Group items tagged

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed to help protect digital rights, but allowed the Librarian of Congress to make exceptions to the act that would otherwise not follow the act. Today (October 28), four new exemptions to the DMCA were put into effect most notably the legalizing of jailbreaking on iPhones but not iPads. The other exemptions to the DMCA are the requirement of disabled people to own multiple devices in order to access e-books, the illegalizing of unlocking a cell phone purchased after January 2013 at a new carrier without permission from your old carrier, and the legalizing of ripping some content of a DVD only for specific purposes. The new exemptions put into effect could have a serious impact on the technology market. The number of e-book reader sold to disabled customers will decrease drastically since they will have to buy other devices so they can legally read e-books. Apple and app developers would also lose a lot of revenue from the App Store since more users will be motivated to jailbreak their iPhones and get pirated apps instead of actually buying apps since they can do so legally. The new exemptions could cause some providers to lose some money though not a significant amount should the provider refuse to unlock cell phones when consumers go to other countries since in the foreign country, consumers will be paying and using service from a local provider instead of their original provider causing them to miss out on some money. Finally, the DMCA exemptions could cause a decrease in DVD sales not just because they are losing popularity already but also because if someone wants to rip a part of a DVD, they can just borrow it from someone else instead of buying and ripping the needed content. I think these new exemptions are very silly and could end up being more harmful than useful. Making disabled customers buy multiple devices just to access e-books is very discouraging to potential e-book reader customers. I also wonder th

States in the US have been slowly gaining traction that allows gambling to be completely legal online. This would mean that anyone over 18 can sign onto an account which allows them to gamble away all the money they have. Nevada was the first state to legalize online gambling, and more states are estimated to follow suit. Although the article doesn't give an opinion on the newly legalized gambling, I believe that this news is terrible. More and more people will become addicted to gambling, and now it's very easy and very comfortable to lose your life earnings. These new rulings will eventually run into some legal issues, as people under 18 WILL find a way to gain access to these operations. There is no proper way that rules can be enforced in online gambling. People will become addicted, kids will gain access, and people will go bankrupt. Gambling is alright, in moderation, but these new laws will allow anyone with an internet connection to gamble away everything they own without even realizing it. Good thing we live in Canada.

As many of us may or may not know, Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung for apparently copying Apple's iPad when Samsung released the Galaxy Tab. However, the UK court ordered Apple to repay Samsung after proving that the information Apple provided in the lawsuit was false and misleading leading to proof that Samsung didn't copy Apple. Apple made two apologies to Samsung and will now have to repay Samsung all the money they sued them for.  This has to do with the legal tag because the lawsuit from Apple and Apple's compensation to Samsung are both legal actions. These actions also have to do with following the law since Apple wrongfully accused Samsung of copying which is against the law. I think that the UK court's decision is just because a company cannot sue another company just because they are remotely similar. If they could then we would have very little options when it comes to technology. For example,the first company to release a first person shooter game would be the only FPS game since the company could sue other game companies for copying their game genre. I just think Apple's lawsuit against Samsung was really just unreasonable in general.

As of 2012, illegal pirating is a huge problem in the technological world.  Everyone has illegally downloaded at least one file in their lifetime.  Under a new law that is active as of October 1, Japanese internet users who illegally download files could face up to 2 years in prison, or a fine of up to 2 million yen($25 700).  Even using applications such as Youtube, which stores video files on your computer, could be considered illegal and could land you a spot in jail.  Downloading copyrighted material was illegal in Japan since 2012, but the penalties were not as serious as they are now.  The law was passed by the Recording Industry Association, which cited a 2010 study, stating that illegal downloads in the country outnumber the legal ones ten to one.  This could be a legal problem, since people are not purchasing the files.  Instead, they are illegally downloading files, which is a form of stealing.  The big question here is should the rest of the world adopt this idea?

In this article, Apple's current CEO, Tim Cook expresses his opinion on the suing of South Korean company, Samsung. Although, Steve Jobs was very clear with his intentions to take out Samsung as a major source of competition, Tim Cook was opposed to suing Samsung because the company was a major supplier of parts for Apple. However, Jobs suspected Samsung was abusing the supplier relationship to shield it from any legal claims and his fears were confirmed with the early release of the Galaxy Tab which was very much like the iPad. Apple's dependency on Samsung is displayed by the nearly $8 billion dollars worth of components bought from Samsung last year. For this reason, Tim Cook has made several moves to wean Apple's dependence on Samsung products, including hiring away a top chip designer formerly working for Samsung. This and the $1.17 billion dollars apple was given from the jurisdiction between the two rivals was a big win for them. This article fits under the legal category because it touches upon the legal issues between the two rivaling companies, and the opinions of stakeholders such as Jobs and Cook. Also, this article is related to economics because it predicts the future of major companies like Samsung and Apple. With these two companies at the top, changes in consumer behaviour can easily result if one of the companies falls behind.

