Showing posts with label Hot News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hot News. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Apple drops '4G' from iPad adverts


Apple iPad launch
Apple has stopped using the phrase 4G in adverts for its latest iPad.
The description proved controversial because 4G is not widely available in the UK and the iPad will not work with it when it is.
The UK's advertising watchdog and others around the world investigated Apple over use of the 4G phrase.
Apple said the confusion arose because of the ways operators refer to different high-speed mobile technologies.
Word jumble
When the newest version of the iPad was launched in March, adverts for the device claimed it would work with 4G, meaning fourth generation, mobile technology. The 4G in question was a technology known as Long Term Evolution (LTE) that was starting to appear in the US.
However, when LTE arrives in Britain, the rest of Europe and many other nations, it will use different frequencies to those in the US meaning the iPad will not be able to use 4G everywhere.
The disparity led to many complaints. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) investigated and won assurances from Apple that its advertising would change.
A spokesman for the ASA said it had started a second investigation after consumers told it that the 4G phrase was still being used to describe the iPad's capabilities.
The ASA had been "working closely" with Apple to amend the way the iPad is advertised, said the spokesman, adding that the consumer electronics firm had been very co-operative during the investigation.
"We will be checking the amendments to ensure they adhere to the Advertising Code," he said.
Apple said the confusion had arisen because of the different high-speed mobile technologies dubbed 4G by operators and carriers.
Apple would change its terminology to remove this confusion, it said.
"Carriers do not all refer to their high speed networks with the same terminology," said the firm in a statement, "therefore we've decided to use 'wi-fi + cellular' as a simple term which describes all the high speed networks supported by the new iPad."
"The advanced wireless features of the new iPad have not changed," it added.

Pirate Pay torrent 'blocker' backed by Microsoft


Piracy
A Russian company has developed software it says can disrupt and prevent people from downloading pirated content.
Pirate Pay has been backed by Microsoft and has so far worked with Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures to stop "thousands" of downloads.
The tool poses as real bit torrent users but then "confuses" peer-to-peer networks, causing disconnections.
Critics argue that the method will be ineffective in the long term.
The entertainment industry claims that the downloading of pirated material costs copyright holders billions of pounds in lost revenue every year.
Last month, the British Phonographic Industry won a court battle to force UK internet service providers to block its customers from accessing high-profile piracy site The Pirate Bay.
However, the true extent of the financial impact is strongly questioned by internet rights campaigners.
Swamping
Bit torrent blog Torrent Freak reported that Pirate Pay began life as traffic management software for internet service providers.
From here they discovered it could be used to swamp peer-to-peer networks - which are used to share the files - with false information.
"After creating the prototype, we realised we could more generally prevent files from being downloaded, which meant that the program had great promise in combating the spread of pirated content," said Andrei Klimenko, the company's chief executive, in an interview with Russia Beyond the Headlines.
The technology has received high-profile praise from the president of Microsoft Russia - Pirate Pay was awarded one million rubles (£62,000, $100,000) from a seed investment fund set up by the company behind Windows.
A recent campaign saw Pirate Pay "protect" recent Russian film Vysotsky. Thanks to God, I am Alive, made by Walt Disney Studios.
Pirate Pay said it blocked 44,845 attempted illegal downloads of the film.
However, as the Torrent Freak blog pointed out, the blocked downloaders might have simply just tried again later.
'Social issues'
Although exact details on how the system operates are not known outside of the company, security researcher Richard Clayton from the University of Cambridge told the BBC it was a process that could work, if only in the short term.
"If you flood the network with lots of lies, then you will be short of real things.
"[But] the networks are robust about this in the long term because you will say to your peer 'please give me this data', and when it gives you the data it will say 'this doesn't match' and throw it away."
Mr Clayton, who blogs about such issues, said peer-to-peer networks would eventually adapt, sharing information about "bogus" peers such as those reportedly utilised by companies like Pirate Pay.
Mr Clayton added: "You don't solve social issues with technical fixes.
"The social issue here is that a lot of people think that the legal offerings are too expensive and don't provide what they want.
"Once you solve that, nobody's going to want to mess around with complicated bits of software to get what they need."

