It's purchase erythromycin no rx worth noting that some of the conditions Amjevita treats may cheap vibramycin also have adverse effects on a fetus if they're not purchase allopurinol online well managed during pregnancy. SHOP NOW AT CBDISTILLERY This full-spectrum cialis information cooling cream includes all of the cannabinoids, alkaloids, terpenes, and atenolol flavonoids in CBD. The aim is to help blood flow order zithromax from us to the heart more easily and stop another heart attack amikacin for order from happening. Specifically, your doctor will monitor whether your dosage compazine online without a prescription reduces your urge to take opioids or decreases your symptoms buy cheap augmentin of opioid withdrawal. Early interventions and proper management can help find azor without prescription prevent complications, reduce discomfort, and improve quality of life. However, order discount spiriva online effects it also poses risks to health, including accidental ingestion of parasites.

In a precedent-breaking ruling, Federal Judge Nancy Gertner will allow next week’s hearing in the case of Joel Tenebaum to be webcast. You’ll be able to view it via the website of the Berkman Center. This is the case (previously blogged here) in which Harvard Professor Charles Nesson is arguing that the copyright statute is unconstitutional because it is excessively punitive, — essentially a criminal statute in the garb of civil law. The decision includes some perspectives not usually penned by federal judges:

In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation — the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the Internet in particular, as commonplace. It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if almost exclusively, over the Internet.

The recording industry was not amused by Nesson’s request, stating that he made it “to influence the proceedings themselves and to increase the Defendant’s and his counsel’s notoriety.” Judge Gertner takes up the RIAA’s objections:

While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, … their objections are curious. At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material.  Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities.  Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation.

This case is going to be interesting to watch — the stakes are very high for the industry, and rulings like this will be scrutinized for patterns in the tea leaves.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 at 3:28 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.