Gregarius » BetaNews.Com

BetaNews.Com (8 non lus)

Nintendo continues seek & destroy mission on DS game copiers, sues Web retailer

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 11:39pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Video game company Nintendo today said it filed a civil lawsuit against New York-based website owner NXPGAME for selling game copiers that let users download and play ROMS of Nintendo DS and DSi games.
Nintendo says NXPGAME agreed to stop selling the game copier on its sites, but simply moved operations to a different URL.
"Using game copiers to play unauthorized downloaded games is illegal and it's wrong," said Jodi Daugherty, Nintendo of America's senior director of Anti-Piracy.
This lawsuit follows the 2009 Nintendo v. Chan case, where Nintendo successfully argued that game copiers violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and are therefore illegal in the United States. That case forced three electronics retail sites to remove the R4 DS mod cartridge from their inventories.
In February of this year, Nintendo won a similar case in Australian federal court to have the $45 R4 DS removed from Web retailers there.
Nintendo has been fighting to have the R4 removed from markets since 2007, and launched a worldwide initiative to work with governments where piracy is a problem, such as China, Korea, Brazil, and Mexico.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
EU warns Facebook its privacy changes are 'unacceptable'

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 9:15pm CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

An assembled group of telecommunications ministers from the European Union's member states, called the Article 29 Working Party, has warned Facebook that changes it recently made to its privacy policy to enable "Instant Personalization" -- also known as "Like" -- may be in violation of what they thought was an agreement made in November 2009.
That warning stops short of directly accusing Facebook of violating laws, though it leaves the door open for such a decision in the future. According to a statement released yesterday from Brussels (the text of their letter has yet to be released), the ministers did imply that Facebook's public presence at a meeting entitled "Safer Networking Principles for the EU," where its representatives signed a pledge, appears to contradict the changes it made to privacy policy just days later.
"The Article 29 Working Party...told Facebook in a letter today that it is unacceptable that the company fundamentally changed the default settings on its social-networking platform to the detriment of a user," the statement reads. "Facebook made the change only days after the company and other social networking sites providers participated at a hearing during the Article 29 Working Party's plenary meeting in November 2009."
That meeting received very little, if any, press coverage; however, one of its purposes was apparently to take down names. The WP says it also sent letters to 19 other attendees of that meeting to express concern. No other services' names were mentioned this time, however, just Facebook's.
"Providers of social networking sites should be aware that it would be a breach of data protection law if they use personal data of other individuals contained in a user profile for commercial purposes if these other individuals have not given their free and unambiguous consent," yesterday's statement from Article 29 reads.
That warning may have been taken seriously by Facebook executives. The independent blog All Facebook, which reports only on that subject, reported late yesterday that an "all-hands" meeting of Facebook officials was called for today. On Monday came the news that Facebook had hired a high-profile attorney, former FTC chairman Timothy Muris, likely to serve as its non-employee counsel for privacy affairs.
In just the past few days, the privacy issue has come to define Facebook as an institution. In a response last Tuesday to questions submitted to The New York Times, Facebook vice president for public policy Elliot Schrage suggested that, while his company may be at fault, the problem was actually one of public perception.
"We know that changing Facebook -- something people have demonstrated is important to them -- can be unsettling. But we're always trying to be better and do more for our users. Clearly, we need to rethink the tempo of change and how we communicate it," Schrage told one questioner, whose follow-up question concerned whether the service's advertisers are truly clamoring to get their hands on users' personal information. "Trust me. We'll do better. The second part of your question reflects what is probably the most common misconception about Facebook. We don't share your information with advertisers. Our targeting is anonymous. We don't identify or share names. Period."
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Skype 5.0 beta brings five-way video chat

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 8:37pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Video chatting is on the rise. Yesterday, we got to take a look at Qik's mobile video chat client for the Sprint EVO 4G, and today, we get to take a look at Skype's latest development: five-way video chat.
Today, popular VoIP and chat client Skype launched a beta of Skype 5.0 for Windows, which includes a free trial of group video calling, a re-designed call view window, improved video snapshots gallery, and improved browser plugin performance.
There are a few fixes introduced with this version, but also a whole host of new bugs to deal with. The release notes for version 5.0.0.105 include a list of 87 known issues, most of which do not have workarounds yet.
We're installing the beta now, and we'll post screenshots and a review shortly.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Adobe to Steve Jobs: 'We love you'

