If cheapest triamterene the tumor develops in the larynx and trachea, a person buy discount zoloft may experience issues with breathing or speech or notice hoarseness. buy cephalexin overnight delivery A person may have stroke symptoms, such as numbness or colchicine weakness, or heart attack symptoms, such as intense chest pain buy cipro and nausea. The FHA also produced a document called the purchase cheapest acomplia online Underwriting Manual, which separated neighborhoods by occupation and income, as where to order clindamycin well as race and ethnicity. People can use small amounts buying cheap cialis side effects canada of honey to replace sugar and to sweeten foods or flagyl online sale beverages, such as oatmeal, tea, and yogurt. To find out flovent prescription what the cost of Depakote will be for you, talk lipitor sale with your doctor, pharmacist, or insurance provider. CEC begins in the.

This is the sole case of copyright infringement by downloading that had actually gone to trial, prior to the case of Joel Tenenbaum in which Professor Charles Nesson is active. The Thomas case, which we discuss on page 198, is being re-tried after the judge threw out the first decision. Today Thomas’s expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim of the University of Minnesota, filed his report, which includes a strong attack on the evidence against Thomas and also on the report of the opposing expert. The site “RIAA v. the People” has a good summary, and a hotlink to Kim’s full report. For me the killer sentence is this:

MediaSentry claims to have much experience in identifying individual committing copyright infringement. However, they insist that their methods are proprietary and thus cannot be subject to scrutiny by an impartial third party. No academic studies exist of their internal investigative techniques, methods, software, data collection practices, or even employee training in retaining collected data in a way that would allow for it to be used as evidence at a trial.

MediaSentry is the private police force of the RIAA, of which Nesson also complains. How on earth can one defend oneself against a private investigator who makes a claim about what you did but says that its methodology for gathering the evidence is proprietary and even the judge can’t review it?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 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.