Greed, greed, greed to supersede the voice of the public. There has to be and needs to be and open eformat. Collusion of any kind by any companies to monopolize is wrong. Why be mad at the government actually doing its job by trying to stamp unfairness. Is this not the land of the free and home of the brave where we are afforded the right to compete on fair terms, or are we just capitalist to the harshest degree, with no wiggle room? Uncle Sam will always be the ref in these battles of monopoly. Does Amazon, Apple, and Goggle with there wholesale pillaging scan scam holding the lions share of the ePub tech and licenses make it a safe place for upstart like I would like to have in the future? I say "NO"!!! Change the game Uncle Sam for the consumer, loyalist, and publisher in this ePub wild west.
In the end, the product planners lost a key part of the debate. The winners: executives who argued that giving automatic privacy to consumers would make it tougher for Microsoft to profit from selling online ads. Microsoft built its browser so that users must deliberately turn on privacy settings every time they start up the software.
A Wall Street Journal investigation of the practice showed tracking to be pervasive and ever-more intrusive:
The 50 most-popular U.S. websites, including four run by Microsoft, installed an average of 64 pieces of tracking technology each onto a test computer.
This is not likely to have any real effect. Textbooks are sold to a captive market. Those who are paying their tuition without benefit of student loans will buy the books without thinking too much about the cost. Those who are going to school on student loans will go into debt.
The Wylie agency signed a deal to exclusively distribute e-books of its authors through Amazon. Want to read Philip Roth, Dave Eggers, Saul Bellow in digital form? Better get a Kindle.
Bentham revisited!!! Hoax article pulled prior to print. How can we better protect the validity of content with the rapid spread of Open Access Publishing?
This is all just speculation at this point, but maybe Google Flipper will mend the relationship that Google has had with some newspaper publishers. We'll see . . .
is happy state of affairs could be close to an end.
his will make the Web more accessible to non-English-speakers but also will lead to tricky issues, such as whether dissidents in China or Iran will be permitted to have their own dot-addresses. How would Beijing respond to a Chinese-language domain that translates into .democracy or .limitedgovernment, perhaps hosted by computers in Taipei or Vancouver?
he U.N. model of Internet governance is highly unsatisfactory from a human-rights and free-expression point of view for obvious reasons,” she told me. “The Chinese and the Iranians and various other authoritarian countries will insist on standards and rules that make dissent more difficult, destroy the possibility of anonymity, and facilitate surveillance.”
I think the question here is not about which governments have the moral right to lead Internet governance over others,” Ms. MacKinnon argues, “but about whether it’s appropriate that Internet governance should be the sole province of governments, many of which do not arguably represent the interests of Internet users in their countries because they were not democratically elected