RIAA Seeking $1 Million in Damages from a Student for Sharing 7 Songs on Kazaa

Svetlana Gladkova,

on December 15, 2008,

Harvard professor and students against RIAA in a new lawsuit Today in Rhode Island federal court we are going to see yet another lawsuit with RIAA as one party and a person who seems to be randomly chosen to punish for abusing copyright of record labels. And while I myself usually support content producers everywhere I can, RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) with the ridiculous lawsuits everywhere seems to forget about any common sense at all quite often.

Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson and his students will defend Rhode Island residents Arthur and Judie Tenenbaum from RIAA that is accusing their son Joel of sharing a total of 7 songs on Kazaa file sharing network. The damages Joel and his parents are facing could be more than $1 million.

At the time of alleged infringement Joel was a teenager and his sharing of songs, while illegal, is exactly what the majority of teenagers still do around the world. More than that, I am quite sure Joel was not the only person sharing music files in Kazaa at the time - yet he is the only one chosen by RIAA to sue. So I think it is quite obvious that the purpose behind this particular lawsuit is neither to punish this particular person, nor to compensate for the copyright infringement - instead they merely want to use Joel’s case as an example of what trouble you can get yourself into by sharing a handful of songs online.

An intriguing part about the story is that during the investigation the parents of the student were forced to provide their home computer for RIAA to find evidence of copyright violation using the machine - even despite of the fact that they did not even own this machine at the time when Joel lived with them before going to college.

This situation with the computer is viewed as a serious privacy violation by Professor Nesson and his students and they are going to fight “against the recording industry’s intimidation practices”. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. and everyone is welcome to support the counterclaim against RIAA or at least to subscribe to the blog dedicated to this event.

Image via Joel Fights Back Against RIAA Facebook group that already has over 1 thousand members and you are also welcome to join.

Online File Sharers In France To Be French Fried By The RIAA

Can Digital Sharing Sell Music?

House Hobbles Online Innovation With HR 4279

CrossLoop - Sharing Your Desktop Across Platforms and Firewalls

55 Comments (Subscribe to rss)

kwarren84 - December 15, 2008 at 03:02 pm PDT

If the RIAA had even half a brain, they would be suing for a much more reasonable amount, and they would be suing a lot more people. I don’t see how anyone in their right mind would think $1 million is a reasonable amount. And if they only sue one person every now and then, people will keep filesharing because the chance of being that one person who gets sued is incredibly slim. What are they thinking? There’s people parading around on sites like TorrentFreak.com, saying that they have every right to fileshare copyrighted material and acting all morally superior about it, touting BS like “artists and creative people shouldn’t want to make any money off their art, they should be giving all movies, games, music, and programs to us for free in the first place”. And we’ll all make retirement working at Taco Bell. Those are the people who really need to be sued.

The RIAA really needs to get it’s act together. I’m a musician, and I feel like a lot of musicians are discouraged by the fact that such a large number of people don’t think music is worth paying money for anymore. That was the whole point of the Radiohead experiment. They know a ton of people were going to steal their new album for free anyway, so it was almost a dare. Come on, pay us what you think it’s worth. Even a dollar. It’s pathetic. If the RIAA was going about the filesharing copyright fiasco even remotely intelligently, we wouldn’t be in this situation. How about a maximum fine of $1000, or even just $500? Think how many people are filesharing copyrighted material right now, and multiply that by $1000. That’s a lot of money. Someone tell the RIAA to quit being so ridiculous. The whole creative industry has suffered long enough, and they need to come up with a plan that actually works.
Dan - December 15, 2008 at 06:35 pm PDT

Joel’s a grad student here at Boston University, not Harvard.

He’s a good guy, too.
Nick - December 15, 2008 at 08:23 pm PDT

kwarren84 - you do realize that bands make almost nothing on the sales of their music, the record companies take more than 75% of a band’s earnings and when the RIAA sues people and wins (has that every actually happened in court), the record companies get the money not the bands.

