Computer | TechBlogPlus

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

Last September, the US Justice Dept. objected to the proposed terms of a settlement between Google and the Authors' Guild, which would have enabled Google to publish out-of-print titles in its Google Books catalog. The theory of the settlement at the time was, if authors or rights holders are given enough time to respond to a request to stand up for their rights -- say, at least several months -- and they don't do so, then that's as good as acquiescence.

Since that time, on orders of US District Judge Denny Chin, the two disputing groups have worked on a revised settlement. But yesterday, the Justice Dept. -- representing the United States' interests in the matter -- filed a second objection to the settlement. Although Google and the Authors' Guild made progress, US attorneys say, Google still appears to take the position not only that it can strike bargains on behalf of copyright holders, but that only Google can do so -- a position which they say the law does not allow them to take.

"The ASA [amended settlement agreement] suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation," write the attorneys, on behalf of Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust William Cavanaugh. "As a consequence, the ASA purports to grant legal rights that are difficult to square with the core principle of the Copyright Act that copyright owners generally control whether and how to exploit their works during the term of copyright. Those rights, in turn, confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity -- Google. Under the ASA as proposed, Google would remain the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats. Google also would have the exclusive ability to exploit unclaimed works (including so-called 'orphan works') without risk of liability."

Orphan works were one of the principal problems with the settlement agreement as originally proposed, which attorneys concede was slightly improved upon in the amended form. Originally, Google intended to claim the right to act on behalf of the authors or rights holders of orphan works, unless they spoke up for themselves.

But a kind of Catch-22 managed to unravel the rest of the amended agreement, from the attorneys' perspective: Because Google has never expressed any intent to sell the books it intends to publish -- only make them available for free reading electronically -- it avoided taking any position on the matter of claiming any rights to sell that material. Such a claim, the attorneys concede, "would have been legally indefensible, and thus would have been at odds with Google's entire pre-settlement book search strategy, which was premised upon staying within colorable 'fair use' grounds."

Apparently in an attempt to be thorough, the amended settlement deals explicitly with the same rights Google tried to avoid -- the rights to sell orphan works, among others. And because it does so even though Google didn't intend to, the settlement may fail one of the critical legal tests of any such settlement: specifically, by attempting to settle in the future a claim that Google is not making at present.

But later, the attorneys return to their original claim: that Google is claiming rights it might not have exclusively:

"A core issue that arises out of the parties' effort to resolve this matter is the ability of Google, and no other entity, to compete in a marketplace that the parties seek to create. Nothing in the ASA addresses this concern...There is no serious contention that Google's competitors are likely to obtain comparable rights independently. For example, Amazon -- Google's likely chief rival digital book distributor were the ASA to be approved -- began scanning copyright-protected books in 2002, after first securing permission of the works' rightsholder(s). To date, Amazon has amassed a library of approximately three million digital titles...This impressive number pales in comparison to the tens of millions of books Google has scanned or is poised to scan if the ASA is approved. The suggestion that a competitor should follow Google's lead by copying books en masse without permission in the hope of prompting a class action suit to be settled on terms comparable to the ASA is poor public policy and not something the antitrust laws require a competitor to do."

Another tenet of Google's claim of exclusive rights was the focus of an objection to the amended settlement filed last week by the Free Software Foundation. It's a unique objection, in that the FSF would prefer to not have its due royalties negotiated on its behalf, even if the amount is tallied at zero. Doing so, it claims, would go against the spirit of the free licenses which cover open source documentation and manuals.

"When a copyright holder's license allows Google to distribute and display a work such that it may be included in Google Book Search, Google should be obligated to follow those terms," writes FSF license compliance engineer Brett Smith. "If those terms are unacceptable to Google, the company should simply refrain from including the work in the Google Book Search database. The proposed settlement agreement generally allows Google to include works in Google Book Search unless a specific reason exists to disallow it. The FSF has no objection to this approach for works that have been published under terms that never contemplated inclusion in a large digital database, as is the case with most works in the agreement's scope. However, copyright holders using Free licenses have demonstrably considered such a possibility, and set forth terms for such inclusion. Google should respect the freedoms that these licenses offer to the public and comply with their terms."

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

The Droid has gotten pinch-to-zoom in Google Maps.

Immediately after Google introduced the multitouch gesture on the HTC Nexus One browser, photo gallery, and maps applications, owners of the popular Motorola Droid began to ask if their devices would receive the same update, since it is widely known to support multi-touch input.

It looks like Google has delivered...partially, at least.

The update to Google Maps (v.3.4.0) which rolled out this week adds pinch to zoom to the Droid, but is the sole app to do so. Interestingly, it was not advertised with the update.

Devices without multi-touch capability received the same update, but naturally, it did not include the added gesture recognition.

