EFF
Latest
Compromised account leads to massive Bitcoin sell off, EFF reconsiders use of currency
Bitcoin, for those not aware, is a completely digital currency -- one where exchanges between individuals are largely anonymous and secured through cryptography, and one that has seen its hype-meter go off the charts in recent months. That, inevitably, has had some people waiting for a fall, and it took a big one this week. While things have since bounced back, the value of the currency on the so-called Mt. Gox exchange dropped from around $17.50 to just one cent in a matter of moments during the early hours of June 20th -- a drop that's since been attributed to a compromised account. Thanks to a daily withdrawal limit, however, that apparently only resulted in $1,000 actually being stolen, and a claims process has now been set up for those affected. While not directly related to the sell off, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (or EFF) also dealt a bit of a blow to the upstart currency this week, when it announced that it would no longer be accepting Bitcoin donations. According to the organization, that's both because it doesn't "fully understand the complex legal issues involved with creating a new currency system," and because it doesn't want its acceptance of Bitcoins misconstrued as an endorsement of Bitcoin. Head on past the break for an account of the aforementioned plunge as it happened. [Thanks, Zigmar; image: Wikipedia]
Apple responds to Lodsys patent claims, backs up developers (Updated)
Update 2: Macworld just posted the complete text of the letter sent by Apple's legal department to Lodsys, as has CNET. You can view the text of the letter below, or see the full-color version on Scribd. The letter asserts definitively that Apple's license for the Lodsys patents covers the developers who are using App Store upgrade technologies. "[The] technology that is targeted in your notice letters is technology that Apple is expressly licensed under the Lodsys patents to offer to Apple's App Makers. These licensed products and services enable Apple's App Makers to communicate with end users through the use of Apple's own licensed hardware, software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple's App Store. Because Apple is licensed under Lodsys' patents to offer such technology to its App Makers, the App Makers are entitled to use this technology free from any infringement claims by Lodsys." --- A flurry of tweets from developers indicates that Apple will be taking an active role in dealing with the patent infringement complaints from Lodsys, LLC. This comes a few days after the Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a statement urging Apple to assist its developers in the fight. Although none of the developers we spoke with could comment, it seems clear from the public tweets that a collective sigh of relief is going through the developer community about now. "The sheer amount of support from everyone regarding the patent matter is quite humbling. Can't say thanks enough," Iconfactory's Gedeon Maheux tweeted. The Lodsys situation was also a primary focus of Sunday's TUAW talkcast. Listen to the full discussion and an interview with Maheux here. Update 1: The Loop quotes the letter from Bruce Sewell, Apple Senior Vice President and General Counsel as saying, "Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patents and the App Makers are protected by that license." Show full PR text BY EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL May 23, 2011 Mark Small Chief Executive Officer Lodsys, LLC [Address information removed] Dear Mr. Small: I write to you on behalf of Apple Inc. ("Apple") regarding your recent notice letters to application developers ("App Makers") alleging infringement of certain patents through the App Makers' use of Apple products and services for the marketing, sale, and delivery of applications (or "Apps"). Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patent and the Apple App Makers are protected by that license. There is no basis for Lodsys' infringement allegations against Apple's App Makers. Apple intends to share this letter and the information set out herein with its App Makers and is fully prepared to defend Apple's license rights. Because I believe that your letters are based on a fundamental misapprehension regarding Apple's license and the way Apple's products work, I expect that the additional information set out below will be sufficient for you to withdraw your outstanding threats to the App Makers and cease and desist from any further threats to Apple's customers and partners. First, Apple is licensed to all four of the patents in the Lodsys portfolio. As Lodsys itself advertises on its website, "Apple is licensed for its nameplate products and services." See http://www.lodsys.com/blog.html (emphasis in original). Under its license, Apple is entitled to offer these licensed products and services to its customers and business partners, who, in turn, have the right to use them. Second, while we are not privy to all of Lodsys's infringement contentions because you have chosen to send letters to Apple's App Makers rather than to Apple itself, our understanding based on the letters we have reviewed is that Lodsys's infringement allegations against Apple's App Makers rest on Apple products and services covered by the license. These Apple products and services are offered by Apple to the App Makers to enable them to interact with the users of Apple products-such as the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch and the Apple iOS operating system-through the use or Apple's