People betnovate sale who are nonbinary but who identify to some extent with buy buy in canada a particular gender may describe themselves as demigender. The researchers buy for sale also suggest that the adoption of gender dysphoria as a discount zithromax term has contributed to conflation and confusion over its meaning. purchase buy price work A person who identifies as agender may prefer others to advair no prescription refer to them using gender-neutral pronouns, such as they and buy generic cafergot them. Gender exists on a spectrum, and the language that purchase atarax online a person uses to describe their gender identity can change viagra medication over time. The prefix "poly" means "many," and a person order cheap canada online who is polysexual may be attracted to multiple genders but get cheap cheapest best price tablet not necessarily all genders. Anyone who feels that the term order accutane in us fits who they are and is a good label for order cheapest cialis no prescription consultation their sexuality may choose to describe themselves as polysexual. People griseofulvin drug who experience attraction toward more than one gender are no cheapest lipitor more likely to be unfaithful to a partner than anyone else.

That is thee title of a superb column by Pamela Samuelson explaining some (but only some) of the worries about the proposed settlement of copyright infringement claims against Google for scanning copyrighted works. She explains the perverse incentives to both parties to this litigation. In a word, each realized that they could become literary monopolists if they played their cards right with each other.

That is exactly the reason why the federal judiciary gets involved in settlements that private parties have negotiated with each other in class action cases. There is too much risk that the parties will find a way to divide the pie between themselves in a way that does not serve the public well.

And, of course, the public would gain much from the settlement. Advocates for the disabled are urging the judge to approve it because it would expand access to works that can be mechanically vocalized. And so it would, at a huge cost o competition, openness, privacy, and various other pitfalls.

It may not matter, if the Department of Justice decides the settlement has serious anti-trust implications, as it certainly seems to. (You can read the DOJ’s curt letter to Google at that site, thanks to DocStoc.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 at 2:51 pm 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.