Group items tagged

Four US senators express concern about Facebook's recent changes which enable a user's friends to follow them to websites they've visited and know how they rated them. This is also enabling third parties to gain access to user data which was once private.

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

According to this article "word of mouth has become word of web." People are using digital technology to communicate important information such as social gatherings and recommendations about things such as new recipes - things that used to be transferred through offline word of mouth. The implication is that people without an online presence miss out, and the response of the Canadian (as well as the Australian) government is to inject millions of dollars into decreasing the 'digital divide' to encourage social participation through increased digital literacy.

After the class last night, I kept having a thoght that maybe our whole society structure is changing bcuase of the internet, the accessibility to the Internet. Money, education, perhaps are the main critaria to structure the society anymore.

German Criminal Court rules that Wi-Fi internet account owners who do not have password protection will be fined 100 euros for 3rd parties which perform acts of piracy on their account, further broadening the spectrum of responsibility of copyright infringement.

Google did not not quit China completely. The decision of Google could not influence the censorship framwork in China. Most if domestic media groups tend to disregard the claim from Google.