Also suing 10,000 people for sharing songs at $500 each would amount to a net loss with legal fees. And also since when is sharing 7 songs, valued at $1 each on Itunes worth more than $7. I guess their logic is that since he shared them with 1 person, he obviously shared each song with over 140,000 others with not a single other person uploading….
Svetlana Gladkova - December 15, 2008 at 09:18 pm PDT

@kwarren84: Thank you for the comment, it is exactly the argument that I always try to defend myself as a web publisher who suffers from people blocking ads same as musicians suffer from people stealing their music on torrents. And every time the issue is discussed there will always be people trying to prove why they think it is legitimate to steal music or movies citing some “zero cost of reproduction” as the reason without even thinking of all the people working in production itself. Really, if RIAA wanted to find and sue all these people, the association could at least get some support from people. But inventing ridiculous lawsuits like this one will certainly not help the cause.
Svetlana Gladkova - December 15, 2008 at 09:21 pm PDT

Dan, thanks a lot for the correction, I will be sure to update the post accordingly. For some reason I decided he was from Harvard because of the support he gets from Harvard.
WebCreatedbyAcademics - December 16, 2008 at 02:15 am PDT

Svetlana Gladkova:
Your comment about ad-blocking being a form of theft cannot be left unanswered. That statement is not only incorrect, it is misguided and ugly.
The HTML standards and the HTTP protocol were NOT created for people to profit. If you have a way to profit from the web using them, then feel free. But when you start saying that people who use the web and follow standards that include the ability to block whatever hosts they like are thieves –you have gone way too far.
You do not have a right to profit from the web. It’s that simple. Calling honest web users thieves is a lousy start of an on-line career.
CopyrightLawSucks - December 16, 2008 at 09:25 am PDT

The idea that everyone is ENTITLED to make money from a creation is far from the original intent of our constitution. Our founding fathers did not want to put copyright law in our constitution, but did so to motivate CREATIVITY. It wasn’t put there to be a profit machine for corporations. It wasn’t put there to provide a livelyhood for heirs. It was put there to PROMOTE CREATIVITY FOR LIMITED TIMES. Years later, copyright terms have been lengthened so long as to destroy the meaning of limited times. As a result, corporations with unlimited resources now sue 12-year-old girls, dead grandmas, disabled moms, and college students like Joel for listening to music. It is greedy, and disgusting.
kwarren84 - December 16, 2008 at 09:29 pm PDT

Nick, can you really prove that in every situation a band only makes about 25% of the profit on the album? And even at that, I would take 25% over nothing. Where do you think the money for recording studios, producers, advertising and promotion, and booking and funding tours comes from? Touring is expensive, especially if you’re not crashing on someone’s couch every night. Do you think Nigel Godrich works for peanuts? Something has to pay for all that, and it used to be album sales. And some of today’s downloading options allow for the band to make more than 25% off of album sales.

Yes, it’s ridiculous that this guy only had 7 songs on Kazaa. That’s obvious. The RIAA can sue for more money if they need to. You’re missing the point. The average consumer has to put up with more DRM now because the various creative industries are panicking about losing money to P2P. The copyright backlash is potentially huge. Making venues and bars pay for every copyrighted song they play on the stereo. Suing people who put up copyrighted pictures on their myspace page.

CopywrightLawSucks- you think copyright law sucks now, just wait and see what happens if the lawyers really go at it. All the RIAA has to do is be a little more consistent about their lawsuits, and they’ll do a good enough job of striking fear in the P2P community, and things can go back to some level of normality. But they’re not. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t personally know anyone who’s been caught in a lawsuit for using P2P. If I want a perfect copy of the latest movies, games, music, and programs, I can get them, right now, for free off of Bittorrent. How can anyone in there right mind not see that there’s going to be a backlash for that?

And for the record, corporations do not create copyrighted material, the artists do. We’re not ENTITLED to make money, we’re ENTITLED to try to. And it’s not easy. Clearly you’ve never tried, otherwise you wouldn’t be so nonchalant about it.
Svetlana Gladkova - December 16, 2008 at 10:41 pm PDT

WebCreatedbyAcademics: It is not the start of the online career for me, it’s just your first encounter with me. And I think I will simply forward you to another post of mine where I defended the same idea (and that got enough supporters among web publishers), you can join the discussion there if you want to but this one is not exactly the right place, I think. Here you are: http://profy.com/2008/12/08/is-blocking-ads-the-same-stealing-as-downloading-music-from-torrents-is/.
Alex - December 16, 2008 at 10:49 pm PDT

$1 million dollars?