For these devices it is a somewhat mundane update, adding deeper synchronization with the user's Google account. For example, a user's Google searches on the desktop can now affect the location-based suggestions in his mobile queries. Similarly, when a user "stars" a location as a favorite, it is now synchronized with his Google account.

Arguably the most important place to add the feature is in the Browser, but there are currently no updates available to the Droid's browser (or photo gallery, for that matter.)

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Microsoft today confirmed the long-running rumor that support for the original Xbox will be terminated on the Xbox Live online game servers. The company announced that April 15, 2010 will be the last day legacy Xboxes will be able to play on Xbox Live.

"This isn't a decision we made lightly, but after careful consideration, it is clear this will provide the greatest benefit to the Xbox Live ommunity," Marc Whitten, General Manager of Xbox Live announced today. Whitten noted that Halo 2, a version of the popular first person shooter for the original Xbox still retains a dedicated community of players.

The creators of the Halo franchise, Bungie, have forums dedicated to each version of the game, and users are already begun waxing nostalgic about the "classic" Xbox Live.

One user wrote, "Words don't describe the memories I've had on this title over the past roughly half decade... not just this game, but loads of others as well. I'll tip my hat to just that said fact any day. I'm sad to see the service go, I don't want to see it go, but so be it if it's in the best interest of future engagements for the Xbox Live community."

But there are still alternatives for the most devoted Halo 2 players. Users can connect to online games outside of Xbox Live with XbConnect or Xlink Kai, online game servers which support the legacy consoles, but require them to be connected to a PC.

While neither offer the same level of playability as the Xbox Live version, they will be the only options diehards will have after the April retirement of legacy Xbox Live.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

By Carmi Levy, Betanews

Everyone's got an opinion surrounding Engadget's decision to temporarily deactivate user comments because of its editors said things had gotten "mean, ugly, pointless, and frankly threatening in some situations." While I find the reaction to Engadget's decision engaging and often amusing (Betanews reader comments, in particular, often make for fun late night reading) I'm a little surprised at the near-universal lack of understanding of how the Internet works in 2010.

I have three fundamental thoughts on Internet publishing that may help put the Engadget brouhaha in perspective:

• Web sites need comments, period. Engagement between publishers and readers is a prime creative lifeblood of the publishing industry. Writers and editors can't do what they do unless they directly understand who's reading them and what they're thinking. Comments are a critical element of this feedback loop, and a site without them rather misses the point.
• Trolls happen. It's a given that not everyone likes to play by the rules. Large groups of people, whether they're taking in a baseball game or reading a tech site, cover a wide range of capabilities and motivations. Happily, the most readers choose to be positive contributors to the process, while only a small minority either lack the ability or the will to play nice. The comments section reflects the reality of the human condition, and it won't ever change. Readers can choose to not read, while publishers can choose to ban the trolls. Or, as Engadget decided to do this week, take their ball and go home.
• This Internet thing costs money. The rise of the Web over the last 15 years or so has conditioned us into believing that all of this is and should forever be free. The current argument over Engadget's decision to suspend commenting has shed light on the realities of publishing on the Web. As much as we all like to get something for nothing, it takes resources -- money, people, and time -- to launch and run a server, populate it with content, and find ways to convert it into a self-sustaining business. Since readers don't pay the shot, advertisers do. But they'll only pay if there's an audience. Bigger audiences are, of course, better, but numbers are only part of the equation. Quality counts, too, and a site overrun with trolls doesn't just consume the resources of whoever's publishing it. Advertisers balk at paying money to connect with readers who are too focused on flinging the online equivalent of bat guano at each other to ever consider going out and buying what these companies are offering.

With these basic truths in mind, it's clear that Engadget's publishers felt the need to stop the flow of nastiness for a bit while they figured out their next move. We can slice them a new one if we wish, but Engadget's goal is not to make friends with the largest number of commenters. Rather, its entire reason for existence is to sell a particular audience to a particular set of advertisers. And if those advertisers don't feel that either the numbers or the demographic criteria fit their respective business needs, they'll pull their support.

Which brings us to the iPad launch, which delighted the folks who pay the bills because it meant they were delivering their message to a larger-than-usual audience. Apple's announcement gave online publishers a unique opportunity to enjoy higher-than-usual advertising revenues as a direct result of this audience. When big stuff happens in the tech world, people go online to learn about it and decide whether or not it makes sense for their needs. Traffic spikes as newbies and old-timers alike hit the Web looking for information, insight, and guidance. Everything else -- like run-of-the-mill news stories in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti -- gets shunted off to the side as sites do their best to meet demand. And drive it even further.

Is it fair that a touchscreen device trumps the very real drama unfolding in a certain Caribbean nation? No. But no one ever said publishing had to be fair.

