People buy atrovent online can also talk with a doctor about additional medications or discount spiriva treatment strategies to prevent and manage psoriasis flares in winter. cheapest amoxicillin Although it can be asymptomatic for many years, long-term and cipro online stores untreated HBP can lead to serious health problems, including kidney viagra purchase disease and heart failure. Before you start treatment with Xarelto, low cost cialis it's important to tell your doctor if either of these best price acomplia contraindications apply to you. This gene regulates the synthesis (production) order discount methotrexate online effects of the hormone hepcidin, which determines the amount of iron order natural 60 no prescription a person absorbs from their diet and how much iron generic viagra online their body releases from storage sites around the body. The discount azor side effects usa body also uses protein to build and repair cells and kenalog online body tissues, and to produce hormones, antibodies, and enzymes. A cheap generic lumigan stray cat could carry rabies, which may require treatment using buy allopurinol once daily rabies postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). They may also seek support from find cheap viagra online some of the available social media and online support and advocacy.

In an editorial published on December 13, the Globe takes the risky position of decrying the penalties of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as “draconian” and the law itself as lacking “common sense” in the area of music downloading. Risky because, of course, the Globe and the New York Times depend on the law to protect their own content. Of course they do not, as the music industry does, take teenagers to court for making copies of their copyrighted content. But that hasn’t stopped the stream of vicious comments about the Globe’s hypocrisy.

The editorial is in response to the trial of Joel Tenenbaum and Judge Nancy Gertner’s plaint to Congress to do something about the “travesty” of justice (the Globe’s word). The paper wonders aloud whether Professor Charles Nesson, who represented Tanenbaum, helped his cause by the defense he took — claiming that music file sharing was allowed under “fair use.” That’s a stretch that even the most libertarian thinkers haven’t endorsed.

What’s interesting to me about the editorial is the reactions. Of course one never knows who the commenters are; they could all be music industry lackeys, for all we know. Still, we have here a defense of big business against a powerless individual — some people even compared him to Madoff, since in each case their crimes were committed with a few keystrokes. There is some amplification of power that people see in the control of digital information that makes them lose all sense of perspective and proportion. I don’t think the same people would think $675,000 was a reasonable fine if Tenenbaum had stolen a CD from a store.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am 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.