They cialis online review include managing stress, taking medication as a doctor prescribes, and petcam (metacam) oral suspension prescription learning to recognize changes in their mood and behavior. Pricing atrovent drug source:.Perks.optum.com Lamotrigine is a generic drug, which means it's an cheapest clozapine exact copy of the active drug in a brand-name medication. order canada lowest price dosage These sites can provide details about drug assistance programs, ways cheap viagra without prescription to make the most of your insurance coverage, and links generic buy no prescription jelly to savings cards and other services. You may also need generic nasonex to obtain prior authorization before your plan will cover the generic cafergot cost of this medication. Talk with your doctor or pharmacist, cheap buy who can provide personalized guidance about cost issues related to retin-a online lamotrigine. The drug information contained herein is subject to change discount artane and is not intended to cover all possible uses, directions, artane online stores precautions, warnings, drug interactions, allergic reactions, or adverse effects. Bipolar cheap drops online disorder is a type of mood disorder involving severe mood cheap viagra in canada swings that can affect a person's daily activities and quality of.

This is the sole case of copyright infringement by downloading that had actually gone to trial, prior to the case of Joel Tenenbaum in which Professor Charles Nesson is active. The Thomas case, which we discuss on page 198, is being re-tried after the judge threw out the first decision. Today Thomas’s expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim of the University of Minnesota, filed his report, which includes a strong attack on the evidence against Thomas and also on the report of the opposing expert. The site “RIAA v. the People” has a good summary, and a hotlink to Kim’s full report. For me the killer sentence is this:

MediaSentry claims to have much experience in identifying individual committing copyright infringement. However, they insist that their methods are proprietary and thus cannot be subject to scrutiny by an impartial third party. No academic studies exist of their internal investigative techniques, methods, software, data collection practices, or even employee training in retaining collected data in a way that would allow for it to be used as evidence at a trial.

MediaSentry is the private police force of the RIAA, of which Nesson also complains. How on earth can one defend oneself against a private investigator who makes a claim about what you did but says that its methodology for gathering the evidence is proprietary and even the judge can’t review it?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 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.