Certain cheap cafergot antiseizure medications require monitoring to measure the amount of the allopurinol prices medication present in the blood. The mental health condition causes cheap amikacin tablets structural changes to the gray and white matter of the purchase colchicine without prescription brain, both in the tissue density and how the brain buy dexamethasone no prescription required functions. Doctors may prescribe antiviral drugs to fight the infection zoloft for order and may reduce or remove other medications for the duration remeron online sales of the illness. In addition to taking the replacement enzymes, compare viagra prices individuals with EPI need to avoid activities that can worsen buy cheap zoloft both the health of the pancreas and their overall quality buy augmentin online of life. While there is no definitive recommendation, experts generally remeron without prescription consider moderate-intensity physical activity to be safe for people with buy artane without prescription heart abnormalities and believe it may help maintain overall heart discount atrovent health. Unlike regular CBT, trauma-focused CBT focuses on changing how cheap acomplia a person views and responds to reminders of a traumatic event..

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.