Write what's hot, or don't get paid

Which largely explains the all-iPad-all-the-time philosophy that Engadget had followed in the days leading up to Apple's much anticipated announcement. Criticism in the comments notwithstanding, the site was merely reflecting what its readers were asking for -- if not directly, then certainly through their online readership patterns. The site capitalized on a golden opportunity to increase readership and the closely-linked, all-important advertising revenues. Likewise writers, some of whom are paid on a traffic-based formula, focused their efforts on the topic that would return the greatest number of page views.

Speaking for myself, the simple truth is, I typically get lots more page views when I write about Apple than when I write about, say, how social media is helping Haiti's recovery. To wit: My column last week about the iPad prompted 82 comments, as of the time of this writing. My Haiti piece? One. Based on this outcome, where do you think I'm going to focus my efforts in future to maximize reader response and, consequently, advertising value and revenue for my employer? Do you think I'm interested in writing stuff that no one reads? Do you think we'll be able to support a business that doesn't optimize its output for the largest, most desirable audience possible?

As I go through the ongoing process of coming up with topics that I think readers want to read, and that I think advertisers will appreciate, I focus on stuff that's hot and, yes, conversation-generating. If techies are discussing it around the water cooler, I want to write about it. I suppose if I wrote for a site whose readers paid for the privilege, I'd be able to back off the max-the-audience-please-the-advertiser mantra. But until the Web shifts to that model -- and the announcement by The New York Times that it will return to charging for access in 2011 signals a possible change in direction for the industry -- we'll continue to see wall-to-wall coverage of the most in-demand topics.

Because for now, advertisers call the shots. Not readers. And Engadget's decision to kill commenting for now is solid proof that Engadget listened to those who pay the bills before it pulled the plug.

Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

Apple has asked one mobile app developer to refrain from mentioning Google's Android mobile operating system in its iTunes App store descriptions, or face rejection.

The description of the 99¢ "Flash of Genius" flash card app included the text: "Finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge!"

Apple contacted Flash of Genius, LLC and asked it to change the description.

"During our review of your application, we found that your application contains inappropriate or irrelevant platform information in the Application Description and/or Release Notes sections," the message from Apple said.

"Providing future platform compatibility plans or other general platform references are not relevant in the context of the iPhone App Store. While your application has not been rejected, it would be appropriate to remove 'Finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge!' from the Application Description," Apple's review team said. (The entire message can be found in Flash of Genius blog.)

Flash of Genius' Tim Novikoff willingly changed the description and said, "I suppose it's logical, and I'm not complaining; Apple is a wonderful company to work with."

Silicon Alley Insider's Jay Yarow agreed with the sentiment today, "It sounds harsh, but makes sense. It doesn't matter if it's a great Android application, this is a different platform."

But is it logical?

Yes, the Android Developer Challenge concerns a different platform, but the nomination still carries weight as an honorific. When an actor is nominated for an Oscar, don't we frequently hear that the actor is an "X-time nominee?" Those nominations were for different roles, so it has no impact on the current nomination, but it speaks to the overall quality of the performer. This is a similar case. The Android platform is different, but when a product excels somewhere, it is worthwhile to let potential buyers know.

For example, on the back of the box of the PlayStation 3 version of Bethesda Softworks' Fallout 3, it says "Best of E3 2008 Winner" for Best RPG. When it got this award, the game did not even exist on PlayStation 3 yet...it was shown on an Xbox 360. Now, it would have been closer to the Flash of Genius situation if "Best Xbox 360 RPG," was printed on the game box, but ultimately, an award is an award and helps the customer actualize the quality of a product.

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

ASRock has just announced a new addition to its line of Intel Lynnfield-supporting motherboard series, introducing the P55 Deluxe3 model. Designed to provide consumers with support for Intel's LGA1156-compatible processors, the board has adopted a new design that incorporates some of the latest features in the industry, including USB 3.0 and S... (read more)

Once again aiming at the mid to high-end market segments, Thermaltake has unwrapped four new additions to its strong line of Toughpower PSUs. These four products are designed for an increased power, reliability and easy real-time monitoring, so that consumers may take full advantage of any power-hungry workloads that they... (read more)

Santa Clara, California-based NVIDIA recently announced a new technology that it plans to officially introduce at beginning of this month. Dubbed Optimus, the solution was said to target the notebook segment, providing consumers with the tools to boost system performance, but not having to worry about battery life, due to said increment in graphics performance. On... (read more)

Even though the USB 3.0 market segment was quite underrepresented a few months ago, the steady inflow of storage units, docking stations and expansion cards (among others) designed for the new standard has brought the market to a point where the new technology is no longer completely scarce. Among the latest releases for this area are three products from Sunbeamtech, a Taiwanese company that has introduced an expansion card, an HDD/SSD dock and an external hard d... (read more)

Graphics cards have been coming out one after another over the past few days, following AMD's introduction of the Radeon HD 5450. Still, in this case, the new release is not another HD 5450 incarnation but a card based on the Radeon HD 5770. The new hardware released by Micro-Star International is a video accelerator that is optimized for high perfor... (read more)