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 7:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Yeah, but will Apple's CEO love Adobe back?
The Adobe-Apple breakup has taken on strange tabloid-like qualities over the last 30 days or so. Quick someone call in the paparazzi, but first ask if they'll be editing those photos in Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom or Apple Aperture. Today, Adobe cofounders Chuck Geschke and John Warnock responded to Jobs' Aptil 29 "Thoughts on Flash" memo with their own: "Our thoughts on open markets." Adobe is supporting the memo with a marketing campaign -- "We love Apple" ads and "Freedom of Choice" Website." Adobe's response is measured and embracing, subtly placing the blame for the breakup on Apple. In the court of public and developer opinion -- perhaps shareholders in both companies -- Adobe may prove the venerable of the two parties here.
I simply can't wait to finish this post and read what Macheads have to say about Adobe's response. Do they side with their cult leader, or one of the two largest, third-party Macintosh developers (Microsoft being the other one)? The old faithfuls shouldn't forget that Adobe products gave Macintosh its market footing in the 1980s and `90s and helped keep Apple going through the hard-luck `90s. Remember that Adobe released PostScript for Macintosh at Jobs' request. The first Apple laser printer supporting the technology released in 1985. So, Macheads, choose wisely your alliances.
Adobe borrows from "Get the Facts"
Adobe's Apple response has precedent. There is much about Freedom of Choice that reminds of Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign and Website against Linux. Adobe informational page "The Truth about Flash" is so reminiscent of Get the Facts. The campaign proved highly effective for Microsoft, as I expect Freedom of Choice will be for Adobe. Apple may be a growing tech superpower but Adobe's nuclear arsenal is, for now, bigger. Jobs may have launched a first strike, but Adobe's counterstrike is more impressive.
Adobe may be a dwindling superpower, but one still with huge presence. PDF is the defacto standard for government documents worldwide, and a special archival version is used by the US Library of Congress. The presumption: PDF is so ubiquitous for digital documents, it will still be around in a century for preservation of archival documents. Photoshop is so widely used it's a verb, akin to Xeroxing rather than copying a document. Then there is the hotly disputed Flash, which PC install base is nearly 100 percent, according to the third-party data Adobe presents on The Truth about Flash.
By the way, the one page shreds most of Job's arguments against Flash. For example, he asserted:
lash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript? Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Adobe's response:
Flash was actually originally created as a technology for tablets with touch interfaces. And today, Flash has full support for working on touch-based devices. For existing Flash content developed with mouse input in mind, Flash Player will automatically convert the touch events into mouse events. This allows Flash content designed for the desktop, to work seamlessly on touch-based devices. For new Flash content developed specifically with touch in mind, Flash Player 10.1 provides a complete set of multitouch and gesture APIs.
What is Open?
The larger, more important question is that of openness. Jobs argues that Flash fosters a closed Web -- that Apple's approach is more open. Geschke and Warnock reverse the accusation:
We believe that Apple, by taking the opposite approach, has taken a step that could undermine this next chapter of the Web -- the chapter in which mobile devices outnumber computers, any individual can be a publisher, and content is accessed anywhere and at any time. In the end, we believe the question is really this: Who controls the World Wide Web? And we believe the answer is: nobody -- and everybody, but certainly not a single company.
Geschke and Warnock present a very accurate assessment of the past (Adobe's approach to openness) and identify the challenge/opportunity for the future (anytime, anywhere computing on anything). What is open? There is much confusion about this. There are adopted standards, which can be open standards, and then there is open source. Adopted standards tend to emerge from proprietary standards for which the developer opens up the code by publishing APIs or other information. Open source applies more to licensing, where the developer lets go of the technology by way of, say, the GPL; third parties can adapt the technology pretty much any way as long as they publish the new code under the same license.
Adobe has a long history of opening up key technologies, starting with PDF and PostScript. Geschke and Warnock explain:
We openly published the specifications for both, thus inviting both use and competition. In the early days, PostScript attracted 72 clone makers, but we held onto our market leadership by out-innovating the pack. More recently, we've done the same thing with Adobe Flash technology. We publish the specifications for Flash -- meaning anyone can make their own Flash player. Yet, Adobe Flash technology remains the market leader because of the constant creativity and technical innovation of our employees.
Jobs whacked Flash and touted openness with words. Adobe's cofounders fall back on actions: Adobe's competitive risk publishing PDF and PostScript specifications. Adobe sought to establish their proprietary technologies as adopted standards, while still trying to innovate around them. PDF officially became an open standard in summer 2008, after being approved by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008.
Then there is future of computing. Morgan Stanley predicts that the number of mobile Internet users will exceed the number of desktop Internet users by 2015. Mobile devices and the cloud share common appeal: Access to your information anytime, anywhere and on anything. But that promise can't be easily fulfilled, if at all, should one company come to control the mobile device-to-cloud applications stack. Adobe's development strategy is fundamentally cross-platform -- that is horizontal. Whereas, Apple's approach is vertical, a single stack controlled end-to-end by a single company.
Yes, Apple supports adopted and open standards, but, based on Jobs' memo, where his more-closed applications stack most benefits. Flash has plenty of faults, but developers can create what they want, where they want pretty much without restraint. End users can consume the content anytime, anywhere or on anything -- well, as long as it's not an iPhone OS device. Apple's openness favors just three devices -- iPad, iPhone and iPod -- and the company exerts editorial over which applications can be published there. What's open about that?
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Adobe attempts to counteract anti-Flash sentiment spurred by Apple

