| Help us to promote this site! Link to us |
|
|
|
| Technology News: Reuters - Techcrunch - Weird | Engadget - Gizmodo |
|
Technology News From Yahoo!, Google and Techdirt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AP - Sony has a new message for Nintendo Wii gamers: Come join us. 11 Mar 2010 at 4:24am AP - Last year, Palm thought it had all the pieces for a turnaround in the market it pioneered: A new CEO known for making the iPod a household name, a sleek new smart phone called the Pre and fresh, intuitive operating software. 10 Mar 2010 at 6:06pm AP - A global Internet oversight agency is reopening discussions about whether to create a ".xxx" domain name as an online red-light district where porn sites can set up shop away from the wandering eyes of children and teenagers. 10 Mar 2010 at 1:43pm AP - The sudden takedown of an Internet provider thought to be helping spread one of the most promiscuous pieces of malicious software out there appears to have cut off criminals from potentially millions of personal computers under their control. 10 Mar 2010 at 8:38pm AP - In an industry first, a new gaming service will start allowing people to "stream" popular high-end games such as "Assassin's Creed II" over the Internet in June, using a mechanism similar to watching TV shows or listening to music online. 10 Mar 2010 at 2:19pm AP - Long ago lapped by Facebook in popularity and with fast-growing Twitter on its tail, MySpace is planning a series of updates over the next months that will link its users' posts to the other social networking sites more easily and carve out its niche as an entertainment hub more clearly. 10 Mar 2010 at 12:12pm Reuters - British cable operator Virgin Media is testing a new technology to deliver ultrafast broadband over telegraph poles which could allow it to extend its reach to another 1 million homes. 11 Mar 2010 at 4:28am AP - Groups pushing for robust Hispanic participation in the 2010 census announced a new campaign Thursday that aims to reach the hard-to-count demographic through its smart-phone-toting youngsters. 10 Mar 2010 at 10:42pm Reuters - Opera Software unveiled on Thursday a version of its Mini mobile browser for use on cellphones running on Google's Android software. 11 Mar 2010 at 2:17am PC World - A scrum of reporters pressed against Brad and Ashley as they shuffled up to the counter at a Best Buy store in Manhattan. Cameras flashed and elbows flew. Was it the end of Brangelina? Some new reality show? 10 Mar 2010 at 4:55pm AFP - MySpace began courting videogame developers as it moved to capitalize on the booming popularity of playing games online at social networks. 10 Mar 2010 at 11:39pm PC World - Spring break is just around the corner, so what better companion to take on your swimsuit workouts than an Apple iPod Shuffle? Amazon has the 4GB 3rd Generation Silver iPod Shuffle for $55.99 with free shipping. The 3rd Generation iPod Shuffle features a sexy design, voice navigation (unlike previous iPod Shuffles, this Shuffle will tell you what playlists and tracks are on your device), and headphones with a built-in remote. 10 Mar 2010 at 9:53pm Reuters - Motorola Inc has reached a deal with Microsoft Corp that will put Bing search and mapping services on its phones that use Google's Android operating system. 10 Mar 2010 at 8:19pm PC World - As Google takes on the social networking world with Buzz, and Facebook and Twitter bring out location-sharing ala Foursquare, does anybody remember the social networking site that started it all? MySpace has had a tough year -- with employee cuts and CEO resignations -- but the company's new co-presidents are seeking to turn the site around with a new look, a new mantra ("Discover and be discovered"), and believers. 10 Mar 2010 at 10:40pm Macworld.com - The perils of malware and viruses are everywhere, and Mac users shouldnât be complacent, especially if theyâre also running Windows via Boot Camp or other virtualization software. To those ends, Intego has released VirusBarrier X6 Dual Protection, which offers all the features of its X6 product for both Mac and Windows operating systems running on your machine. 