/me holds pinky by lips
ret0x - December 16, 2008 at 11:16 pm PDT

kwarren84 wants da money and I we can’t really blame him, after all if we were aspiring musicians we would to. However illegal file sharing will still never stop, me and the other 2 billion people downloading music right now will make sure of that.

Shit maybe if cds weren’t 12 dollars each more people would buy cds. There is no reason for them to be that much the fuckin cd itself is less than 25 cents. That means I’m paying 11 dollars and 75 cents for a plastic case, corporation, after corporation, the studio, and the artist.

not happenin FUCK THE RIAA and FUCK BIG CORPS for being greedy.
Jeff - December 16, 2008 at 11:36 pm PDT

‘CopyrightLawSucks’ said it best. It’s about greed, it’s about the money machine not missing a stroke. It’s about the leeches that attach themselves to the income feed. The most ‘creative’ thing they can come up with is suing. I wonder how much of any settlement the artists would see ?

Obviously it’s about publicity and punishment, but I can only imagine what that family is going through, regardless of the fact that I seriously doubt they’ll come out broke and homeless.

I don’t condone copyright infringement, but when I see crap like this, I sure as hell don’t support the RIAA!!
CopyrightLawSucks - December 17, 2008 at 06:39 am PDT

kwarren84
First of all, unless you are an artist that sells MEGA MILLIONS, you will not make money on CD sales based on how the RIAA Record Labels design their contracts. Two examples are found at these websites. This one is about the contracts themselves from an artist that has lived through the experience. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

The other is an article by Janis Ian where she plainly states that she never received a statement from a record label that didn’t show that she owed money. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html There are numerous other examples I can hardly begin to list here.

Secondly, yes whether you want to admit it or not, the CORPORATIONS/aka Record Labels as represented by the RIAA DO OWN THE RECORDINGS. As an artist, you have agreed to let them own the recordings. You may own the copyright as a songwriter, but not the actual recording. I am not a performing artist, but I suggest to any artist that they had better read the fine print on the bottom of any contract before they sign it. I would suggest getting a lawyer to fully explain what the contract entails. Especially in your case, because you seem a bit naive as to what really happens in the music industry.
CopyrightLawSucks - December 17, 2008 at 06:42 am PDT

ret0x said “maybe if cds weren’t 12 dollars each more people would buy cds. ”

GREAT POINT!! It doesn’t take a genius to know this when you go into a media store and see old CD’s of artists selling for $12.99 to $16.99 and old movies selling for $9.99 or even $4.99 or a box of 100 old movies for only $30. The music industry would actually make money if it wasn’t so greedy.
CopyrightLawSucks - December 17, 2008 at 06:47 am PDT

With regard to this article, if the RIAA really wanted to settle this thing, they do what was done when the Betamax Case went to court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

What Universal and Sony agreed to do in this case was pick one case, drop all damages and try it in court to resolve the issued. The RIAA could have done the same thing to prove its case about Peer-to-peer file sharing, but instead they have chosen to sue 30,000 12-year-old girls, dead grandmas, disabled moms, and college students. Great way to promote your business.
kwarren84 - December 21, 2008 at 12:23 am PDT

copyrightlawsucks-in this day and age, the brave new world of music allows for musicians to try and sell music on their own, without the record labels or the RIAA. The point is, P2P filesharing makes no distinction. It doesn’t matter if the artist is on a major label, an indie label, or is self-released. The potential billions of people making free copies of everything digital don’t necessarily care whether they’re screwing over a major label or some small indie label that’s struggling to get by. Not everyone has a conscience. Not everyone cares whether the person who created the content they’re freely consuming is able to pay their rent or buy their next meal.

And just for comparison, a pair of drumsticks is almost $10 after tax. That’s almost as much as a new album. Are a pair of drumsticks worth more than the actual album they create? Quit pretending like you’re only hurting big business with filesharing. If you want old albums for cheap, buy used. Music has been hit the hardest because it’s the easiest to download quickly at a decent quality. It’s way too easy to exponentially multiply your music library for free. These days, people feel entitled to free music, and it’s become disgusting. There isn’t even a second thought about it. Maybe the RIAA is going about things the wrong way, but at least they’re trying to do something. It seems like the average consumer couldn’t care less if the music world continues to take it in the @ss till the end of time. And that’s a great feeling.
kwarren84 - December 21, 2008 at 12:48 am PDT

“the CORPORATIONS/aka Record Labels as represented by the RIAA DO OWN THE RECORDINGS”
“Especially in your case, because you seem a bit naive as to what really happens in the music industry.”