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 5:35pm CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Adobe is running quite a cleanup campaign after Apple CEO Steve Jobs' recent criticism of the Flash platform, which he laid out in a letter called "Thoughts on Flash."
Adobe has released a flurry of responses, including a letter from Chuck Geschke and John Warnock Adobe's Cofounders and Chairmen of the company's board of directors called "Our thoughts on open markets," an advertising campaign called "Freedom of Choice" which includes the banner shown above (and display ads that say "We [love] Apple,") an information page titled "The Truth about Flash," and a full-page ad in today's Washington Post.
The aggressive campaign is an attempt to curb the growing sentiment that Flash is not a valid and relevant technology as the Web continues to evolve on mobile devices.
"If the web fragments into closed systems, if companies put content and applications behind walls, some indeed may thrive -- but their success will come at the expense of the very creativity and innovation that has made the Internet a revolutionary force," The letter from Warnock and Geschke said. "We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs. No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web."
Adobe also addresses Jobs' criticisms of Flash individually.
"H.264 is a 'more modern format' for Web video" and "H.264 video consumes about half as much battery as Flash video."
"There are many claims that H.264 will kill Flash. However, H.264 is a video codec (which requires a player), while Flash is a complete multimedia runtime, which can play back H.264, among other codecs. Furthermore, Flash provides a complete solution for advanced video distribution, including support for technologies such as streaming, adaptive bitrate delivery, and content protection. Of course, playing back high definition video can be a CPU-intensive task. This is why Flash Player 10.1 includes support for hardware accelerated video playback across devices from mobile to desktop environments."
"Flash was not designed for touch interfaces"
"Flash was actually originally created as a technology for tablets with touch interfaces. And today, Flash has full support for working on touch-based devices...For new Flash content developed specifically with touch in mind, Flash Player 10.1 provides a complete set of multitouch and gesture APIs."
"Flash is a closed, Adobe-controlled system."
"The Flash Player is part of a rich ecosystem of both open and proprietary technologies...The core engine of the Flash Player (AVM+) is open source and was donated to the Mozilla foundation where it is actively maintained. The file formats supported by the Flash Player, SWF and FLV/F4V, as well as the RTMP and AMF protocols are freely available and openly published. Anyone can use the specifications without requiring permission from Adobe. Third parties can and do build audio, video, and data services that compete with those from Adobe."
The one issue that Jobs brought up that Adobe can't really refute (and shouldn't) is the fact that it is cross-platform, and not designed specifically for Apple devices.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Avoiding the next crash: The threat from outsourcing teaching aides