App Store, Apple Software Development Kits, and Apple Application Program Interfaces ("APIs") and Apple servers and other hardware. The illustrative infringement theory articulated by Lodsys in the letters we have reviewed under Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 is based on App Makers' use of such licensed Apple products and services. Claim 1 claims a user interface that allows two-way local interaction with the user and elicits user feedback. Under your reading of the claim as set out in your letters, the allegedly infringing acts require the use of Apple APIs to provide two-way communication, the transmission of an Apple ID and other services to permit access for the user to the App store, and the use of Apple's hardware, iOS, and servers. Claim 1 also claims a memory that stores the results of the user interaction and a communication element to carry those results to a central location. Once again, Apple provides, under the infringement theories set out in your letters, the physical memory in which user feedback is stored and, just as importantly, the APIs that allow transmission of that user feedback to and from the App Store, over an Apple server, using Apple hardware and software. Indeed, in the notice letters to App Makers that we have been privy to, Lodsys itself relies on screenshots of the App Store to purportedly meet this claim element. Finally, claim 1 claims a component that manages the results from different users and collects those results at the central location. As above, in the notice letters we have seen, Lodsys uses screenshots that expressly identify the App Store as the entity that purportedly collects and manages the results of these user interactions at a central location. Thus, the technology that is targeted in your notice letters is technology that Apple is expressly licensed under the Lodsys patents to offer to Apple's App Makers. These licensed products and services enable Apple's App Makers to communicate with end users through the use of Apple's own licensed hardware, software, APIs, memory, servers, and interfaces, including Apple's App Store. Because Apple is licensed under Lodsys' patents to offer such technology to its App Makers, the App Makers are entitled to use this technology free from any infringement claims by Lodsys. Through its threatened infringement claims against users of Apple's licensed technology, Lodsys is invoking patent law to control the post-sale use of these licensed products and methods. Because Lodsys's threats are based on the purchase or use of Apple products and services licensed under the Agreement, and because those Apple products and services, under the reading articulated in your letters, entirely or substantially embody each of Lodsys's patents, Lodsys's threatened claims are barred by the doctrines of patent exhaustion and first sale. As the Supreme Court has made clear, "[t]he authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article." Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008). Therefore, Apple requests that Lodsys immediately withdraw all notice letters sent to Apple App Makers and cease its false assertions that the App Makers' use of licensed Apple products and services in any way constitute infringement of any Lodsys patent. Very truly yours, Bruce Sewell Senior Vice President & General Counsel Apple Inc.
EFF takes on Lodsys patent controversy
Julie Samuels, a Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said Apple should join forces with its developers to dispute patent infringement complaints Lodsys, LLC sent to several independent iOS app-makers last week. On May 13, a number of iOS developers reported being told their apps, by using the in-app purchase mechanism built into Apple's development kit, infringed on intellectual property owned by Lodsys, a patent holding company based in Texas. According to Lodsys, their patent specifically covers technology that allows end users to upgrade "light" editions of software to fully functional apps. Lodsys claims that Apple, Google, and Microsoft already pay to license the technology for themselves (possibly through investments in the patent portfolio of Intellectual Ventures), but licensing agreements with these tech giants do not extend to third party developers. Unfortunately, Apple requires developers to use the in-app purchase mechanism it provides, and the Cupertino company's developer agreement does nothing to protect app creators from patent infringement claims against technology it builds into iOS. Samuels argues this is a "misallocation of burden" onto individual developers who often don't have the resources needed to combat infringement suits. Even if a developer does explore the patent universe for possible pitfalls, it's unlikely he or she would look into any of Apple's technologies since most reasonable people (including lawyers) would expect the company to avoid exposing its app-makers to additional liability. App sellers already surrender 30% of the revenue from each sale to Apple; adding the threat of patent lawsuits or additional licensing fees may deter new and existing developers from choosing to create software for iOS. Last we heard, Apple was "actively investigating" the Lodsys patent infringement claims. It's still not clear what actions the company will take next, but Samuels says, "by putting the burden on those least able to shoulder it, both Apple and Lodsys are harming not just developers but also the consumers who will see fewer apps and less innovation." She hopes Apple will "do what's right and stand up for their developers and help teach the patent trolls a lesson."