CISPA (cyber intelligence sharing and protection act) is back into congress and threatens to internet privacy if passed. The bill allows the government, private security agencies, and private companies to access about a "cyber threat". These cyber threats are defined by any attack on government systems and networks, and the "Theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information." This can mean things such as music, programs, games, etc. With this bill, the government and companies can anonymously take your information without any legal consequences. Your information can then be shared or sold. This is a direct violation of the 4th amendment, as it is similar to a search without a warrant. In summary, this bill grants the government and companies access to your information without any cost or legal risk.

Google has bought Nest Labs, buying it for 3.2 billion dollars about a month ago. Though Nest was bought by Google, it will still be somewhat independent. Nest will most likely be much more emphasized now with Google, though what Nest does is much different than Google. This topic relates to the tags of "Legal" and "Economics" due to the fact that Google has now bought Nest. Legally, Nest is now under Google who bought it for 3.2 billion dollars. Questions that I ask are, what things will Nest do now that it is under Google, and what new possibilities do both companies have? My opinion on this entire occurrence is that Google is becoming much bigger than ever, with so many new things appearing. Now that Nest is under Google's wing, it can accomplish many more things, though unknown what may happen.

For a service that had such an artificially high demand, the tech industry has not really capitalized on Video Chat. When Apple unveiled their video chat service 'FaceTime' in June of 2010, many thought that this would become the primary standardized service used by all. In practice, FaceTime is a clunky system that is evidently less productive and convenient than just vocal or text communication. So why hasn't video conferencing taken off as the industry had hoped? The answer is most likely because there is no standardized system and the market is too saturated; Polycom Inc. hopes to adress this issue by introducing a Universal Video Chat in early 2013. The product (called RealPresence CloudAxis) monetizes all of your contacts from Skype, Facebook, Google Talk and other apps into one place - all hosted on a web browser. This is a very ambitious task and if it delivers on what Polycom says (with the "same security and reliability as enterprise systems"), then there may be some validity to the video conference service. This relates to Privacy and Security because when monetizing a group of services, there is a chance for data leak and possible identity theft; Polycom promises to adress all security issues in order to make a safe and immersive experience for its users. This relates to eLifestyle because companies and their consumers have been trying for the past years to create a universal video chat service that actually worked in order to establish a multi-faceted social network: it might be too early to tell if Polycom has something that will fulfill the needs of consumers. This relates to ICS20 because as a class, we are no stranger to multiple accounts that often times serve the same purpose. As consumers, we hope for a streamlined service that can connect all of our multiple accounts into one place, preferably on a browser. It will be hard for Polycom, both legally and economically, to convince all of these pre-existing video chat developers to allow Polycom to

Many of our teachers tell us clearly when we have a project or an assignment that involves research, we should try to avoid Wikipedia as a source. I think it's because of the fact that Wikipedia makes it easy to find information and that most of the information is starting to be more accurate instead of being fake information. In my opinion, most information that's on Wikipedia is almost no difference from the information found in textbooks. This article explains that Wikipedia should be used if the assignment is to find information and summarize it to something simple because Wikipedia simply shows you a summary that can be referenced in classes. This is related to being legal because mainly, copying information from something site like Wikipedia would be plagiarism. Although in my opinion using Wikipedia as a way to gather any information and constrict it into a small summary of that information, then it should be used.

There was a lot of hype around the jailbreak community when the evasi0n iOS 6.1 jailbreak was released on Monday. It saw 1.7 million downloads on the first day alone. This jailbreak works by exploiting "bugs" in Apple's iOS code to allow users to write data to the kernel. This article relates to the legal tag because over the past decade, jailbreaking has become a very controversial topic and some people consider jailbreaking unethical or illegal. This article also relates to the economics tag because jailbreakers are pirating App Store apps which digs into Apple's and app developers' profits. I was once a jailbreaker myself, but have recently learned that developers work hard to make their apps and they deserve the credit and money for them. Overall, this article shows that the jailbreak community is still going strong and there are still those people who like pirating apps and taking profit away from developers 