10 Mar 2010 at 1:54pm The Net giant unveils Google Reader Play, an attempt to put an easy-to-use, entertaining interface on its feed-reader Web application 11 Mar 2010 at 3:18am Opera adds Android to its updated browser lineup. 11 Mar 2010 at 2:00am The co-author of a study on cyberbullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth says more than half of LGBT youth had experienced cyberbulling within the past 30 days. 11 Mar 2010 at 1:40am Chipmaker introduces its first desktop chip packing that many processing cores for gaming boxes. 10 Mar 2010 at 11:30pm Activist investor group urges companies to track their use of energy and resources as closely as it does its hiring and cash flow. 10 Mar 2010 at 11:05pm Sony unveils their first motion controller for the Playstation 3. 10 Mar 2010 at 10:18pm roundup This week's Game Developers Conference brings together designers, programmers, publishers, and others for the latest from the world of video play. 10 Mar 2010 at 9:29pm Game AI, when done right, means it's closer to acting and reacting like humans. Find out what some developers are doing to shake things up. 10 Mar 2010 at 9:29pm After feedback from its Twitter followers, the tax-preparation software company decides to remove its advertising from the show hosted by Fox's most entertaining presenter. 10 Mar 2010 at 9:05pm Neat little clipping and saving service works on Web and iPhone. 10 Mar 2010 at 7:06pm Notorious as a malware ghetto, LimeWire takes its first steps to integrate authoritative threat protection by signing on AVG to provide premium users with download scanning and blocking. 10 Mar 2010 at 6:53pm But Microsoft is telling game developers to concentrate on the phones. 10 Mar 2010 at 6:36pm The PlayStation maker gives those gathered at a press conference during the Game Developers Conference a sneak peek at its motion-sensitive controller. 10 Mar 2010 at 6:25pm ICM Registry is again urging ICANN to allow adult sites to add .xxx to their names, creating what some have called a red-light district in cyberspace. 10 Mar 2010 at 6:20pm In our next interview for CNET Conversations, we'll ask FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about everything from free broadband to exclusive wireless agreements to the NBC-Comcast deal. What's your question? 10 Mar 2010 at 6:16pm |
11 Mar 2010 at 3:00am
11 Mar 2010 at 4:40am
10 Mar 2010 at 8:41pm
10 Mar 2010 at 11:58am
11 Mar 2010 at 3:24am
10 Mar 2010 at 5:42pm
10 Mar 2010 at 11:13pm
10 Mar 2010 at 8:24pm
10 Mar 2010 at 8:46pm
10 Mar 2010 at 11:16pm |
Justin Levine has an interesting blog post up about a book I hadn't heard of, called The Monster Engine. The author, Dave Devries, took children's drawings of monsters, and turned them into paintings that use the identical line structure of the kid's drawings (he projects them on the wall and then draws over them). Apparently, Devries' work is quite popular, and people have talked about it on the internet for years:
Seems pretty cool. But Levine is wondering about the copyright issues involved in all of this:
Given the fact that:
There is no doubt that the children's original doodles are protected by copyright for their entire life, plus 70 additional years.
There is no doubt that Devries' paintings of the doodles are 'derivative works' stemming from the original creations of the children.
Do you believe that Devries should be forced to get formal copyright releases from each and every one of the kids in question? Do you think he has done so? If so, should they be able to repudiate their copyright agreement when they turn 18 since many jurisdictions allow minors to repudiate contracts signed before they reach 18? If so, should they be able to take Devries's work out of circulation?
Do you think that the children should all share in the royalties from books, art and showcases that Devries produces for the rest of their lives (and beyond - for 7 decades)? Do you think that is in fact the case of what is going on? If Devries hasn't gotten a copyright release and/or isn't paying royalties, do you feel that he is somehow "exploiting" these kids or "stealing" from them?