Humble Indie Bundle: Pay what you want for World of Goo and four others
You've commented on Joystiq posts about oppressive DRM many times before. You dutifully wear your Target-purchased indie game t-shirt every week without fail. And you read every Joystiq Indie Pitch we post. But if you want to put some money towards supporting indie games, you won't find a better way to do it than this. Wolfire Games and a few other indie developers have put together the "Humble Indie Bundle" sale, offering five terrific award-winning indie games (World of Goo, Aquaria, Gish, Lugaru and Penumbra Overture) for the low, low price of ... whatever you want. That's right -- they're asking you to pay what you feel is right for these bundled, non-DRM, developer-owned Mac, Linux or PC games. And that's not all: You can even specify part or all of your donation to go to a charity, either Child's Play or the Electronic Frontier Foundation. That's about as selfless as it gets in gaming -- pay what you think it's worth, to charity or the people who made it. The average donation so far is about $8.00, but individuals have donated as much as $500 to the effort. You get lots of chances to say you support indie gaming, but fewer great chances like this to put your money where your mouth is. And walking away with five great indie titles to play doesn't hurt, either.
EFF releases iPhone developer license agreement
In a step towards transparency, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has made the entire iPhone Developer Program License Agreement available for the general public. This is the document that all iPhone developers must agree to when they become part of the iPhone developer program. As EFF points out, public copies of the license agreement are pretty scarce thanks to developers being locked under a non-disclosure agreement as part of the contract. EFF used the Freedom of Information Act to get its copy from NASA, which is the version from approximately a year ago (Rev. 3-17-09). The agreement has been updated since then. The EFF characterizes the agreement as "a very one-sided contract, favoring Apple at every turn," and that's not an overstatement. Some of the clauses and conditions in the Apple developer agreement do smack of "our field, our ball, our rules" thinking from Cupertino. Highlights from the 28-page document include: A ban prohibiting developers from making public statements about the license agreement; however the contract itself is not considered "Apple Confidential Information." Apps developed from Apple's SDK are only allowed to be sold through the App Store. You can't push it anywhere else (Cydia, etc.), even if Apple has rejected the app for any reason. Developers are forbidden to tinker with any Apple products, not just the iPhone. This includes jailbreaking. Apple is not liable for more than $50 in damages in case something happens on their end to your app. This is laughable, and I'm honestly surprised that Apple has not had a legal challenge over this yet. Devices used for testing purposes could be locked into a "testing mode," and may not be able to be restored to their original condition. That is one way to brick your device. I discussed the EFF's post with Mike Rose, and he offered some editorial comment; read on for more.
PA school district issued order to refrain from webcam spying (video)
Why a school district would ever think it was acceptable to secretly snap pictures of its students -- in their own homes, no less -- is totally beyond us, but with any luck the Lower Merion School District webcam caper will soon have its day court. Yesterday, an attorney for plaintiff Blake Robbins' confirmed that an agreement was reportedly finalized to stop the school from spying on its students while preserving evidence for the lawsuit. "What gets me in this situation is that I can't imagine there's a parent anywhere who would support the school district's actions here," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director (and all around good guy) Vic Walczak. "[W]hat the school allegedly has done here is the equivalent of the principal breaking into the house, hiding in the child's closet, and then watching him or her from there." Yuck! For more info on the technical aspects of this case, peep the video after the break. Update: Seems that someone dug up some of the school's policies surrounding the webcam surveillance, and suffice it to say, the bullet points listed here are downright crazy. How crazy? How's about "possession of a monitored MacBook was required for classes, and possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated." Oh, and "disabling the camera was impossible."
Macworld 2010: Adam Savage re-enacts the EFF's history
We visited a lot of parties last night (and the TUAW bloggers are nursing hangovers because of it), but the best was undoubtedly the Electronics Frontier Foundation's 20th anniversary bash at the DNA Lounge. It wasn't strictly Mac-related, but Mythbuster Adam Savage was in the house, and he led a hilarious re-enactment of some of the major moments in the EFF's history, assisted by various objects and people "found around the club". Of course, since there were quite a few luminaries in the house (including the founders of the EFF, the crew from Steve Jackson Games, and other tech who's whos), the re-enactment actually ended up being re-enacted by most of the actual participants. We captured video of the event, and it's both informational and hilarious -- you can catch it in two segments after the break below. Stay tuned for more from Macworld 2010 all this week -- the floor opens today, and we'll have live streaming video right here on the site, as well as hands-on, interviews, and news from the show in San Francisco all week long. For the iPhone-friendly YouTube video, click here.
