The order levitra outlook for May-Hegglin anomaly is generally positive, and some people synthroid online without prescription do not need treatment for it. Parents and loved ones buy prednisolone of a person with an eating disorder can also seek nexium prescription support for themselves through a support group or other methods. buy cheap cialis internet They can result from any condition that affects hearing, speech, bentyl cheapest price and language to the extent that it can disrupt a buy generic viagra prescription person's ability to communicate properly. Monique Richard, registered dietitian nutritionist purchase betnovate online The human gut microbiome consists of trillions of microorganisms, such buy cheap flagyl online canada as bacteria and viruses. If you already experience irregular periods, purchase cheapest lasix price tablet it may be hard to tell whether Yaz or another side effects purchase cipro cheap factor is causing them. Deliveries are packaged in insulated packs order cafergot with frozen gel bags to help keep ingredients fresh during celexa cost transit. People with gout can talk with a healthcare professional to.

In a precedent-breaking ruling, Federal Judge Nancy Gertner will allow next week’s hearing in the case of Joel Tenebaum to be webcast. You’ll be able to view it via the website of the Berkman Center. This is the case (previously blogged here) in which Harvard Professor Charles Nesson is arguing that the copyright statute is unconstitutional because it is excessively punitive, — essentially a criminal statute in the garb of civil law. The decision includes some perspectives not usually penned by federal judges:

In many ways, this case is about the so-called Internet Generation — the generation that has grown up with computer technology in general, and the Internet in particular, as commonplace. It is reportedly a generation that does not read newspapers or watch the evening news, but gets its information largely, if almost exclusively, over the Internet.

The recording industry was not amused by Nesson’s request, stating that he made it “to influence the proceedings themselves and to increase the Defendant’s and his counsel’s notoriety.” Judge Gertner takes up the RIAA’s objections:

While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, … their objections are curious. At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material.  Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities.  Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation.

This case is going to be interesting to watch — the stakes are very high for the industry, and rulings like this will be scrutinized for patterns in the tea leaves.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 at 3:28 am 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.