This remeron online stores syndrome also frequently occurs in people with autoimmune disorders, such buy cheap tetracycline as multiple sclerosis (MS) and celiac disease. Individuals with severe purchase for without prescription anemia will likely experience significantly lower tissue oxygenation than those order vibramycin with mild and moderate anemia. The outlook of people with find discount cheap both conditions depends on the person's age, health status, and compare for prices online other factors. For example, treatment for sarcoidosis may include reducing buy cheap toradol online inflammation with medications such as corticosteroids. Researchers do not fully generic griseofulvin understand why this occurs, but evidence suggests that the coronavirus buy in us directly attacks the heart and blood vessels. If a person atrovent for order experiences heart palpitations with chest pain, they should make an cream cheap price appointment with a doctor, as this can indicate a problem zofran for sale with the heart. The vaccine is recommended for people with cheap tizanidine seasonal allergies and other allergies related to environmental factors, pets, overnight viagra food, latex, or venom. Preemptively taking OTC pain medications and anti-inflammatories.

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.