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 4:17pm CEST
By Andrea Belz, E-Commerce Times

Modern "American dream" stories often start with a romantic phase: A young couple struggles through graduate school, starving on measly stipends covering ramen noodles and cheap wine. Unfortunately, that story is about to disappear, following American manufacturing jobs. College professors are now outsourcing grading, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in April.
Teaching assistants (TAs) have provided that service for generations, but now it is going overseas. Recession-hit universities get even better deals outsourcing than they did with notoriously underpaid graduate students. Now, this work often ends up in the hands of credentialed Indian stay-at-home moms eager to work part-time.
What does this mean for the future of education? The ecosystem in many large research universities was based on the institutional need for cheap ways to supplement undergraduate teaching; thus, department budgets rested on graduate students who had already received training in the lower-level courses. More advanced graduate students could grade for higher-level classes.
In the sciences, department operating funds paid graduate students while they completed years of coursework; usually, doctoral students then eventually transitioned to receiving stipends from a professor's research grants. In the humanities, the TA phase could extend even longer as students toiled away on their theses.
The danger for student loans
If the wave of outsourcing grading continues -- and there is no reason to suppose that it won't -- college graduates considering further education will face four options:
1. Compete for research funding earlier
2. Work outside the university
3. Obtain loans to complete their educations
4. Abandon graduate school
The first item is clearly attractive from the student's perspective, although the principal researcher benefits only slightly from sponsoring a student who contributes minimally to the research progress. Working outside the university is often difficult for students carrying a full course load. The options only get worse: Obtaining a loan is not ideal for a student pursuing five to seven years of higher education, and abandoning the degree is clearly the least palatable option.
It is interesting to consider graduate students being forced to obtain student loans because many American students may already be carrying debt from undergraduate education. Here's a nasty side effect: Student aid, particularly in the form of Pell Grants, fuels tuition inflation, according to Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, who has written extensively on the subject. Basically, free money always costs more in the end; didn't we recently call this "the housing crash?"
The casualty list for science, engineering
The possibility of students abandoning plans for graduate school is even more discouraging to the US as a nation -- particularly if they're leaving the science and engineering fields. There's a staffing disaster in store for the aerospace industry due to the shortage of trained young engineers, according to Deloitte Vice Chairman Tom Captain.
Will American and foreign-born students make the same decisions in funding graduate school? American students could conceivably opt for professional school if they are forced to take out loans anyway; on the other hand, perhaps foreign-born students would come to graduate school after all -- assuming they're not staying home at increasingly competitive foreign institutions.
In 2002, international students received nearly 20% of American doctorates in social sciences, 35% in physical sciences, and nearly 60% in engineering, according to a Congressional study. Will Americans go to graduate school if they can't make ends meet as teaching assistants?
So let's recap the mess: Universities offer fewer TA positions because Indian stay-at-home moms are grading papers. Some students elect to apply for student aid instead, causing further tuition inflation, while others pass on graduate school. Maybe American and foreign-born students make different choices, accelerating the shortage of American students entering the sciences.
The hand that rocks the cradle in India may not rule the world, but it certainly impacts it.
Andrea Belz is the principal of Belz Consulting, a consultancy focusing on technology commercialization. Belz specializes in management consulting for the technology and entertainment industries, providing both strategic planning services and operational management.
This story was originally published on E-Commerce Times.
© 2010 ECT News Network. All rights reserved.
© 2010 BetaNews.com. All rights reserved.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

Education - United States - Chronicle of Higher Education - India - Higher education
Qik shows impressive low latency two-way video chat on HTC EVO 4G

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 4:21am CEST par Tim Conneally