Friday, May 11, 2012

Anontune: the new social music platform from 'Anonymous'


A YouTube video announcing 'Anontune' decries corporate involvement in online music.
(CNN) -- In a move sure to attract attention from the music industry, a small group of coders claiming to be part of Anonymous is putting together a social music platform. The rather ambitious goal: Create a service that seamlessly pulls up songs streaming from all around the internet.
The project, called Anontune and still in its infancy, is designed to pull songs from third-party sources like YouTube and let anonymous users put them into playlists and share them — while keeping the service from being shut down by music industry lawsuits.
Reached by e-mail, one of the creators of Anontune told Wired the project was started by a group of anons who met online six years ago on what was then an underground hacking site. The group, mostly focused at the time on "cracking," began discussing music, favorite artists and what they would do to fix current music business models.
"We would say stuff like, 'People really use YouTube as a music player yet it really sucks for that purpose ... it's too unorganized,'" the anon wrote to Wired. "And then, 'YouTube does make a good music player but you can't play all your songs on it since the obscure ones aren't uploaded,' then eventually, 'Hmmm, what if you were to combine music websites like Myspace, Yahoo, YouTube and others?'"
On the ever-sprawling internet, music can pop up anywhere — Tumblr pages, blogs, The Hype Machine (to name but a few). Almost any song is available at any time, whether posted by legitimate sources or uploaded by fans or pirates, and Anontune would tap into that rich reservoir.
It wouldn't be the first time Anonymous squared off with the record industry: When popular file-sharing site Megaupload was shuttered by the Justice Department in January, Anonymous retaliated by attacking the websites of the Recording Industry Association of America and the DoJ. The DDoS attacks provide an undeniable look at what Anonymous can do in a copyfight, but if the creators of Anontune succeed, they could make something far more disruptive to the music industry.
The Anontune concept remained nothing more than talk until one day in early December, when an anon posted a link to Anontune and said he planned to make their ideas a reality. The others looked at the site. Although it wasn't very good, the working prototype got enough people interested in the project that they "formed a team that day and stopped hacking," the anon said.
The platform has been in development for just a few months, according to the video above (titled "Message From Anonymous: Music Has Changed"). Although Anontune is still very rudimentary, the service is meant to improve the way music is played online.
"It has come to our attention that the state of online music has been sabotaged by the fat hands of corporate involvement," the Anontune video's voiceover states. "These changes have led to a world in which your enjoyment of music is controlled and billed by the minute."
How Anontune Works (And a Word of Caution)
Anontune works by automating what most people do online manually. After setting up an account, users can build playlists by simply typing in the names of songs they want to hear, or they can choose from the names of songs imported from their iPods. Anontune's "music engine" — which runs in a user's browser — then finds the songs on the web. Currently most of the tracks come from YouTube and SoundCloud, but there are plans in the works to add Yahoo Music, Myspace Music, Bandcamp and others. From there, users, of which there are currently fewer than 1,000, just press play.
(A word of caution to curious readers: The system relies on executing a Java applet. Unless you are extremely trusting or using VMWare, you should think very carefully about running code on your machine that was written by members of Anonymous.)
The stated central aims of the service's creators are to provide a flexible, open platform for users to listen to music without having to pirate it or face legal repercussions — read Anontune's white paper here. True to form, users of the service can largely remain anonymous.
Although the site is still very crude and its origins obscure, the idea of Anonymous — even a few far-flung members of the group — tackling online music is compelling. But Anontune could come into the world with a target on its back, even if it operates using completely legitimate methods, according to Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry.
"What we're seeing here is a situation where the government is getting much more involved in enforcement, and we know that the U.S. government doesn't like Anonymous all that much anyway," McSherry said in an interview with Wired. Other music services can attempt to cut deals with music labels to avoid legal hot water, but that's not really an option here.
"I think content owners, if they feel like the site is a really viable site, they're going to be pretty nervous [about this]," McSherry said. "Because they like to have people that they can make deals with, and there's no one to make a deal with in this situation."
It's hard not to notice that Anontune is popping up just as the U.S. government's case against Megaupload is getting heated. Even though Anontune's creators say the service isn't a rebuttal to the shuttering of the file-sharing service, its timely unveiling could serve as a model for a different way for Anonymous to respond to incidents (as opposed to, say, directing Low Orbit Ion Cannons at the website of the Recording Industry Association of America).
"The project is not so much a response to Megaupload but a response to the tycoons from the RIAA shutting down music services," the anon wrote to Wired. "You may have heard about what Anonymous has done in Operation Payback. We believe the underlying reasons for the revolt were (mostly) correct, however their approach is unlikely to change anything in the long run."
When asked about Anontune by Wired, an RIAA spokesman declined to comment.
Anontune's creators hope that in its complete version — it's only about 20 percent there so far, our source said — the service can improve the way people engage with music.
"We have a lot of plans regarding this," the Anontune co-creator told Wired. "The development of software to assist in achieving musical peak experiences, illumination of the functions and roles of music, psychometric testing based on music preference. It's all there and this is possibly the most interesting part of the whole project."
Anontune's technical aspects can be reviewed online, and the site's operators are taking donations. Even though its creators are still hurriedly trying to get the service up to snuff, the site has massive goals. One only needs to look at the final note on the above clip's YouTube page to get a taste.
"We need to think bigger," it reads. "This is Operation Mozart."

