Plaque buy asacol without prescription psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, which means it's caused by order cheapest augmentin no prescription consultation your immune system mistakenly attacking your skin. To check for buy viagra us reproductive system conditions, doctors may carry out an external and gel no online prescription internal pelvic exam to examine the female reproductive organs. A order discount erythromycin online effects person with osteoporosis should avoid exercises that twist or overexert buy no rx augmentin the spine, such as sit-ups or golf, and activities with order advair a high risk of falling and injury, such as horseback buy accutane on line riding, contact sports, and snowboarding. Before a stem cell transplant cephalexin price takes place, a person will receive high doses of chemotherapy levitra sale to kill the leukemia cells. Experts categorize symptoms of PTSD purchase cheapest vibramycin price tablet into four categories — re-experiencing, avoidance, arousal and reactivity, and (ovral without prescription cognition and mood. Creatine is a popular natural supplement that may.

We reported for the first time back in October on the case of RIAA v. Tenenbaum. The Recording Industries have taken one Joel Tenenbaum to task for downloading a few songs while he was a BU student, and Mr. Tenenbaum wants a trial. He is being defended by Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School. Prof. Nesson has challenged the very constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, on basis that the statutory penalties are so disproportionate to the actual damages that the law functions as a criminal statute even though it is a civil statute. That the DMCA is (for the most part) a civil statute has many consequences — the standard of proof is lower, and the defendant has no right to public defender, for example. The result is that defendants in copyright cases almost never contest; instead they settle up with the RIAA out of court.

There has been some suspense over whether the Obama administration’s Justice Department would enter into this controversy. On the one hand, the new administration prides itself on being the friend of the little guy. On the other hand, both the Vice President and several senior members of the Justice Department have reputations as friends of the copyright industry.

Today we have our answer: the Justice Department has indeed entered the argument, and sides unequivocally with the Recording Industries. The DOJ brief (pdf, 31 pages) urges the judge not to deal with the constitutional question if she can avoid it, and then dismisses every constitutional argument put forward by the defense. According to this summary by Recording Industry vs. the People, the Justice Department memo makes no response to the arguments put forward by the¬†Free Software Foundation in support of Tenenbaum’s case — citing various cases and authorities to the effect that the statutory damages set by the DMCA are unconscionably high.

It’s a disappointment — the DMCA is bad law, as we detail in Chapter 6, and we might have hoped for better from the new administration. But previous Justice Departments had sided with the Recording Industries, so perhaps this should have come as no surprise — even with the enlightened Elena Kagan as the government’s top lawyer.

Slashdot has a good precis, and almost 500 comments as of this writing.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm and is filed under Owning bits—copyright, The role of government—laws and regulations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.