These are pretty serious questions -- because under copyright law today, this book is trouble, and that's unfortunate, because it looks like a lovely book. My guess would be that Devries actually had to get permission from the parents, but do parents have the right to sign away the copyright on a child's work? And do those children then have the right to terminate that agreement at a later date? Perhaps people think the likelihood of kids later terminating the agreement is quite low -- and maybe they're right. But what would happen if a kid no longer wanted to be associated with that artwork?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
11 Mar 2010 at 5:02am We recently wrote about how a lawsuit filed by three alternative publication reporters against NYC for denying them press passes to NY Police press conferences ended in a settlement with NY setting up new rules for getting press credentials. There was a fair amount of back and forth in the comments, with some still believing the lawsuit was sound, even though we had trouble with the idea that the lawsuit had any merit at all. However, it looks like that result may have inspired others as well. A blogger in Maryland is now suing the state for denying him a press pass. The article is long and detailed -- and it does sound (yet again) like the government should have issued the guy a press pass, but does that make the lawsuit sound? Let's take an extreme example. I write for an "alternative publication," but if I requested a press pass from the White House, I would totally expect to get turned down. There is limited room in such press conferences, and the White House has every right to determine who gets that access. Same with the NYC police and the Maryland General Assembly. I agree that perhaps these gov't organizations should have a clear process and clear standards for who gets let in, but I can't see how it's a free speech violation to deny press credentials under these circumstances. They're not saying these people aren't press, or that they can't publish whatever they want. They're just saying they don't get to enter the building as press.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 11 Mar 2010 at 1:59am We've seen all sorts of governments complaining about aspects of Google's Street View offering, but here's a first. Reader Joe points out that the city of Windsor, Ontario, has asked Google to come back and reshoot a certain location, because the current images capture a "murder crime scene" with police tape, police car and (apparently) bloody bandages. The city is upset because they feel it reflects poorly on the area and "That's not Windsor." They're also upset because the Google cameras came through during a labor strike that resulted in lots of garbage being seen on the streets. It makes you wonder if towns and cities are going to start to "prepare" for Google Street View cars coming through and make sure that everyone is on their best behavior...Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 11 Mar 2010 at 12:03am In the wake of the DMCA takedown notice that forced Cryptome offline, the EFF is pointing out yet another massive in with the DMCA's notice-and-takedown setup: it leads to a ton of collateral damage in getting legitimate, authorized, non-infringing content blocked by overzealous takedowns. Obviously, there are lots of cases of false takedowns or where there's a fair use argument -- but even if we assume that (in this example) Microsoft's DMCA was justified, the fact that the entire site got forced offline should be seen as a major problem with the DMCA: This illustrates a basic problem built into the DMCA safe harbors. Microsoft's notice targeted just one document. Network Solutions, however, couldn't take down that single document, so opted to take down the entire site. Thus, although Cryptome's beef was with Microsoft, Cryptome also had to persuade Network Solutions to take a chance of losing safe harbor protection (although not much of a chance, because Cryptome's posting was protected by the fair use doctrine). Because Network Solutions wasn't willing to take that small risk, a whole lot of speech was temporarily disappeared. As the EFF notes, this happens because the notice and takedown process lets copyright holders go after "the weak link" by moving further and further upstream to find a player in the chain who will take down the content, even if it means taking down much more: Copyright owners reach out to a "weak link," the service provider with the least incentive to resist the takedown notice. Unless it has a free lawyer, the cost of doing a fair use analysis and defending a lawsuit--even if the service provider knows it will win--is almost certainly more than a service provider is charging any individual customer, or even a whole bunch of "innocent bystander" customers. The EFF also follows this up with a list of ways that upstream service providers should react to such DMCA notices, and suggests that customers seek out service providers who will follow that course of action. Of course, the better solution would be to fix the DMCA, but that doesn't seem likely any time soon.