E-reader privacy policies compared: Big Kindle is watching you
It's definitely shaping up to be the year of e-book readers: the Amazon Kindle is flying off (virtual) shelves, and we'd expect the Barnes & Noble Nook to start moving at a decent clip once the kinks get worked out. But any device with an always-on 3G connection to a central server raises some privacy questions, especially when it can broadcast granular, specific data about what you're reading -- data that's subject to a wide spectrum of privacy laws and regulations when it comes to real books and libraries, but much less so in the digital realm. We'd say it's going to take a while for all the privacy implications of e-books to be dealt with by formal policy, but in the meantime the best solution is to be informed -- which is where this handy chart from our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation comes in. As you'd expect, the more reading you do online, the more you can be tracked -- and Google Books, the Kindle, and the Nook all log a ton of data that can be shared with law enforcement and various other third parties if required. Of course, we doubt the cops are too interested in your Twilight reading habits, but honestly, we'd rather users weren't tracked at all. Check the full chart and more at the read link. [Thanks, Tom]
Sprint handed customer GPS data to law enforcement over 8 million times last year
Privacy advocates and career criminals alike are in a lather over reports that between September 2008 and October 2009, Sprint Nextel ponied up customer location data to various law enforcement agencies more than 8 million times. Speaking at ISS World 2009 (a conference for law enforcement and telecom industry-types responsible for "lawful interception, electronic investigations and network Intelligence gathering"), Sprint Nextel's very own Paul Taylor, Manager of Electronic Surveillance, lamented on the sheer volume of requests the company's received in the past year for precise GPS data for Sprint customers. How did the company meet such high demand? Apparently, his team built a special "web interface" which "has just really caught on fire with law enforcement." We're glad that Sprint's plans to streamline the customer service experience don't stop short of those who serve and protect, but as the EFF points out, plenty of nagging questions remain, including: How many individual customers have been affected? Is Sprint demanding search warrants? How secure is this web interface? Check out an excerpt from Taylor's speech after the break.
Apple: Jailbreaking encourages cell tower terrorism, "catastrophic results"
If trashing your push messaging wasn't enough to steer you clear of using your iPhone in unauthorized ways, this next bit of news might have you back on the straight and narrow. According to Wired, Apple's latest salvo in the fight over jailbreaking is a claim that pernicious, iPhone wielding techno-hackers at home or abroad could modify the baseband and use it to attack cellphone towers, "rendering the tower entirely inoperable to process calls or transmit data." Of course, the idea that this would become more likely if the legal status of jailbreaking changes is totally absurd, but why let that stand in the way of a legal argument?In a related note, one of our editors (whose jailbroken iPhone shall remain nameless) got a strange baseband pop-up error this morning -- the very same morning that AT&T is suffering a "massive connectivity outage" throughout the northeast and midwest. Coincidence? Yeah, probably.Read - iPhone Jailbreaking Could Crash Cellphone Towers, Apple ClaimsRead - Anyone Experience the AT&T Outage?
Apple says jailbreaking is illegal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted the news that Apple has filed comments with the US Copyright Office stating that the act of jailbreaking your iPhone is a copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, and therefore illegal. The EFF says that Apple is claiming that jailbreak apps still require modified versions of Apple's software, and Apple apparently believes that those versions are infringing on their copyrights. The EFF responds, in turn, that "reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software," saying that yes, even though jailbreakers are using Apple's copyrighted code, they are doing so in a way that allows them functionality that Apple doesn't provide access to on their own.At this point, of course, this is just a complaint in the copyright office, and Apple hasn't made any legal moves yet against anyone responsible for jailbreaking. As the EFF states, it would be extremely hard for them to go after individual jailbreakers -- if you buy an iPhone, it should be your right to "get under the hood," as they say, and do what you want.But (and keep in mind that this is TUAW, not The Unofficial Legal Weblog, and we are not lawyers) it seems Apple may be able to try and make a case against anyone offering software that does modify or otherwise "misuse" their copyrighted code. We'll have to see if they explore that position more in the future. You can read Apple's full response here (27 pages). You can see the EFF's initial filings here.Stay tuned for more news and analysis on the issue.