I already knew that in most cases the record label owns the recording, but thanks for being so condescending about it. The label negotiates the contract based on the kind of clout the artist carries. If the Beatles wanted to negotiate a contract in their heyday where they owned the recordings as well, I’m sure they could have done that. It’s a negotiation just like any other. I’m glad you think you know so much more than the rest of us, though, being that you’ve been so far inside the business for so long. I’m sure a band without the backing of a major label could get $1 million dollar advance any day. If a band negotiates a really bad contract, that’s their own fault. And there’s plenty of smaller indie labels that aren’t screwing over their bands, and they’re still getting shafted on the P2P networks. Since their profit margins are smaller, it’s even harder on them. Why does everyone assume that everyone involved with the music industry is a multi-millionaire? They’re a minority. Go ahead, steal Britney’s latest album. I don’t care. But what about the rest of us? There’s plenty of great indie bands in the world that need gas money for their crappy van that they sleep in after shows.

As far as giving away free downloads to attract business, that’s nothing revolutionary. Businesses give out free samples all the time to attract more customers. Wow, just because it’s on the internet it’s revolutionary. Is all her material available for free on her website? No, because she wants people to buy some of her stuff. It’s not rocket science. It’s a very basic rule of commerce called supply and demand.
kwarren84 - December 21, 2008 at 03:33 pm PDT

And BTW, great job using Courtney friggin’ Love as your back-up article. I think most people from my generation know that she’s a greedy, psychotic, drug-addled b*tch who more than likely had one of the greatest performers and songwriters of our time murdered (maybe you’ve heard of him) just so she could keep all the money to herself and buy as many Lexus’ and diamond rings as her heart desired. She also tried to cut Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic out of royalty rights to the Nirvana catalog, just so she could pile up even more cash for her care-free, hedonistic drug binges. You should really be more careful about who you associate with.
CopyrightLawSucks - December 22, 2008 at 09:08 pm PDT

kwarren84
You are obviously missing the entire point. Don’t you WANT people to hear your music? Or is the only thing you care about the almighty dollar?? By your response it is clear to me that, first of all, you only care about the money your music can make you, and secondly, that you didn’t bother to read Janis Ian’s article.

You actually believe that just because a pair of drumsticks cost $10 that you have the right to charge exhorbitant amounts for your CD’s?? Well then go ahead and see how much you sell. The reason P2P was created was because the big label RIAA music industry got greedy. They decided to kill the single and MAKE people buy the whole album (CD). Yet, there has been, and always will be, a demand for just one song. So when people couldn’t buy the single they wanted without spending $15 for the whole CD, people decided to find another way to get it. Thus, the creation of P2P. The music industry’s greed created this whole mess to begin with. So excuse me if I don’t feel the least bit sorry about it. Or you. Since you seem to have the same greedy thoughts.

Since it costs MILLIONS to get songs on the radio, what other means do you think that independents can get their music heard? Why not P2P? The idea is to get people to listen to you. As Janis Ian explained in one word — EXPOSURE. Through this exposure, people come to shows, buy CD’s and buy T-shirts, and actually make money. Go read the Janis Ian article again. You obviously missed the point.
CopyrightLawSucks - December 22, 2008 at 09:16 pm PDT

“If the Beatles wanted to negotiate a contract in their heyday where they owned the recordings as well, I’m sure they could have done that.” Really? So that’s why the Beatles had to sue their record label at least three times just to get the royalties they were entitled to?? When I first read this I almost couldn’t stop laughing at you!