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 9:59pm Apparently, you don't just commit to handing over your music recordings if you enter American Idol, but now you have to give up your ability to build your own brand, as well. Hypebot alerts us to the news that American Idol contestants for the latest season were all forced to shut down their Facebook, MySpace and Twitter usage, and point everyone directly to American Idol's own website instead. In an age when having a strong social media presence is important to career success for many musicians, this seems like quite a big trade-off.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 7:57pm We wrote about Indian film star Sharukh Khan not too long ago, when he was involved in a prank/hoax/joke about airport film scanners. However, Amar Balikai alerts us to something else he's potentially planning that seems pretty smart. Khan, via his production company, owns a cricket team, and there's huge demand for the jerseys. The official jerseys are apparently quite pricey, leading many to buy cheap knockoffs instead. But rather than freak out about the fakes, Khan apparently wants to create a second line of cheaper jerseys that the team can offer directly, to compete with the knockoff versions. We've seen this before, such as with the South African t-shirt company that secretly designed both an official line and its own, cheaper, knockoffs, and was able to better segment the market. In other words, these are both cases of companies recognizing that "piracy" is just a form of free market research. You just need to figure out how to capitalize on what it tells you.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 6:45pm Ladies and gentlemen, we now have confirmation that the USPTO is a joke. After years of back and forth, it has decided, once again, that Amazon's one-click patent is perfectly valid. This, despite tons of prior art, and basic common sense. We were just wondering what was taking so long for the USPTO to reject the patent. But, of course, it seemed like the USPTO was willing to go out of its way to help keep this patent around. Of course, as some are pointing out, the end result of this patent surviving is that it may be used as example number one for patent reform.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 5:30pm I saw Avatar with a friend who didn't know much about the movie heading in, and asked me what it was about -- so I gave her the succinct summary I'd heard from a few others as well: "It's Dances With Wolves with blue people." Of course, while many people have made similar statements, it's also been popular to compare the movie to Pocohantas. However, that was just the start. A little while ago, the site io9 put together an amazing look at the many, many, many different movies/books/stories/artwork that Avatar has been accused of "ripping off." And, of course, with such a list, you'd have to expect lawsuits -- and they're starting up. A guy in China sued for $146 million, claiming that his online novel was the inspiration. That suit was quickly dismissed. But fear not, now some restaurant owner is claiming that his unmade screenplay was the real inspiration and has sued James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox. Or, perhaps, this is a classical story that's been told hundreds of times before in various formats. As with almost every lawsuit like this, it will almost certainly get dismissed quickly. However, this happens all the time with blockbuster books and movies (just look at how many times JK Rowling has been accused of "ripping off" Harry Potter, or Dan Brown accused of "ripping off" The Da Vinci Code). At some point there should be sanctions against these sorts of bogus lawsuits. In many cases, it seems clear that the people suing see it more as a publicity stunt to get press attention for their book or movie or whatever (hence the reason we're not naming the individuals or their works in this post). In the meantime, though, is anyone taking bets on who's next to sue?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 4:13pm
10 Mar 2010 at 2:54pm While I don't believe that the new Hadopi "three strikes" law in France has started being enforced yet (due to data privacy questions), it technically went into effect at the beginning of the year, and was widely promoted around France. Of course, our big question was why anyone thought that such laws would actually make anyone buy. The general reasoning that supporters of such laws gave is that it would decrease unauthorized file trading, and those people would magically want to start buying again. But, of course, as mentioned at the time, we already have empirical data that this wouldn't work. After all, here in the US, thousands of people were threatened with millions of dollars in fines for file sharing -- a punishment significantly more stringent than losing your internet connection. And, rather than decrease the amount of unauthorized file trading, it only increased (quite a bit), often moving to more underground resources. So it should come as little (i.e., no) surprise that in the few months since the Hadopi law has technically been in effect in France, reports have found an increase in unauthorized file trading, along with a notable shift from BitTorrent to other, less trackable, solutions. So what's next? Suing doesn't work. Kicking people off the internet doesn't work. Can we hope that maybe next on the list is actually putting in place a good business model?