Technology News
|
We've pointed out recently that porn producers seem to be rapidly jumping on the mass automated "pre-settlement" bandwagon, and it seems that's only increasing. More and more porn producers are filing mass lawsuits, demanding people accused of sharing all sorts of porn pay up or go to court. One of the latest targeted is the porn "classic," Debbie Does Dallas, for which 113 John Does have now been sued. Apparently, the lawyer involved is the same one who filed a bunch of these types of lawsuits a few months ago, Evan Stone. So apparently he's joined the ranks of lawyers who are pitching this kind of "service." Over in the UK, various politicians have been condemning these kinds of lawsuits, even calling them a scam. With thousands of these lawsuits being filed in the US now, will any US politician speak up and do something about this clear abuse of copyright law?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
If you’ve been following our tablet coverage, you know we’ve been waiting patiently for legitimate iPad competitors. You also know we gave a disappointing 6 verdict to the Dell Streak – more of a large smartphone “phablet” than a legitimate tablet – and that we’re looking forward to the Samsung Galaxy Tab, though one can only guess when that piece of gear will hit US shores.
But just when the whole world is focusing on the big-boy hardware vendors – your Dells, your Samsungs, your Toshibas and your RIMs – up pops the little-known Stream TV Networks with a clean, for-all-intents-finished prototype in hand, along with promises to hand off a reviewable unit next week. The tablet is called the eLocity A7, and we basically liked what we saw during 30 minutes of hands-on use.
Screen size is 7 inches diagonal, a soon-to-be popular dimension that you’ll be seeing in a lot of would-be iPad killers. This screen size allows for a smaller, lighter hardware chassis than what you’ll find in the iPad, but still provides enough screen real estate for comfortable virtual typing and other tablet-specific activity. Resolution is 800x480, which isn’t class-leading (the iPad does 1024x768), but you’re not going to get much better with any Android tablet, as the Android resolution limit is currently 854x480.
Resolution limits aside, the A7 comes with Android version 2.2 (Froyo), the current best-available OS version. Some completely fine smartphones are running version 2.1, so we must commend Stream TV Networks for offering the best OS in the Android ecosystem.
Here’s how the physical footprint compares to the iPhone. Please note that this A7 prototype’s red shell will not be available at launch. Instead, all units will be black as seen in our beauty shots.
The A7 tablet is anchored by Nvidia’s Tegra 2 T20 system-on-chip. It’s a dual-core, 1GHz SoC that boasts 1MB of L2 cache, support for Adobe Flash, and of course Nvidia’s famous programmable 3D mojo. All of this processing power is mated to 512MB of DDR2 system memory, and 4GB of flash storage (plus a microSD slot for up 32GB more storage capacity).
Ports include HDMI and a full (not mini) USB slot. Thanks to the HDMI port and the video power of the Tegra 2, the A7 can output 1080p video to your HDTV or computer monitor. We saw it in action, and, yes, it was 1080P with no visual hiccups, at least in the brief video demos we saw. Of course, the A7’s built-in screen can’t display 1080p, but it’s nice to have the option available for external displays.
The A7 includes a 1.3MP front-facing camera for videochat, but that’s the extent of its camera offerings (which is fine by us, because we don’t expect pure tablets to double as digicams). Data I/O is handled by 802.11b/g WiFi and Bluetooth. You’ll find no 3G inside this tablet, but a 3G version is in the works.
And, finally, the price: We were impressed to learn that everything above – along with an HDMI cable and a USB-to-USB “networking cable” – will cost you just $349. At launch, the only way to buy the A7 will be through Amazon, but other retail options will open up in time.
All in all, the eLocity A7 appeared to be an interesting package, but one can only glean so much from a half-hour of use. Stay tuned for the official review.
Read more at.... |
|
|
Well, it took a while, but US Copyright Group (really DC law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) have finally gotten around to getting subpoenas out to ISPs in the Hurt Locker lawsuit. While that lawsuit was filed months ago, the subpoenas just went out, in part, because of the fight in another of USCG's lawsuits over certain aspects of the threat letters. That ended with a requirement for USCG to work with groups like the EFF to come up with more informative threat letters. The results don't look all that more reasonable, but it does note that those accused have the right to try to fight the subpoena, and removes the misleading threat of a $150,000 penalty hanging over their heads. Of course, being just slightly more honest has its cost. The pre-settlement fee demanded has been increased from $2,500 to $2,900 this time around.
Separately, in Greg Sandoval's article, he talks to Cindy Cohn from the EFF who notes that they're hearing from a lot more people on the receiving end of USCG lawsuits who have no idea what it's all about and aren't BitTorrent users at all. That happened with the RIAA lawsuits as well, but apparently at a much lower rate. This certainly calls into serious question the techniques that USCG is using to identify file sharers and to make sure they're not suing innocent people. Of course, when you look at the economics of it all, to USCG it really doesn't matter. When it makes mistakes, the actual likelihood of getting in trouble for it times the likely cost of such a mistake is so low as to make the incentive such that there's little reason to care about false positives. Yet, on the flip side, the cost of defending yourself against a bogus threat from USCG is certainly going to be more than $2,900 in almost every case. As Cohn notes:
"When it comes to copyright," Cohn said "the law is set up so that truth, whether someone actually violated the law or not, takes a back seat to financial considerations."
And, really, that's what's so nefarious about this whole process. The incentives are totally screwed up. USCG has no incentive to weed out the false positives, and the innocent folks threatened have powerful economic incentives to just pay up. It's still not "extortion," in that USCG can claim to have a legitimate legal basis for the demands, but it certainly comes damn close in practice.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 10 of 439 |
|