The RIAA record labels have ripped off artists for years, and contrary to what you think, it’s not just their fault. Because the initial contracts are take it or leave it. If you don’t want to get famous, too bad. There are always plenty of other suckers, I mean artists, out there willing to sell their soul for a $1million advance, only to find out they would have been better off working at 7-11. I suggest you do more research about RIAA record label contracts, because it’s not just “Courtney friggin’ Love” that knows the contracts are worse then slavery. Do some extensive reading at http://www.boycott-riaa.com, and you might actually learn something. No one that signs an RIAA record label would EVER make 25%. Most of them end up owing the record label money.
CopyrightLawSucks - December 22, 2008 at 09:23 pm PDT

Today’s internet and P2P have actually provided a way for independent artists to make money AND get their music heard, without paying for the greedy middle man known as the music industry as represented by the RIAA. Most P2P sites would LOVE the opportunity to be able to pay ALL artists (including independents), and to have RIAA music legally on their sites. But the music industry said NO. Why would the RIAA record labels literally turn down BILLIONS that could have been made via P2P? Good question! I believe it is because they want to eliminate competition from the independent artists. The RIAA record labels don’t like the idea that Independent artists can make a living without serving them. So I say, give them what they want! Get all RIAA music OFF the P2P networks. With radio today in the crapper and today’s music industry stinking up the joint, I bet it wouldn’t be too long before all RIAA record labels go out of business and we’d finally get to listen to music we really want to hear.
kwarren84 - December 31, 2008 at 09:50 pm PDT

CSL-people who want everything to be free are greedy morons. Go ask Courtney Love how her bank account is doing and go help piss on her dead husband’s grave. That is all. Thank you. I am going to go buy some albums from musicians that I like and want to support. Congratulations on being an @sshole. You are helping to turn the whole world into one giant, stinking, flaming turd. (Turns on awesome Eminem meets Britney Spears mash-up that I got off P2P).
kwarren84 - December 31, 2008 at 10:06 pm PDT

CSL-P2P was born out of a desire to make massive amounts of copies of copyrighted material. Your arguments are mind-numbingly childish and are the exact same BS that all the 15 year old freetards spout. I really don’t care if the albums I buy are with the RIAA, because the artist still gets some money, and I think the artists deserve some money for their work. Maybe someday you’ll actually have to work for a living, and you’ll realize that it sucks more than copyright law, and that you’ve been pissing on people’s dreams of making a living doing what they love to do. Ok, me and my “greedy thoughts” need to go back to work now.
CopyrightLawSucks - January 03, 2009 at 03:20 pm PDT

kwarren84
It’s obvious who the real childish person is here by reading your comments. First of all, I have worked hard all my life to make a living. Because you don’t know the first thing about me, I can ignore your ridiculous assumptions. Secondly, most hard working RIAA artists will tell you that they don’t make money on the sale of RIAA CD’s. It’s obvious you didn’t bother to read the article by Janis Ian, or maybe you’d have a clue about what I was talking about.

Why don’t you grow up and read my comments for what they are, a trashing of the RIAA and its actions and comments, like that they are suing individuals for the benefit of the artists they serve. I am quite sure that out of the millions of dollars the RIAA has already stolen from hard working people for just listening to music, the artists have not received ONE DAMN DIME. If you want to argue, try using some real facts, not your childish rantings.
kwarren84 - January 04, 2009 at 09:55 am PDT

Copyright-I really doubt you work that hard, otherwise you wouldn’t be so worried about needing a stream of free content to pirate at will. You ignored my response to the Janis Ian article, which is equally irresponsible. My point is valid. She gives away sample tracks to attract potential business, but she does not give away entire albums for free. It’s a simple, basic, effective business model based on supply and demand, and it’s been around for a long time (as I’ve already asserted). If you’re going to accuse me of being childish, at least carry on a mature discussion and make some valid points instead of just repeeating the same BS over and over (Oh, the RIAA, whine whine whine! All music should be free just because I want it to be, etc. etc.). What do you have to say about that? Why would this artist not want to give away entire albums for free, regardless of whether she’s an RIAA artist or not? Could it be that just maybe, she might want to make some money from her work? Is that so crazy? Make an intelligent comment. Or just keep throwing the same BS out there and “ignore” my “ridiculous” comments, because that’s the mature thing to do.

BTW-this is what Courtney Love really thinks of copyright law. She uses it to her advantage to block the original recording artists from making any money on the song, while she takes all the money. A real champion for musician’s rights.

