L-theanine purchase cheap cialis without prescription india may provide some health benefits, but there is no evidence generic cialis online to suggest it can effectively treat bipolar disorder or any buy generic diclofenac other mental health or mood disorder. "Stephen Karpman's ‘Drama Triangle' diovan without prescription model demonstrates how we can sometimes fall into patterns in purchase cheapest levitra no prescription tablets our relationships with others when we are playing power games glucophage without prescription in social interactions," she said. At an appointment, a doctor cheap atarax may order several tests to help determine the cause of vibramycin pharmacy a person's symptoms. Doctors prescribe Sotyktu for moderate to severe cheapest estrace plaque psoriasis that may improve with other therapies. Treatment for alesse (ovral l) for order hyperthyroidism may involve taking a prescription medication to suppress thyroid alesse (ovral l) online stores function, such as propylthiouracil or methimazole. Truvada contains emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil petcam (metacam) oral suspension sale fumarate, while Descovy contains emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide. The most common types glyburide for order of hyperesthesia are allodynia, which involves experiencing pain from a buy diclofenac lowest price stimulus that does not typically cause pain, and hyperalgesia, an extreme.

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.