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 1:43pm Andrew Dubber points us to an interesting post by musician Steve Lawson, where he talks about how he usually uses his blog and other social media accounts to write about others' music rather than always talking about his own, noting that he can probably help others make more money than he can make for himself. And there's a reason for that: if you're posting about something you love that you think is awesome, people take it seriously. If you're posting about yourself as being awesome, people think you're an egomaniac. This is a really good way of thinking about things -- and highlights an issue that goes way beyond just music. It's why so many corporate blogs suck. Because they just talk about their own company, and appear to be propaganda. But it also highlights another important point: the value of passed links. We've noted in the past that when people pass around links (or music or books or whatever) it's the person who's doing the passing whose reputation is at stake. And, because of that, we tend to trust people passing links to others much more than people just promoting their own stuff. And this doesn't need to be reciprocal. Steve notes that he just blogs about music he likes -- and sometimes he hears from the musicians saying it resulted in a spike in earnings somehow, and that's great. To some extent, this also explains some of our position on things like ad blockers. Sites telling visitors who use ad blockers that they're not welcome are shoving aside visitors who very well may pass on a link that has tremendous value. The viewpoint held by sites like that seems to undervalue passed links, believing the only true value is in the immediate and direct ad impression. But when you focus on just letting people experience whatever cool stuff you're creating, some of them will pass it on to others, and that "vote" in your favor may be incredibly valuable. So, while Steve focuses on the point of helping others make more money, if you're doing cool stuff, it's worth remembering that a lot of that stuff comes back around (in even more valuable ways). One of the problems we see with so many anti-consumer businesses is that they feel the need to directly monetize every user/visitor/listener, rather than recognizing that the mislabeled "freeloaders" can pay it back in ways that greatly outweigh any sort of direct payment opportunity.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 12:37pm It's no secret that I'm pretty skeptical of the longterm viability of just about any newspaper paywall. Among the "success stories," however, many people point to the Financial Times, which has a policy of only letting unregistered users see a single story per month before locking them out. If you register (still free) you get ten stories per month. After that you have to pay (or you erase your cookies, or use Google searches, since you can get access if you come via Google). This has resulted in about 126,000 customers, which isn't bad, though I still question if it can last (I'll explain my reasons at the end of the post). However, in an interview, Rob Grimshaw, the managing director of the Financial Times, suggests that lots of others can do well with a paywall if they just had "balls" and "put their mind to it." Really: "Publishers should have more balls, they should have more confidence about what they're doing," is how Rob Grimshaw, managing director of FT.com put it. "If they put their mind to it then they can produce compelling products online which people will pay for." You would think that someone working for a savvy business publication, like the FT, would offer a bit more in the way of strategic detail. Confidence alone doesn't change the market position. I agree that if they put their mind to it, others can come up with compelling products that people will pay for -- but these have to be products of scarce value. The FT has mostly been able to do this with good financial/business content, but that may not be sustainable. It's really a huge opportunity for someone else to step in and offer top financial and business content for free and pick up the readers that don't want to pay for either the FT or the WSJ. And that group of people is growing. The younger generation (that's rapidly hitting the business world) has never paid for a newspaper subscription and see no reason to start now. None. So, the papers with the paywalls are limiting themselves to an audience that will die off. That's dangerous. Furthermore, as we keep pointing out, news consumers today aren't there to just read, but to share the news. In other words, the very act of putting up this paywall makes the newspaper less valuable to the current news consumer, because they can't freely share the content with others. There are strategies for alternative revenue streams for publications, but locking up your content and hoping people will just pay to access it is an attempt to set up artificial scarcities in a world of abundance. It's a strategy that's hard to make last for very long.