‘Courtney Love Sues Grohl And Novoselic, Blocks Nirvana Rarity’
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1444878/20010629/nirvana.jhtml

‘Love claims that under copyright laws she has “exclusive ownership of the right of publication for all unpublished songs of Kurt Cobain,”‘

Good Job.
CopyrightLawSucks - January 04, 2009 at 09:36 pm PDT

Again, your ignorance shows through. Where did I say that I thought all music should be FREE? Second, I don’t need a stream of free music, since I have always purchased all I need. What I don’t like about spending my hard earned money on music is that most musicians don’t ever see a dime.

On Janis Ian, perhaps you missed her point. Her point was not her business model. Her point was that the whole idea of the music business is to gain EXPOSURE. Without it, people don’t buy CD’s, don’t attend shows, don’t buy T-Shirts, and don’t hear her music, with whatever message might be attached. Since it costs hundreds of thousands to get that exposure on radio (do you really think payola is dead?) the internet has proved to be a new way to get exposure of her music. And I bet she’d give away FULL CD SAMPLES if it increased her exposure, brought more people to her shows, or increased the sale of other CD’s.

I can have a mature discussion on this topic any time you want. But when you assume that I need a “stream of free content to pirate at will”, you paint me as something that I am not, which I find very childish. My whole point is that current copyright laws suck. They end up robbing artists of money, and are presently set to give a stream of income ONLY to the major corporations that make up the RIAA (of which there are only about 4 or 5, depending on how you view things).

When our forefathers developed the whole concept of copyright law, it was not to provide an income for a corporation for more than a hundred years. The concept was only put into our constitution to promote creativity of artistic works for LIMITED TIMES. These limited times have been bastardized by Corporations through lobbyists by extending copyright lives far beyond the original intention. This doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t make a living off their own creative work, even AFTER the copyright expired.

Yet, to hear your rantings about my comments, you’d think that all I do for 24/7 is find RIAA content to download for free. I don’t. I work for a living. I can easily carry on a Mature Discussion about this. Can you?
kwarren84 - January 10, 2009 at 07:19 am PDT

“Please note that I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist’s permission. I am not saying copyrights are meaningless.”

This is from your own Janis Ian article. This Profy article isn’t just about the RIAA, it’s about P2P networks. Yes, the major labels draw up some shady contracts just like any other major corporations. It’s the responsibility of the artist to read the contract and negotiate before signing. That’s not my main concern. There’s plenty of great bands I like that aren’t on major labels. Bands that made the Pitchfork end of the year list, and they’re still being downloaded for free just the same on P2P networks. Plenty of people learn about new music on blogs or websites, and then they make the choice to download the whole album for free on a P2P network. That’s what really matters.
kwarren84 - January 10, 2009 at 07:23 am PDT

BTW, I’m glad you made sure to use the followup option to make sure you get the last word in.
Maybe you should get a life and find something that’s actually worth putting your time into.
CopyrightLawSucks - January 13, 2009 at 08:30 pm PDT

“It’s the responsibility of the artist to read the contract and negotiate before signing.”

I couldn’t agree more. But you are missing another point. What happens if an artist DOES “read the contract” and objects. What happens then?? I’ll tell you what happens. In most cases, you either accept the RIAA terms (and whatever upfront money they may entice you with), or they won’t sign you. The RIAA record labels work this way because they know they have had a monopoly on the music business. There was no other place to go to get your music heard, or to make a living doing what you love, making music.

That was until the INTERNET changed everything. Artists no longer need the record labels to get their music heard around the world. Independent artists release more new music in 3 days than what the RIAA music labels have released in the past year. And most of these Independent artists WANT their music to be downloaded for free on P2P networks. Why? Because the P2P network and the MP3 player is the new radio. It provides exposure.