 other news to read:

Own an iPod? Then you're suing Apple


Several iPod users filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. Now -- eight years later -- it's gaining steam
(Mashable) -- If you're one of the millions who purchased an iPod between September 12, 2006, and March 31, 2009, you might be in for a surprising email from RealNetworks.
The company, which developed Real Player and the service Harmony, has officially enlisted iPod owners in a class-action lawsuit against Apple -- though you do have the right to recuse yourself.
Why RealNetworks? Back in 2004, the company created the music service Harmony, a digital rights management (DRM) translation service. It allowed users to play songs downloaded from the RealPlayer music store on Apple's iPod.
But as any iPod user knows, songs must be loaded onto iTunes to be played on Apple's devices. That's because Apple created an iPod firmware update not too long after the announcement of Harmony, which blocked it and other music services from uploading songs to the iPod.
Several iPod users filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of unfairly blocking competition. Now -- eight years later -- it's gaining steam.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave the lawsuit class-action status in November 2011. The website ipodlawsuit.com, which details the entire case, explains:
"The lawsuit claims that Apple violated federal and state laws by issuing software updates in 2006 for its iPod that prevented iPods from playing songs not purchases on iTunes. The lawsuit claims that the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been."
If you own any of these devices — first through fourth generation Nanos, second and third generation Touches, first through third generation Shuffles, a fifth generation classic iPod or the special edition U2 iPod — you're automatically included in the lawsuit. (Official notices began going out this week.) But you give up any right to sue Apple individually over the same concerns.
Alternatively, you could also request exclusion from the case. However, if Apple does end up losing, you don't get to share in any kind of "recovery" that may be rewarded.
So far, there's no money involved — no actual settlement or reward has been determined.
If you're one of these iPod owners, will you opt to be excluded from the case, or will you take part in a class-action lawsuit against Apple? Sound off in the comments.


Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Your Facebook 'likes' can get you fired


Clicking the "like" button isn't speech protected by the First Amendment, a judge ruled. Some legal experts, however, wonder if the judge understood what liking actually implies.

