoking, may help lower the risk of purchase non no rx another stroke. MRI scans can determine the size of a cheap buy from canada tumor and see whether the cancer has spread to nearby purchase accutane online lymph nodes or other areas of the pelvis. Depending on the.

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.