While order nexium current research indicates that CBD is both safe and tolerable, buy estradiol online some evidence notes that CBD could be harmful to some get cheap cialis best price tablet people. Health insurance covers medically necessary doctor services in an nasonex without prescription outpatient hysterectomy and some doctor services in an inpatient hysterectomy. pharmacy lumigan The most common complications of this procedure are hypopigmentation (loss gel without a prescription of color) or hyperpigmentation (extra color, such as darkening) of buy levitra online the skin. If the heart rhythm does not return to order discount griseofulvin side effects effects normal soon after the heart attack, doctors will insert a generic zyprexa permanent pacemaker. SHOP NOW Cellucor claims that this pre-workout powder viagra medication combines fat loss and energy in a person's workout. Researchers buy cheap cialis alternative can perform more detailed analyses and examine biological effects in compare cialis prices a larger number of in vitro subjects than they would asacol non prescription in animal or human trials. The major causes of dry buy cheap metronidazole gel online eyes are inadequate lubrication of the eyes and an imbalance in.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and I have no idea if Professor Charles Nesson is going to prevail in his defense of Joel Tenenbaum and his counterclaims that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is unconstitutional. But the recording industry sure is taking him seriously. When Nesson asked for a hearing in the case to be webcast, the RIAA reacted with horror — rather oddly, as the judge noted in granting Nesson’s request, given that the RIAA claims that it wants publicity of its anti-piracy campaign. Now the judge has delayed the hearing so the RIAA can appeal to a higher court her ruling about webcasting the proceedings.

Meanwhile, the RIAA sent Nesson a letter (pdf) demanding that he drop a request for a deposition by one of the RIAA’s former lawyers, stating that it would ask the court to sanction him if he didn’t comply. Nesson’s classic reply, quoted verbatim:

our motion stands

we welcome your opposition

And the next day the RIAA went ahead and filed court papers stating that “Defendant‚Äôs Motion has no factual or legal basis whatsoever” and asking Nesson to pay for their costs in opposing it (as apparently the law provides in the case of certain patently gratuitous motions).

There are serious and important issues at stake here, as we discuss in Chapter 6 of Blown to Bits. But on top of that, the lawyers’ duel makes good theatre.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 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.