The viagra vendors American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considers any spotting between buy viagra overnight delivery periods abnormal. In some cases, adults may take some over-the-counter gentamicin eye drops online medicines to treat diarrhea due to viral gastroenteritis. Deliberate weight canada celexa loss during pregnancy is not safe, even in people who quinine pill are overweight or have obesity. If you have questions about order atarax the risk of long-term side effects with Effexor XR, talk order mirapex lowest price dosage with your doctor or pharmacist. People may experience changes in buy levitra on internet their sleeping and eating habits or begin to spend more buy zoloft time alone. People may find help by speaking with a cialis drug doctor or mental health professional or seeking help from organizations viagra online without a prescription and support groups that specialize in body image disorders. Botox buy cheap synthroid online may not be right for you if you have certain best price for allopurinol medical conditions or other factors affecting your health. Some signs cheapest cialis online a baby is not receiving enough milk include appearing sleepy buy amoxicillin without prescription and lethargic and changes in stools and feeding times. CPAP treatment.

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.