background propaganda

An anonymous reader sends this Techdirt report on a welcome ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: “”Here’s a surprise ruling. For many years we’ve written about how troubling it is that Homeland Security agents are able to search the contents of electronic devices, such as computers and phones at the border, without any reason. The 4th Amendment only allows reasonable searches, usually with a warrant. But the general argument has long been that, when you’re at the border, you’re not in the country and the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply. This rule has been stretched at times, including the ability to take your computer and devices into the country and search it there, while still considering it a “border search,” for which the lower standards apply. Just about a month ago, we noted that Homeland Security saw no reason to change this policy. Well, now they might have to. In a somewhat surprising 9th Circuit ruling (en banc, or in front of the entire set of judges), the court ruled that the 4th Amendment does apply at the border, that agents do need to recognize there’s an expectation of privacy, and cannot do a search without reason. Furthermore, they noted that merely encrypting a file with a password is not enough to trigger suspicion.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

SOURCE Slashdot

When you purchase a digital download, do you actually own it? Some say yes, others say you’re just licensing its use from the copyright holder. This argument is only going to get more heated with news that both Apple and Amazon are looking into how to go about re-selling “used” digital content.

Amazon was recently granted a patent (filed in 2009) for a “Secondary market for digital objects.”

This application deals with the actual mechanics of how an Amazon customer would purchase something digital — e-book, video, software — that would then be kept in that user’s “personalized data store.”

When that user wants to give up their rights to that item, they could transfer it to the data store of another user. [T]he used digital content is deleted from the originating user’s personalized data store,” reads the patent. After a certain number of transfers, this content would no longer be able to be passed around.

But as PaidContent’s Laura Hazard Owen pointed out in February, “It’s not clear, though, how the system would ensure that a user hadn’t stored a copy of the file somewhere other than his or her ‘personalized data store.’”

Meanwhile, Apple threw its hat into the used digital content ring yesterday by filing a patent application of its own, in which it details techniques for transferring digital content from one user to another, in which “The transferor is prevented from accessing the digital content item after the transfer occurs,” and “only the transferee is allowed access to the digital content item.”

The main difference between Apple’s application and the patent granted to Amazon is that Apple describes how the content creator and/or seller may be given a “portion of the proceeds” of any resale.

Apple outlines a possibility in which “the percentages that each party or entity receives from a resale of a digital content item changes (1) based on the passage of time or (2) based on how many times the digital content item has been resold among end-users. For example, publisher 110 receives (a) 50% on each resale of digital content item 202 that occurs within a year of the initial sale from intermediary 120 to Jeff and (b) 20% on each resale that occurs more than a year after the initial sale. As another example, publisher 110 receives 50% on the first resale (i.e., from Jeff to Sally) and 40% on second resale (i.e., from Sally to another user, not shown).”

In Apple’s system, the passage of a digital item from one person to another would be tracked via embedded DRM.

While we understand the desire to prevent people from making digital copies of their purchased files and selling those off to people without properly paying the copyright holder, we don’t understand the notion that the copyright holder should receive any money from legitimate reselling of purchased content.

In almost all cases of resale of physical items, the original seller or creator receives no additional compensation. If you buy a DVD from Amazon then sell it at a yard sale, you don’t owe Amazon or the studio any money.

If you sell it through Amazon, then yes, Amazon would get a cut because it is fulfilling a function in the resale process. If you make copies and start selling those copies, then yes, you are likely in violation of the copyright, but that is a matter to be proven through legal means.

In our opinion, any system that automatically requires an end-user to share the proceeds of a legitimate resale of digital content with the copyright owner is presuming guilt on the end-user’s part, rather than requiring the copyright holder to prove that they are owed any additional money.

So while we do like the idea of a marketplace for used digital content, we have grave concerns about legitimate resellers being compelled to make payments they otherwise would not have made if they were reselling a physical version of that same item.

Of course, patents are sometimes just pipe dreams and what-ifs, so this may all be much ado about very little.

SOURCE Consumerist

Following Comcast’s decision to start charging $1.99/month for previously free converter boxes and a nearly 10% rate hike for some customers, the mayor of Eagan, MN, has written lawmakers and regulators asking for the right to rein in what the city’s residents pay for cable.

Eagan, a city of around 65,000 people, located just to the south of Minneapolis, used to regulate rates for basic cable and equipment fees, but in 2007 the FCC determined there was enough competition from satellite TV service providers in the city to allow Comcast to charge what it deems fit.

But the mayor says what little competition there is in town has done nothing to keep cable rates down. Further, he points to the FCC’s own reports showing that satellite service alone does not cause sufficient levels of competition to landline cable, especially when one considers that monopolistic cable providers are often the only ones providing high-speed Internet access to homes.

“In short, [satellite] is not a true competitor to wireline,” writes the mayor in a letter to U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Congressman John Kline, and the FCC Media Bureau’s Deputy Chief. “Moreover… DirecTV cautions that due to trends in bundling and multi-platform video programming delivery, the ‘video only market’ no longer captures competitive challenges, broadband is becoming the ‘anchor’ product of the wireline MVPDs, and service bundles that include broadband are difficult for [satellite] providers to compete with.”

Eagan is requesting the ability to restore local authority to regulate cable service and equipment rates, require transparent pricing from cable and satellite companies so consumers can see all prices and fees before deciding which service to choose, and for the FCC to revisit the effective competition standards created by Congress in 1992, which many argue have become antiquated because of consumers’ reliance on broadband Internet access.

Last year, the mayor of a much larger city, Boston, argued a similar case to the FCC and won back the city’s right to regulate cable prices.

