The buy generic accutane former are the particles used in some cosmetics, and the buy cheap petcam (metacam) oral suspension latter comes from the breakdown products of larger plastic items. celebrex sale Doctors can recommend the frequency and the type of exercises flagyl for order that individuals with cystic fibrosis may need to perform. A buy asacol UTI in a person with reduced kidney function or a buy drops canada kidney infection is an example of a complicated UTI. Usually, kenalog no rx required the path to becoming a phlebotomist involves earning a certification buy cheap serevent online from a post-secondary phlebotomy program. More research is needed on xalatan online stores the effectiveness of these treatments, but early evidence shows they low price nasonex may be beneficial. Subtotal colectomy is the removal of part order gel lowest dosage cheapest price of the colon up to the lower part of the tetracycline online left descending colon. One of the most important things a cheap price cialis person can do to lose belly fat is to adopt discount griseofulvin a healthy and balanced diet. Alternatively, they can buy ground coffee.

We reported for the first time back in October on the case of RIAA v. Tenenbaum. The Recording Industries have taken one Joel Tenenbaum to task for downloading a few songs while he was a BU student, and Mr. Tenenbaum wants a trial. He is being defended by Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School. Prof. Nesson has challenged the very constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, on basis that the statutory penalties are so disproportionate to the actual damages that the law functions as a criminal statute even though it is a civil statute. That the DMCA is (for the most part) a civil statute has many consequences — the standard of proof is lower, and the defendant has no right to public defender, for example. The result is that defendants in copyright cases almost never contest; instead they settle up with the RIAA out of court.

There has been some suspense over whether the Obama administration’s Justice Department would enter into this controversy. On the one hand, the new administration prides itself on being the friend of the little guy. On the other hand, both the Vice President and several senior members of the Justice Department have reputations as friends of the copyright industry.

Today we have our answer: the Justice Department has indeed entered the argument, and sides unequivocally with the Recording Industries. The DOJ brief (pdf, 31 pages) urges the judge not to deal with the constitutional question if she can avoid it, and then dismisses every constitutional argument put forward by the defense. According to this summary by Recording Industry vs. the People, the Justice Department memo makes no response to the arguments put forward by the¬†Free Software Foundation in support of Tenenbaum’s case — citing various cases and authorities to the effect that the statutory damages set by the DMCA are unconscionably high.

It’s a disappointment — the DMCA is bad law, as we detail in Chapter 6, and we might have hoped for better from the new administration. But previous Justice Departments had sided with the Recording Industries, so perhaps this should have come as no surprise — even with the enlightened Elena Kagan as the government’s top lawyer.

Slashdot has a good precis, and almost 500 comments as of this writing.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm and is filed under Owning bits—copyright, The role of government—laws and regulations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.