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Streaming video service Qik first debuted just over two years ago, letting users turn their smartphones into live webcams with just a simple app and a strong connection. Users can stream video from their phones live to Qik's site, but with considerable buffering.
However, with the growth of faster 4G connections, Qik has been able to put together a new two-way video chat app that lets users communicate in streaming video with very little latency.
The company showed off this new app tonight at Sprint's launch event for the HTC EVO 4G. The new two-way chat app won't ship with the device when it goes available on June 4th (for $199.99 + contract.) Instead, the device ships with the current Qik app for Android, and the new chat feature will come later as an upgrade.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

HTC Corporation - 4G - Android - Sprint Nextel - Sprint
LimeWire loses everything in infringement battle with RIAA

Publié: mai 13, 2010, 12:14am CEST par Scott M. Fulton, III

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

In a decision handed down in US District Court in New York this afternoon, representatives of the recording industry won summary judgment against P2P file-sharing software maker LimeWire, in a patent infringement suit first filed in 2006.
Though the case took almost four years to resolve, as Judge Kimba Wood wrote in her decision today, LimeWire may very well have sealed its fate in July 2008. At that time, Greg Bildson, the company's CTO/COO met with plaintiffs' attorneys to discuss a potential case settlement.
That meeting left Bildson without a job, and left LimeWire fighting for nearly two more years about the admissibility of evidence obtained by plaintiffs through those discussions. Today's summary judgment order was coupled with denials of LimeWire's motions to exclude that evidence, and then to dismiss the case on lack of evidence.
At issue there was whether Bildson met with plantiffs' attorneys on advice of counsel. Judge Wood found he did, and that he was advised on more than one occasion by his attorneys not to reveal privileged information that Bildson was apparently willing to reveal.
What attorneys did discover, apparently through this settlement negotiation, included the contents of e-mail conversations between LimeWire executives during the company's startup stage, from 2000 to 2002. At that time, the e-mail messages reveal, LimeWire execs had planned their business around building a massive audience around the sharing of unauthorized media files, and then at some set date in the future, convert that audience somehow into fully authorized users of that media. Though unspecified, LimeWire called this the "Conversion Plan."
In internal communications, LW [LimeWire LLC] regularly discussed the fact that LimeWire users downloaded copyrighted digital recordings through the program. For example, a draft of a LW Offering Memorandum, created in 2001, states that LimeWire "allows people to exchange copyrighted mp3 files." A September 2002 statement of LW's goals acknowledges that: "Currently, the most common use of the Gnutella Network is the sharing of music files, many of them copyrighted." Other LW documents state that "the only information being shared on peer networks are media files," a category composed primarily of copyrighted digital recordings, and that the "[s]haring [of] media files is bringing the initial user base" to LimeWire.
In 2006, LW developed a strategic plan to "convert" LimeWire users who were sharing unauthorized digital recordings into customers of LW's online music store, which would sell authorized music (the "Conversion Plan"). In the Conversion Plan, LW openly acknowledged that the majority of LimeWire's users were infringers. The Plan stated that (1) 25% of LimeWire's users were "hardcore pirates;" (2) 25% of users were "morally persuadable;" (3) 20% of users were legally aware; and (4) 30% of users were "samplers and convenience users." The Plan provided that over time LW would introduce features to LimeWire to block users from downloading infringing recordings, and to direct them to LW's online store.
In what may have been a procedure to prepare the company for probable legal action, Judge Wood went on, LimeWire employees maintained copies of e-mails and third-party Web articles about the company, in a file that was actually labeled "Knowledge of Infringement."
Plaintiffs' expert testified that nearly 99% of content traded over the Gnutella network using LimeWire was unauthorized, much of it MP3s ripped from CDs. Judge Wood maintained that LimeWire demonstrated it had the technical capability to block such content, having already implemented a filtering agent on its site to block pornography from users' download feeds. With not only the knowledge of infringing activity but the intent to build its business plan around it, coupled with having overlooked the technical ability to have gone a different direction, LimeWire's defeat in this court was only a matter of time.
Just what LimeWire may owe at this point is for the judge to yet determine, though the recording industry originally sought $150,000 per infringed title.
Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010