Apple and EFF spar over iPhone jailbreaking and the DMCA
Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones -- like, yes, the iPhone -- be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple's response to the EFF isn't exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will "destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone." Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple's copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple's convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there's no "duplication of functionality" rule and as proof claims to have allowed "multiple general web browsers... and multiple mail programs." Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you. Now, let's be clear: while we're definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo -- Apple isn't asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it's just asking that it not be specifically ruled legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that's the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We'll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings -- final rulings are due in October. Read - EFF page on the jailbreaking debate Read - EFF's brief (PDF) Read - Apple's reply (PDF) Read - EFF's second brief (PDF)
iPhone 2.1 SDK Disappointments
Something is rotten in the state of Cupertino. Mr. Jobs, TEAR DOWN THIS NDA. If the new iPhone 2.1 beta firmware is anything, it's a perfect excuse to say: "I told you so." It explains why the NDA failed to disappear on schedule. Apple kept its promise -- "Ve shall delivah the 2.0 iPhone und SDK on Yuly 11th" -- while working around the fact that that SDK was half baked at best. It was certainly not ready for prime time. The NDA simply expands the beta period. It offers cover to Apple, as they scramble to finish developing ready-to-ship software. In retrospect, there really was no need for the NDA in the first place, nor this second new 2.1 NDA that just debuted. Anyone, including Apple's competitors -- even the really evil "big brother" ones -- can sign up and download the SDK for free. Apple isn't exactly keeping things hush hush on the down low. All the NDA does right now is keep developers from talking to each other and blogs, magazines and book authors from publishing how-to articles. Said articles, etc., could actually help Apple reduce its tech support overhead. It would certainly help solidify the brand and allow third parties to make better, stronger App Store entries. It made no sense then. It makes no sense now. But that's not where the grumbling ends. Our TUAW tipsters have been busy. They tell us that Apple is busy rejecting Applications from the App Store for grammar mistakes in onboard help files (not a joke) and for not presenting the user with the best playability options (also not a joke). Many of these frustrated developers tell us that some of their products have been waiting for review for four weeks and up and that their updates are getting caught in the gears. One wrote that his apps are getting poor reviews while fixes can't see the light of day. And if the TUAW tipsters' tips are true (thanks TUAW tipsters), the new SDK throws a further wrench into the gears. 2.0 SDK Applications will not be immediately compatible with version 2.1 (although that could change between beta and release). Other tremendously terrific tipsters tell us that the newest beta program isn't fully open. Apparently only a subset of iPhone SDK development members have been granted access. That once again puts some developers at a tremendous financial disadvantage. All in all, the buzz in developer circles is not happy. While some look forward to their first August paychecks from App Store, others remain waiting and frustrated in the wings. As always, please continue to use our tip line if you have anything you want to add anonymously to the discussion. Otherwise, feel free to opine in our comments.
NBC admits "inadvertent" broadcast flag use, still doesn't explain why it actually worked
Just an update on the broadcast flag controversy: NBC has copped to an "inadvertent mistake" in flagging the broadcast of American Gladiators as content prohibited from recording, while Microsoft stated it is only following the FCC's rules, and "fully adheres to flags used by broadcasters". This conveniently ignores the fact that there is no legal requirement for Windows Vista Media Center to recognize the broadcast flag and disable recording, but it does. Errant metadata can and does happen, but for such a "feature" to be buried within one's software unknowingly is troubling. Expect to hear more from the EFF and others questioning why Media Center unnecessarily turns parts of itself off at a broadcaster's command, and rightly so. What's most disturbing, and likely to go sadly without protest is that someone out there is actually watching, and trying to record for later, American Gladiators. The more you know indeed.[Via Techdirt]
Broadcast Flag rides again, courtesy of NBC & Microsoft?
