If certified cialis you have insurance, your insurance company may require prior authorization cialis overnight delivery before it covers metolazone. However, it is at the healthcare zyprexa for order professional's discretion whether they feel comfortable addressing both concerns in viagra cheap drug one visit. People with psoriasis often have dysfunction in their retin-a for sale skin barrier that can cause additional pain and inflammation. Early buy cheap mirapex online signs of cancer may be vague and subtle, such as buy cheap colchicine online extreme tiredness that does not ease with rest. These are buy generic spiriva cells that have already undergone differentiation but which scientists have buy remeron without prescription genetically "reprogrammed" using genetic manipulation, sometimes using viruses. Most studies buying toradol cost have been small but have found a decrease in side buy cheap clozapine online effects with proton therapy, though not all studies support this cafergot sale claim. The chronic inflammation associated with RA can damage blood lasix without prescription vessels in the kidneys, leading to reduced kidney function. The researchers.

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.