City Lodges Formal Complaint Over Comcast Fees, Business Practices [Eagan Patch]

SOURCE The Consumerist

After receiving over 100,000 signatures in an official petition over the legality of unlocking smartphones, the White House has responded to a change made by the Librarian of Congress that made it illegal as of January 26 to unlock a carrier-tied phone without approval. We knew a response was coming thanks to the petition hitting that magic 100K mark, but we certainly didn’t expect to receive a response this fast. I’m not sure that we also expected them to fully agree with all of us that we should be able to unlock phones without risking criminal or other penalties. 

Here is the most important statement of the response:

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs.

Now, this by no means makes it legal to unlock your phones at will as of today – the White House essentially states that below. The Librarian of Congress has its authority to make rules in a “rigid and imperfect” process. With that said, the Obama Administration says that they will support a range of approaches to addressing the issues going forward, including “narrow legislative fixes” in the telecom space to make it clear that consumers should be able to switch carriers when they are no longer bound to a service agreement.

The FCC is also not in support of the move by the Librarian of Congress and have voiced their opinions here.

There is no telling how long it could take to get new legislation put in place that would make unlocking legal again. Again, this statement does not mean that you can unlock your phone at will. It simply means that the White House is on the same page as you, the consumer, and will do what it can going forward to give you some power back.

Full statement is after the break.

It’s Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking

By R. David Edelman

Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform. Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we’re pleased to offer our response.

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs.

This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs — even if it isn’t the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.

The White House’s position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President’s chief advisory Agency on these matters: the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA’s letter to the Library of Congress’ Register of Copyrights (.pdf), voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.

Contrary to the NTIA’s recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA. The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions — and we respect that process. But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue. Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.

So where do we go from here?

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.

Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.

We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you — the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility — to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.

R. David Edelman is Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy

Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.

Via:  White House

SOURCE Droid Life

A fast smartphone will only go so far toward improving browser load times if the connection isn’t there to back it up. If a discovery within a recent build of Chrome for Android is any hint, Google may have its own solution to that bottleneck. New code flags reference Google-run proxy servers that would squeeze pages using SPDY, improving performance at least slightly for the bandwidth-deprived. While there’s not much more to go on, the finding is enough to suggest that roughly equivalent boosters like Amazon Silk and Opera Turbo could have a real fight on their hands. We’d advise caution when the flags are only accessible by running an ADB command — they’re clearly not ready for prime time. Should Google flick the switch on compression for Chrome’s main release track, though, Android users may not need a third-party browser to sip the web through a thin straw.

Filed under: Cellphones, Internet, Software, Mobile, Google

Comments

Via: François Beaufort (Google+)

Source: Chromium.org

SOURCE Engadget RSS Feed

Kim Dotcom could be packing his bags and heading to a U.S. courtroom in the near future. The accused Internet piracy king has been fighting an extradition motion seeking to move him from New Zealand to the United States to face trial. New Zealand’s Court of Appeal on Friday overturned an earlier decision that required U.S. authorities to hand over evidence it planned to use in the high-profile extradition trial set to take place in August, The Wall Street Journal reported. Authorities will now only be required to provide the defense with a summary of the evidence it intends to use. Dotcom has vowed to fight the ruling, stating that he will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

SOURCE Boy Genius Report

TrueSatan writes “In an utterly craven move, the Canadian government has launched a bill to bring Canada into full compliance with the discredited, U.S.-led ACTA agreement — an agreement to which most of the world does not agree. To further pressure the acceptance of this awful bill, the U.S., on the same day, released their Trade Policy and Agenda Annual Report (PDF), which calls on Canada to comply with ACTA obligations. For ACTA to take effect, it would require six signatures from the major economic blocks. Tt appears to have no remaining possibility of getting them, yet the U.S., and now Canada, continue to push it forward. The Canadian bill features claims based on spurious health and safety concerns that have been thoroughly debunked by a U.S. report. Despite these claims being so dubious, they remain a cornerstone of the Canadian bill. Similarly, the claimed losses due to counterfeiting ($30 billion USD) stated in the bill have also been debunked. The Canadian bill seeks to give border guards an unprecedented level of control, without the possibility of judicial oversight. Despite a lack of evidence to suggest that Canada is a major source of counterfeit product, the bill puts at risk the fully-legal parallel import of generic items — pharmaceuticals, for instance. The bill would also change copyright infringement from a civil dispute to a breach of criminal law. Pity Canada if this bill is enacted!”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

SOURCE Slashdot

The President Barack Obama administration must enter the mobile-phone-unlocking fray. Thanks to a whitehouse.gov petition reaching 100,000 signatures Thursday, the administration must respond publicly about a recent decision by copyright regulators making it illegal to unlock mobile phones purchased after …

SOURCE Threat Level

First time accepted submitter Dngrsone writes “Some two million people have bought cell-phone wireless signal boosters and have been using them to get better communication between their phones and distant cell towers. But now, the FCC says they all have to turn their boosters off and ask permission from their providers, and register their devices with those providers, before they can turn them back on.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

SOURCE Slashdot

On January 26th, unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S. Just before that went into effect, a petition was started at whitehouse.gov to have the Librarian of Congress revisit that decision. “It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full. The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.” The 30 days time limit on the petition is almost up, and it’s about 11,000 signatures shy of the amount necessary to ensure a response from the Obama administration (100,000 total, recently increased from 25,000). The creator of the petition received a Cease & Desist letter from Motorola in 2005 for selling software that would allow users to unlock their phones, and he thinks it’s only a matter of time before such legal threats begin again. This is part of a larger battle to protect the way consumers can use their devices. While it’s still legal for people to root their phones, the Librarian of Congress failed to expand that legal protection to tablets, even though the devices are incredibly similar. The Librarian’s decision (PDF) needs further review, and if the White House petition doesn’t get enough signatures by February 23, such a review may not happen.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

SOURCE Slashdot