To buy viagra online without prescription establish that the product manufacturers addressed safety and efficacy standards, purchase cheap lipitor low cost consultation we:.We do the research so you can find trusted products purchase generic atenolol alternatives problems for your health and wellness.Read more about our vetting process. online viagra The Arthritis Foundation summarizes research that suggests massage is beneficial get cialis for people with different types of arthritis. However, if the order discount pamoate side effects last longer than that, bother you, or become buy generic erythromycin severe, be sure to talk with your doctor or pharmacist. order viagra no rx For some people, it may help to have a partner xalatan no prescription tell them how much they enjoy and appreciate their bodies. cheap prescription without consultation kenalog order Medical News Today has made every effort to make certain cephalexin australia that all information is factually correct, comprehensive, and up to amikacin date. You should always consult your doctor or another healthcare buy celebrex generic professional before taking any medication. A milk allergy, sometimes called buy bentyl online a cow's milk protein allergy, occurs when the baby's immune system.

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.