Black online in australia people living in higher latitudes have a higher chance of asacol price having a vitamin D deficiency, but it is not universal. buy cheap lasix Neglecting sun protection and skin care can lead to skin buy cheap 60 online damage, skin cancer, and other dermatological issues among Black people. generic ampicillin withdrawal Addressing and overcoming these myths requires a multifaceted approach involving purchase colchicine online education, awareness, and systemic changes within the healthcare system. For cheap viagra on internet SCC that has spread beyond the initial tumor to lymph buy cheap triamterene nodes or other structures, doctors may recommend the above treatments cheap cialis from usa in combination with systemic therapies. For example, red blood cells cheap vibramycin transport oxygen, muscle cells facilitate movement, and nerve cells transmit purchase cephalexin signals. While benign tumors can sometimes cause health problems depending buy free buy best price jelly on their location, they are not cancerous. As time goes order xalatan on, changes can happen in a person's genes that change find gel the way cells grow and divide normally. However, it is colchicine online stores important to have checkups with a doctor if any signs or.

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.