The clindamycin gel no prescription success of the surgery varies depending on the complexity of order discount norvasc the stones, the surgeons, and other factors. The study authors order ampicillin in us theorize that vitamin D might regulate epigenetic changes that lead asacol cheap to allergic conditions. Even though the exact link remains unknown, buy generic (metacam) best price researchers have found a relationship between the two conditions. However, robaxin online others say that the process was not as personalized as cialis purchase they thought it would be, and found that the tests tetracycline online stores did not differ much from less expensive options. People may free viagra online order also include lactose-free products or, in some cases, lactose-reduced dairy cost of cialis products in their diet. Females with this type of migraine cialis medication who use oral contraception and people with migraine aura who get discount estrace smoke also have a higher risk of stroke. A pediatrician cheapest alesse (ovral l) is a medical doctor who specializes in treating infants, children, adolescents,.

Siva Vaidhyanathan has a good summary of the deal, in the details of which may lie the devil. Like me, he regrets that we won’t now get any clarification on the limits of fair use in the digital age — though he thinks Google would have lost, which would have been a disaster since it would have strengthened the hand of the content industry to keep cracking down on people using small amounts of material for commentary or indexing.

He notes that as long as we rely on Google book search, it’s better for us if it works better. And it will work better — Google will be free to show larger excerpts from copyrighted works. But the deal also will firm up Google’s status as the dominant digital book depository. And in light of the anti-trust issue that raises, Siva notes an interesting coincidence: Google CEO Eric Schmidt hit the road campaigning for Barack Obama last week, just at the moment when the parties must have been hammering out the final draft of this agreement.

And finally, he cautions us not to get too excited about the deal until the court has approved it.

In a related development, Harvard has announced that its library won’t be extending its cooperation with Google to its collection of in-copyright materials, because the deal places too many restrictions on the ways in which they would be made available. Google has been digitizing only the out-of-copyright works in Harvard’s collection, though apparently Harvard’s position has been that Google’s entire project was legal. Not clear to me that Harvard’s decision poses any great problems for Google, since there tend to be multiple sources for copyrighted works.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 30th, 2008 at 9:00 am and is filed under Open Access, Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.