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 11:16am We've certainly covered many different practices by Apple that harm its developers, from arbitrarily choosing what gets approved to arbitrarily shutting down apps with little or no explanation. Now, the EFF has used a Freedom of Information Act request to NASA (who recently released an iPhone app) to get a look at the amazingly one-sided agreement that Apple forces developers to sign. The reason that the EFF was forced to file an FOIA request to see and post the document is that part of the agreement itself is that you won't make any "public statements" about the agreement itself, a la fight club. As the EFF notes, this is an incredibly one-sided document, which isn't all that surprising, given Apple's standard operating procedures. And while Apple remains a giant player in the market, many developers will just suck it up and accept it. But Apple may find, over the long term, that this comes back to bite them in some pretty serious ways. Treating your developers -- the people who really make your platform valuable -- like crap means that they'll be ready to jump to other platforms as they become viable. Perhaps Steve Jobs believes that Apple can keep innovating ahead of the curve far enough that demand will remain ridiculously high for the iPhone and iPad, but it's definitely a high wire act for the company, who could face serious developer defections if an alternative platform becomes really viable.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 10:07am AdamR was the first of a few of you to point out that the FTC (along with 35 state attorneys general) has fined Lifelock $12 million for a variety of misdeeds, starting with bogus advertising. This should be no surprise to Techdirt readers, as the discussions around LifeLock have always raised a lot more questions than were answered. It kicked off with the fact that LifeLock's CEO, who proudly places his Social Security Number on ads to "prove" how convinced he is that LifeLock will protect him... was a victim of identity fraud himself. Oh, and there was also the stuff about how one of the founder's of the company had a past that involved doing bad things with the private information of his own customers. And then there was the story about how the CEO of LifeLock, after having his own identity fraudulently used, went to the home of the guy who did it to "coerce a confession." But the bigger questions were about the service itself. All it really did was put a fraud block on your credit, which you could do for free. It didn't stop people from using your existing credit cards if they had access to the information, or from taking out loans in your name (which is what happened to the CEO) -- even though its advertisements implied you'd be safe from such situations (which are more common than someone taking out a credit card in your name). Oh, and then there was the fact that the fraud reports that Lifelock would put on accounts were found to be illegal. All that looks pretty bad -- and it gets worse as you read the details of the FTC slapdown. There was the questionable advertising, which went beyond just false implied promises -- to sending out letters that tried to claim that the recipient's info "wasn't safe" as a scare tactic. On top of that, apparently, LifeLock itself wasn't particularly secure with how it handled its customers private information. This fact looks even worse when you realize that LifeLock would prey on firms who had recently had data breaches, and suggest they sign up customers for a "free" year of LifeLock -- thereby putting their data at risk yet again. Not only was the data not properly handled, but LifeLock falsely claimed that the data was encrypted and only authorized employees would have access. Neither turned out to be true. Basically, it sounds like rather than protect your identity, LifeLock put you at greater risk.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 8:50am Wasn't expecting such a lopsided result, but EU Parliament voted 663 to 13 against ACTA, saying that "it flouts agreed EU laws on counterfeiting and piracy online." Beyond that, apparently the Parliament is ready to go to court to stop EU negotiators from continuing down the path they're on: MEPs will go to the Court of Justice if the EU does not reject ACTA rules, including cutting off users from the Internet "gradually" if caught stealing content. Some Members of Parliament are also pointing out that the EU negotiators are violating the Lisbon Treaty, which says that EU Parliament Members should have "full and immediate access at all stages of international negotiations." This is pretty big -- and a massive setback for ACTA supporters. The MEPs didn't just reject the lack of transparency, they were blatantly rejecting some of the proposals that were in the leaked documents.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story 10 Mar 2010 at 7:27am 
11 Mar 2010 at 4:20am 
11 Mar 2010 at 4:10am 
11 Mar 2010 at 4:00am 
11 Mar 2010 at 3:50am 
11 Mar 2010 at 1:10am 
11 Mar 2010 at 12:32am 
11 Mar 2010 at 12:30am 
10 Mar 2010 at 9:40pm 
10 Mar 2010 at 9:30pm 
10 Mar 2010 at 8:20pm 
10 Mar 2010 at 7:00pm Digg is committed to the use & development of open source software & we're keen to avoid the cost of proprietary large-scale storage solutions. We were inspired by Google & Amazon's broad use of their non-relational BigTable and Dynamo systems. We evaluated all the usual open source NoSQL suspects. After considerable debate, we decided to go with
10 Mar 2010 at 5:40pm 
10 Mar 2010 at 4:20pm 
10 Mar 2010 at 4:10pm 
10 Mar 2010 at 3:30pm |
||||||||||||||||||||
Mirror.co.uk
The Hindu
Globe and Mail
Telegraph.co.uk
TG Daily
Globe and Mail
Brisbane Times
Geeky gadgets
India Talkies
ComputerShopper.com
This post is part of the IT Innovation series, sponsored by Sun & Intel. Read more at