Many countries recently blocked access to The Pirate Bay, a torrenting website, in order to prevent the illegal downloading of films, music, programs, and more. However, these efforts were futile, as many users are simply turning to proxy servers to allow them to bypass their countries censorship. Torrenting sites have always been risky territory for users, and as of late, more and more sites have been taking down in order to prevent pirating. The Pirate Bay has an insanely high volume of traffic, and it hasn't slowed down in recent times. It is noted in this article that the only way to rid of TPB is to physically shut down the servers, but even if that were to happen, users are simply going to move to the next site. Whether or not piracy negatively affects the income of the producers of the material being distributed is debatable, however the fact remains true that this process is completely illegal.  As a frequent torrenter, I hope that TPB will continue to thrive at it's current level. My hope is that all these pushes against torrenting will make the industries behind said files realize that users refuse to pay the ridiculous prices and taxes on content. This realization will hopefully lead to cheaper costs on retail products in the media industry, thus removing the need for pirating and torrenting. It will take awhile, but as long as the high price industry standards are in place, torrenting will continue to occur, and no legal matter will be able to stop it. If the internet is to truly be 'free', than laws and limitations should not be placed on content provided. #BarbieJXoXo

This is the greatest article of all time.

I am not the same guy as this poster, but I think he is beautiful

This article discusses the relationship between Apple and Samsung, who are fierce competitors in mobile device market. In very simple terms, Apple's handheld designs were at the least partially copied by Samsung, but suing them is difficult since they supply many of the hardware components, primarily processor chips, for Apple products themselves. Should Apple sue and win a lawsuit against the sale of Samsung products anywhere, Samsung would cut off their shipments, leaving room for other competitors to take the scene. This touches on the legal aspect of things because Apple has a right to the products they made and clearly copying them should not be allowed. The problem is that it would be lost money for both businesses because Samsung would cut off parts being supplied to Apple. This brings the need for cooperation between the two companies because if they both take a serious loss in the mobile device market other companies like LG, Nokia and Microsoft would take the lead and dominate the market.

In the recent weeks, it seems to be the societal trend to chastise Apple Inc. for their mistakes, the most recent of them being their native iOS 6 'Maps' application. Earlier in the week, CEO Tim Cook published a letter on the Apple website apologizing for the poor quality of the app, saying that "At Apple, we strive to make world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers. With the launch of our new Maps last week, we fell short on this commitment." However, this is not a first for Apple admitting their mistakes and apologizing; one example is in June of 2012, Bob Mansfield (SVP) expressed remorse for Apple's withdrawal of the EPEAT rating system, which ensured the company met an eco-friendly standard. They later recanted their actions and went back on to the rating system. Many people attribute Apple's recent downfall to the shift of power from Steve Jobs to Tim Cook. Apple has also come to fire for their general decreasing of employees per Apple store to increase profitability, their standalone podcast app and ultimately the widely regarded inadequate 'Siri', supposedly improved in iOS6. This relates to the tag 'eLifestyle' because when Apple limits the users experience by introducing faulty software and refuses to adress things because of pride, evidently the customers suffer. This relates to 'Environment' because of Apple's debacle with the EPEAT, and society's increasing desire for products that are eco-friendly, and Apple's supposed "higher environmental standards" that they operate under. Legally, Apple has actively been taking and giving lawsuits over the past years, including Samsung and Adobe (a lawsuit directly following Steve Jobs' choice to abandon flash on iOS devices.) From an economics standpoint, Apple seems to be making all the wrong choices, being that they abandon things that work (e.g. Google Maps, third-party podcast apps, EPEAT) and tries to 'reinvent the wheel' and many people argue that without the direction o

This article mentions the fact that Twitter now plans to update its mobile applications to introduce filters for photos allowing people to share altered images without having to use another source such as Instagram. Since most phones come with high-resolution cameras and many of the Twitter users use their phones this will be an easy way for people to edit and upload their photos. Especially with people or famous celebrities that use Instagram then share them on Twitter where more people follow them it will be easier and faster to just use Twitter for it all. This new idea has been hastened when Facebook bought Instagram. Twitter was thinking of buying a different photo service or application but when weighing out the cost they decided to just build their own filters. Twitter is also exploring the ability to upload and edit videos without using a third-party application like YouTube. This article has a lot to do with economics and the battle between two companies trying to get people to use their site and apps and not the other. In this case Twitter is really trying to become the most popular and important social networking site where people will be able to do anything on and it will be instant. They are changing what they once were to try to morph into Facebook because of the increasing popularity of Instagram and the fact that Facebook bought it.  I think personally that Twitter is making a good decision about the filter but i don't think twitter should add their own video player because it would change twitter and its purpose of being instant statements and pictures. YouTube is good at what they do and twitter should stay out of it. However with the whole idea of adding filters to Twitter you get the benefits of Instagram with the benefits of Twitter which might just keep them on top of Instagram.

