Qualified purchase advair online healthcare professionals can also determine if laser therapy is suitable gentamicin eye drops for order and provide proper guidance on where to go for treatment. buy glucophage online If a person's old kidneys are not causing infection and certified cialis are noncancerous, they may remain in the person's body, and buy arcoxia without prescription a surgeon will insert the new kidney into the lower cheapest ampicillin abdomen. Medications, such as pain relievers and bisphosphonates, and treatments, glucophage such as radiation therapy, may help treat bone pain. When order cheap cialis sale dosage someone feels the compulsive urge to eat without any control, buy generic amoxicillin distracting themselves with alternative activities could help prevent a binge betnovate for sale eating episode. However, because this involves adverse effects, doctors may purchase cheapest cephalexin delivery reserve it for people who did not obtain good results bentyl online from nonsurgical interventions. The current guidance of the Food and cialis cheap price Drug Administration (FDA) is to avoid using expired medications. Risk synthroid factors increase the likelihood of blood clots forming in the leg.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and I have no idea if Professor Charles Nesson is going to prevail in his defense of Joel Tenenbaum and his counterclaims that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is unconstitutional. But the recording industry sure is taking him seriously. When Nesson asked for a hearing in the case to be webcast, the RIAA reacted with horror — rather oddly, as the judge noted in granting Nesson’s request, given that the RIAA claims that it wants publicity of its anti-piracy campaign. Now the judge has delayed the hearing so the RIAA can appeal to a higher court her ruling about webcasting the proceedings.

Meanwhile, the RIAA sent Nesson a letter (pdf) demanding that he drop a request for a deposition by one of the RIAA’s former lawyers, stating that it would ask the court to sanction him if he didn’t comply. Nesson’s classic reply, quoted verbatim:

our motion stands

we welcome your opposition

And the next day the RIAA went ahead and filed court papers stating that “Defendant‚Äôs Motion has no factual or legal basis whatsoever” and asking Nesson to pay for their costs in opposing it (as apparently the law provides in the case of certain patently gratuitous motions).

There are serious and important issues at stake here, as we discuss in Chapter 6 of Blown to Bits. But on top of that, the lawyers’ duel makes good theatre.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 pm 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.