FORTUNE -- Applying old laws to new technology can be tricky. Earlier this year, the blogosphere was buzzing about an unresolved lawsuit over who owns business-related Twitter followers, the employee or the company. Now comes a decision in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia that tackled a different issue: Can an employee be sacked for liking something (or someone) on Facebook?
The facts in a nutshell: In Bland v. Roberts, Bobby Bland and four coworkers in the sheriff's department in Hampton, Va., clicked the "like" button on the Facebook page of Jim Adams, who was running against their boss, Sheriff B.J. Roberts, in 2009. Roberts won, and promptly fired all five, citing budget constraints, unsatisfactory work performance, and a lack of "harmony and efficiency" in the office. But Bland and his cohort contended it was liking Adams' Facebook page that got them canned.
Of course, openly supporting your boss's opponent in a political campaign seems risky on the face of it, but leaving common sense aside, the case hinged on whether a Facebook "like" meets the standard of free speech as protected by the Constitution. The judge ruled that it doesn't, adding, "In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record" (emphasis is his).
That's fine as far as it goes, say legal scholars, but the act of liking something on Facebook may be far more of a statement than the judge apparently realized. "Judges in general do not really understand Facebook," observes Eric Goldman, who teaches at Santa Clara University School of Law in Silicon Valley. He also directs the school's High Tech Law Institute and writes a blog on high-tech legal issues.
"Clicking on 'like' is so easy -- or what social media mavens call "frictionless" -- that the implications may be overlooked even by the person doing the clicking," Goldman points out. A few of those implications: When other people visit the page you've liked, you may appear publicly as someone who likes it and, depending on your privacy settings, your "like" may turn up in all your friends' newsfeeds.
Your "like" may also appear on your profile page and, if you like a business or an ad, the sponsor may buy another ad that redisplays your like to your friends. You may also be automatically signed up for a barrage of further news, sales pitches, and other information about whatever it was you liked.
Goldman and other experts believe all that, taken together, is more than enough to add up to speech as First Amendment cases have generally defined it. "But you can't blame the judge for not grasping all that liking entails," Goldman adds. "Nowhere on the site is it really spelled out -- and that ambiguity may be deliberate on Facebook's part."
One thing that's not ambiguous at all: In the wake of Bland v. Roberts, if you'd like to keep your job, be very careful with what or whom you "like."
---------
other news to read:

Report: Smartphones, not computers, drive most Facebook use


Facebook users spend more time accessing the site via mobile than on computers, a new report says
(CNN) -- According to comScore's new Mobile Metrix 2.0 reportreleased Monday, Facebook's mobile usage is on the rise. In fact, the report revealed that Facebook users spent more time accessing the social network on smartphones than on computers in March.
Facebook users spent an average of 441 minutes — or 7 hours, 21 minutes — accessing the social network via smartphones during the month. By comparison, users spent 391 minutes — or 6 hours, 31 minutes — checking out Facebook on PCs.
The comScore report also revealed that smartphone users spent more time on Facebook than on any other social media network, including Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest and Foursquare. In fact, Facebook is the second largest mobile property behind Google. The social network garners more than 78 million unique monthly smartphone visitors, 81 percent of which access Facebook through its mobile app.
Besides showing that people spend a good chunk of time on Facebook, the data underscores the importance of a mobile strategy for the social network's business success. Facebook currently makes little revenue from its mobile app — the app doesn't include ads, and only started to include "sponsored posts" in users' news feeds last March.
Facebook admitted its mobile struggles in its recent IPO documents. "If users increasingly access mobile products as a substitute for access through personal computers, and if we are unable to successfully implement monetization strategies for our mobile users," the company writes in its filing documents, "our financial performance and ability to grow revenue would be negatively affected."
In light of these stats, a Facebook smartphone makes all the more sense. The company could capitalize on its mobile leadership position. But because Facebook has not officially made any announcements about its hardware plans, it's unclear when a Facebook phone will actually enter the market. In the meantime, we can hope that the company continues to update its mobile apps.


other news to read:

 
Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | Justin Bieber, Gold Price in India