Following Facebook's purchase of Instagram for almost $1 Billion in April 2012, it seems appropriate that Twitter would integrate something similar into their users' experience. 'Inside sources' say that Twitter is working on a photo-filter system that will be integrated directly in the site and mobile apps that hopes to bypass third-party services (such as Instagram.) While Instagram is a social network that focuses on social images with limited text, Twitter is renowned for its 140 character text-based updates with occasional images. An advantage of Twitter's supposed photo filtering system would be that there would most likely be a website equivalent to the mobile app, a problem that has plagued Instagram users who want a PC experience. As of now, there have been no official confirmations by Twitter, but the idea of a Twitter-exclusive photo sharing system seems interesting; although the market is currently saturated by Instagram, which can export images to other social networks, including Twitter. Legally, Facebook and Instagram may be able to take action against Twitter, depending on how similar their filtering system will be. This relates to eLifestyle and ICS20 because as social network users, we are always searching for ways to monetize our networks to one cohesive experience; another photo-sharing application seems arbitrary when there is already a capable system (Instagram.)

This article is about South Carolina which had a hacker break into the state's computer system. It was said that a hacker from another country staged several attacks on the State Department of Revenue since August. This exposed 3.6 million social security numbers and 387,000 credit and debit card numbers and all but 16,000 of the credit card numbers are protected by encryption, but hackers can decrypt them. People that filed tax returns since 1998 are to contact state law enforcement officials to prevent identity theft. They still haven't found the hacker. This article relates to Privacy and Security as well as legal issues because it deals with hacking important information profiles of people such as their credit card numbers and social security numbers. As well as creating a possibility for identity theft.  This could create lots of problems for people and the government because of a hacker. It is times like these where we think how we can tighten security for these things stored on the computer? We also think is it just best to stay away from technology for these matters, because of moments like these where mass information that was stored is now exposed.

HP managers in Russia have allegedly bribed executives in the Russian Prosecutors General Office for about $9.7 million to land a deal to supply the office with HP computers, printers, etc for $45.3 million. German lawyers say that HP its self should be prosecuted and there should be a US investigation. HP is cooperating with the US and the court but say that they didn't that this was happening. The people who bribed those officials are not very smart because if you bribe someone you know that you will get caught sooner or later. Because of their actions this might cause a fall in HP sales of their software, computers and printers. Legally this ruins costumer trust for HP and could also cause fall of sales.       

By now, everyone who is the slightest bit technologically inclined - or just interested in the news - has heard of the 'questionable' activities of the NSA. The National Security Agency, for the uninitiated, is a United States government agency that deals with national security and recently became the object of scrutiny after leaked information showed the massive data collection effort of the agency. This included: recording phone calls, ingoing and outgoing call identities, computer browsing, emails, key-logging and much much more. Needless to say, this was perceived as a tad scandalous and independent panels were brought in to assess the agencies spying program. Recently, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded that the metadata collected by the NSA was obtained through illegal means. Before you cheer, however, this sort of conclusion has been reached before and has only resulted in a promise to limit spying. This is bad because its merely a promise; a promise from a government who lied repeatedly, committed perjury, knowingly covered its tracks, and chased a citizen away with the threat of life in prison. Unfortunately, many people have since stopped caring because its no longer new news, but we need to stand up for our right to privacy and demand legal action to prevent such breaches of trust in the future.

Unlocking an iPhone is now illegal. Any smartphone bought after January 26, 2013 can not be unlocked as it is illegal in the USA at least. Although unlocking an iPhone is illegal jailbreaking is not. At least it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone or iPod Touch but to jailbreak an iPad is illegal. With all this in mind the real winner is the carrier/provider as the consumer cannot jump from company to company with the carriers phone. Only in the states can one go to jail for unlocking a phone but can own an assault rifle!

The law on hate speech being used on the internet does not interfere with freedom of expression, according to the courts. The penalty you get for doing this action clearly is a violation, but courts have not taken that into account. This happens to be section 13, a currently defunct law. A penalty for hate speech on the internet can result in up to a $10000 fine! This penalty is what gives people the reason to argue. Wouldn't fining someone for stating an opinion on something (no matter how bad it is) still be a violation of someone's freedom of expression? Unless you were under employment and did something of that nature within your job, you should be fired. But, the internet seems to be much different than real life. When something is written it must have more power, because saying your opinion in real life out loud, will not result in any fines. The problem is that section 13 violating free speech is right politically, but wrong legally. Section 13 is being removed in June of 2104, and for good reason. No internet hate speeches are being made in which a victim should recieve $10000 in compensation. Personally, I would never say anything to offend a large group of people to such a degree, but I still think section 13 should be removed, if it goes against a constitutional right under reasonable grounds.