The cialis online pharmacy side effects of radiation therapy can be worse if a 60 online sales person is undergoing both radiation and chemotherapy. However, if someone buy amikacin already has a Medigap plan that includes drug coverage, they aldactone sale can keep this coverage. How we vet brands and productsMedical cheap viagra tablets News Today only shows you brands and products that we buy cheap atrovent online stand behind. Sometimes people also get implants because of discoloration clozapine online on their teeth, broken teeth, or other cosmetic damage to order ventolin their teeth. Gentle massage and stretching can help relieve muscular purchase discount atrovent sale cramps, and OTC pain relief can reduce discomfort from menstrual buy cialis pills cramping. Therefore, doctors may prescribe medications for H. pylori infection buying azor or suggest alternatives to NSAIDs if someone takes them. Sometimes buy cialis cheapest alternatives india abscesses form around a foreign object, such as a splinter cheap cialis in usa or piece of glass stuck in the skin. Meningitis is an.

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.