Just like efforts to close the analog hole, our old friend the broadcast flag (don't remember what that is and how it was defeated? Take a quick trip back to 2005 with us) has reared its ugly head again. Displaying the kind of tenacity rarely seen outside of horror movie villains and potential presidential candidates, some Vista Media Center users have apparently gotten the above popup while trying to record broadcast TV from NBC. Since the FCC regulation giving the broadcast flag its power to remotely disable your recording ability was overturned, not only should it not be enabled, there's no reason the system should respond if it were. The EFF's working with the makers of the HDHomeRun to find out why this happened at all (although it's not the first time); whether it's an honest mistake somewhere or if Microsoft slipped a bit of extra DRM into its latest OS.[Via EFF]
Peering Inside: Linden Lab, the DMCA, and content
Linden Lab reports that it is putting more 'resources' on to DMCA duty to deal with improper duplication of content in Second Life. This would be a significant improvement over reports of one person, not even performing the DMCA processing full-time. We don't think the new people will be full-time either, but more person-hours either way. Well, that's all assuming that 'resources' means people. Maybe it means the rumored part-time DMCA processor is now full-time.
Comcast backs off BitTorrent, will continue to manage internet traffic
Although Comcast has been beating around the proverbial bush about its data-meddling ways, it seems the pressure from the recent FCC investigation efforts have forced it to play nice. Reportedly, the firm is getting set to (begrudgingly, we presume) announce that it will "stop targeting BitTorrent on the internet." More specifically, the cable company will purportedly "boost broadband capacity" in order to make things speedier all around, but details on this tidbit were unsurprisingly absent. Nevertheless, BitTorrent has also agreed to make its software "more efficient," but those hoping that Comcast would leave well enough alone are in for even more disappointment. The outfit still plans on managing traffic on the 'net (standard practice, we know), but Tony Werner, executive VP and CTO, noted that it was "working hard on a different approach that is protocol-agnostic during peak periods."[Thanks, Mike and Kenneth]
EFF, ALC sue Homeland Security over laptop, gadget searches
The EFF sure has set it sights high with its latest lawsuit, with it now teaming up with the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) to sue the Department of Homeland Security over laptop and gadget searches and other alleged infringements of civil liberties at U.S. borders. Specifically, the two groups are asking for the DHS to disclose its policies on questioning travelers on First Amendment-protected activities, including the photocopying of individuals' papers, and the searching of laptops and other electronic devices. According to the EFF, that rather drastic move was prompted by the DHS's failure to meet a 20-day time limit Congress had set for responding to public information requests. Needless to say, the DHS itself doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say on the matter at the moment, and we're guessing that situation won't be changing anytime soon.[Via The Register, image courtesy of WhiteHouse.gov]
EFF claims that Comcast is still meddling with data
According to a report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Comcast has yet to relinquish its data discriminating habits, and users attempting to share content via P2P could still face slowdowns and unexpected delays. Of course, Comcast's Charlie Douglas proclaimed that the firm "does not, has not, and will not block any web site or online application, including peer-to-peer services," but followed up by stating that it did engage in "reasonable network management to serve all of its customers with a good internet experience." The EFF, however, saw things differently. During its own tests, it was reportedly able to confirm conclusions drawn earlier this year by the AP, and it also exclaimed that Comcast was "essentially deploying against its own customers techniques more typically used by malicious hackers." Pretty strong words, to say the least, but we're curious to know if the continued Comcast bashing is indeed legitimate. So, dear readers / Comcast users, are you still (or have you ever, for that matter) experiencing sketchy P2P performance, or is this all just one overblown mess?
Song Sender sends iPhone tunes to email and ringtones
%Gallery-6205% Song Sender allows you to pick a song from your iPhone's song library and send it to a friend via email. If you'd like to use a song from your library as a ringtone, you can do that too. Install the package into your iPhone using your favorite installer application. When run, the software reads through your library, creating a scrolling list of your songs. Tap any song and you'll be prompted with three choices: play it, send it by email, or add it to your ringtones. It practically reaches Zune-levels of squirting functionality! Small print: Fair use only. This software is not intended for pirating purposes. Use your powers for good, not evil. Do not take internally. Software is not a substitute for advice provided by a doctor, lawyer, or the EFF. In case of rash, itching, or swelling seek medical attention immediately. This software was brought to you by the letters E. r. i. c. and a. Do not use SendSong to install iTMS-purchased tracks as ringtones.Update: Version that does not rely on whether you've installed /bin/cp is found here.