Oh, and BTW, this is worth putting my time into, because I’m sick and tired of people being completely misinformed about these RIAA lawsuits. I’ll be waiting for you to have the last word (again), and tell me to get a life (again). Apparently you don’t have any other original ideas.
pamela - May 21, 2009 at 12:03 am PDT

really???…that's nice
Rea Cute - June 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm PDT

$1 milliion in damages from student..My god thats tooooooo much !!
I am also a student and I jjst can't even think of a sum like that !!
Tapaurddzepam - July 20, 2009 at 02:26 am PDT

[b]cheap diazepam, ERIDAN, SEDUXEN, VALIUM, buy online[/b]
[url=valium.jino-net.ru]Apaurin , Diapam , Diazepam , Eridan , Seduxen , Valium , Vival , Dizziness[/url]
Ambien - September 14, 2009 at 01:32 am PDT

newspaper paste faint grantedmost inverted reputation ckrksa homestead
buy valium online - September 14, 2009 at 10:56 pm PDT

biochemical deputy htmlthelwall selection facilitators sandeep cardiokine smallest state dciaa
Ambien - September 15, 2009 at 01:13 am PDT

adjunction admitted smug italy kesharpura fofuekz shutterfly adrs blvd
buy valium 5 mg - September 15, 2009 at 08:26 am PDT

cuba earthquakes consulting panjab mandel untfhs lying trampoline maanen outlined
Ambien - September 15, 2009 at 01:25 pm PDT

floor centres practices khushbooec oxonox microscopic presenter burrell elected
Pharme503 - September 16, 2009 at 11:42 pm PDT

Very nice site!
Ativan - September 18, 2009 at 11:22 pm PDT

mugello reserved variability level lesson multiplied dadaistic ovid sector telling revamp laptops algorithms fieldnotes
Ambien cheap - September 19, 2009 at 09:44 am PDT

prakruti googlehttp fudan golden cardiology purchasing macclesfield isworld depository navsari
Ambien cheap - September 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm PDT

diagram accessforall kodali rebuild reinforcing pigment lucid midwest signalled woodwind
Ambien no prescription - September 20, 2009 at 04:00 am PDT

foolproof danceah glos inclusive constancy unchanged duncan signatures acts appliances sphere listen
Tapaugvvdzepam - September 22, 2009 at 03:07 pm PDT

[b]cheap diazepam, ERIDAN, SEDUXEN, VALIUM, buy online[/b]
[url=valium.jino-net.ru]Apaurin , Diapam , Diazepam , Eridan , Seduxen , Valium , Vival , Dizziness[/url]
Tamiflu no prescription - September 24, 2009 at 05:08 pm PDT

skip purpose desire stirring assertoric skis ritual franz ukraines reviewtables accessible incl
Valium no rx - September 27, 2009 at 10:39 am PDT

point logistic conceive jisc hmtd ballad belles colour uncertainty lane instructor reintroduces
Valium no rx - September 27, 2009 at 12:52 pm PDT

eqrkjh shipments focussed bharat malta purchaser unipharma injection palvix esdne exhaust radiation
Tamiflu without prescription - September 28, 2009 at 02:41 am PDT

shama invoke preface fondsenzw psrpthe reliance encrypted buckley cities ariali strips segmented
Tamiflu swine - October 01, 2009 at 10:05 am PDT

harrison applicable condiments navigate lengthy wellbeing herrera negotiable mcorus evidence simplified blunt
Tamiflu no prescription se - October 02, 2009 at 07:08 am PDT

master rents taxi gearing example evaluate construe acknowledged possibly weapon usage hirwani
Ambien no prescriptions - October 04, 2009 at 03:36 am PDT

unreliable archive tutorials panorama iiisushil governing fitness ties lands margins nvfc catfishes
Ativan no prescriptions - October 05, 2009 at 05:09 am PDT

nascent gatherings effect discussions normalcy capitalists exclusive enforcing hues experimented coffeehouse exposure
Ambien no prescriptions b - October 06, 2009 at 09:37 am PDT

atthe artsdomain bunch sociology strips modifying resignation separation satisfaction poached cyclones reconnect
Ambien no prescriptions df - October 07, 2009 at 03:11 am PDT

vkids handles host rastogijyoti uksvjksa frankly wakefield finalized ngpg tonal exploits ktud
Ativan drug - November 30, 2009 at 08:12 pm PDT

mosaic repertoire gunshots permitting accrediting outskirts honouring pressed prevented himmelwiese whether
brintonmcg - December 06, 2009 at 10:26 pm PDT

early shut turn variation allowed fuels frequency components

Leave a comment (We support avatars from Gravatar, MyBlogLog, and FriendFeed)