lördag 27 augusti 2011
Exclusive: First Pictures of the HTC Vigor
Hello, HTC Vigor. �You have eluded us for the most part up until now, but we are excited to finally get a clean look at you. �With your red accents, big beautiful screen, and black rubbery Incredible-esque contoured back, we would gladly accept you into our everyday lives. Rumored to be Verizon’s next big 4G [...]
German court upholds injunction against Samsung tablets
Samsung just got some more bad news. A German court has upheld an earlier preliminary injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Now Germany joins most of the rest of the EU on the list of countries that ban Samsung from selling its tablet. The injunction came as a result of Apple's legal moves to stop sales of the device, citing its similarities with the iPad.
This isn't the worst news of the month for Samsung, however. Last week a Dutch court ordered EU-wide preliminary injunctions against all Samsung Galaxy smartphones. That ban goes into effect on October 13, 2011 and will arguably hurt much more than the Galaxy Tab ban. After all, smartphones are a much larger piece of Samsung's revenue than the Tab.
A final ruling on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction will happen on September 9th.German court upholds injunction against Samsung tablets originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments
This isn't the worst news of the month for Samsung, however. Last week a Dutch court ordered EU-wide preliminary injunctions against all Samsung Galaxy smartphones. That ban goes into effect on October 13, 2011 and will arguably hurt much more than the Galaxy Tab ban. After all, smartphones are a much larger piece of Samsung's revenue than the Tab.
A final ruling on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction will happen on September 9th.German court upholds injunction against Samsung tablets originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments
U.S. Samsung Galaxy S II Variants Unveiled, No Verizon Version as Expected [from AL]
Not to pour salt over our Galaxy S II wounds after yesterday’s news that Verizon would not be included in the party, but we did want to point out that images of the three variants for AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint have been unveiled. �So if you were holding out hope that the Wall Street Journal [...]
Pandora's losses highlight DMCA's effect on Internet radio
Pandora, the popular Internet radio service, continues to grow at an amazing pace, so why is it they can't seem to turn a profit?
The answer lies in a fateful ruling from the Copyright Royalty Board. The CRB's existence is the result of a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) provision mandating arbitration to determine fair Internet radio royalties in the event rights holders and webcasters couldn't reach their own agreement.
In theory this guaranteed that Internet radio providers would be on equal footing with the much larger music labels in royalgy negotiations. In practice it didn't work out that way.
In 2006 SoundExchange, a royalty collection agency created by the RIAA, entered into arbitration with a variety of webcasters entered into arbitration. The Copyright Royalty Board was created, under a 2004 law, to act as arbitrators, fulfilling the DMCA mandate.
The key point to understand is exactly what that mandate is:
In establishing rates and terms for transmissions by eligible nonsubscription services and new subscription services, the copyright arbitration royalty panel shall establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller
The problem with this wording lies in the definition of "a willing buyer and a willing seller." According to CRB judges, that means both sides must be assumed to have equal market power.
Obviously we know that assumption to be false. Even a relatively large operation like Pandora wouldn't be able to survive the loss of major label content for long, while the labels themselves would be relatively unaffected in the short term by the loss of Pandora's business.
The long term effects for the labels would certainly be dramatic, but that doesn't negate their current market power.
Thanks to the resulting CRB decision, setting royalty rates so high no webcaster could possibly afford them, the labels' superior negotiating position is even greater now than before.
Most webcasters including, eventually, Pandora were forced to negotiate lower rates with SoundExchange. Of course, by that time SoundExchange was holding all the cards.
The only alternative to whatever SoundExchange offered was the higher rates mandated by the CRB ruling. It was a choice between a long drawn out death or immediate execution.
Late last year the CRB set new webcaster royalty rates which more or less conform to the same standard as their 2007 ruling. This time around they didn't need to consider a hypothetical market, as they did the first time around.
Instead, they ruled primarily based on the rates webcasters were forced to accept following the original CRB decision.
Of course Pandora, and all the webcasters who struck long term deals with SoundExchange previously, are stuck with those royalty arrangements regardless. CRB rulings only apply to webcasters who haven't reached an agreement with SoundExchange.
Pandora had it's IPO earlier this year. Initially the stock seemed to be in trouble due to concerns about profitability
Despite reporting nothing but losses since going public, optimistic statements about the future have resulted in the stock price actually increasing.
But eventually they will have to turn a profit. It remains to be seen whether that will ever be possible without drastic reform to the royalty calculation process.
Given their current influence in Washington, as evidenced by the recent actions of Immigrations & Customs Enforcement and ongoing legislative efforts on their behalf, don't expect that to happen any time soon.Permalink | Comments
The answer lies in a fateful ruling from the Copyright Royalty Board. The CRB's existence is the result of a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) provision mandating arbitration to determine fair Internet radio royalties in the event rights holders and webcasters couldn't reach their own agreement.
In theory this guaranteed that Internet radio providers would be on equal footing with the much larger music labels in royalgy negotiations. In practice it didn't work out that way.
In 2006 SoundExchange, a royalty collection agency created by the RIAA, entered into arbitration with a variety of webcasters entered into arbitration. The Copyright Royalty Board was created, under a 2004 law, to act as arbitrators, fulfilling the DMCA mandate.
The key point to understand is exactly what that mandate is:
In establishing rates and terms for transmissions by eligible nonsubscription services and new subscription services, the copyright arbitration royalty panel shall establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller
The problem with this wording lies in the definition of "a willing buyer and a willing seller." According to CRB judges, that means both sides must be assumed to have equal market power.
Obviously we know that assumption to be false. Even a relatively large operation like Pandora wouldn't be able to survive the loss of major label content for long, while the labels themselves would be relatively unaffected in the short term by the loss of Pandora's business.
The long term effects for the labels would certainly be dramatic, but that doesn't negate their current market power.
Thanks to the resulting CRB decision, setting royalty rates so high no webcaster could possibly afford them, the labels' superior negotiating position is even greater now than before.
Most webcasters including, eventually, Pandora were forced to negotiate lower rates with SoundExchange. Of course, by that time SoundExchange was holding all the cards.
The only alternative to whatever SoundExchange offered was the higher rates mandated by the CRB ruling. It was a choice between a long drawn out death or immediate execution.
Late last year the CRB set new webcaster royalty rates which more or less conform to the same standard as their 2007 ruling. This time around they didn't need to consider a hypothetical market, as they did the first time around.
Instead, they ruled primarily based on the rates webcasters were forced to accept following the original CRB decision.
Of course Pandora, and all the webcasters who struck long term deals with SoundExchange previously, are stuck with those royalty arrangements regardless. CRB rulings only apply to webcasters who haven't reached an agreement with SoundExchange.
Pandora had it's IPO earlier this year. Initially the stock seemed to be in trouble due to concerns about profitability
Despite reporting nothing but losses since going public, optimistic statements about the future have resulted in the stock price actually increasing.
But eventually they will have to turn a profit. It remains to be seen whether that will ever be possible without drastic reform to the royalty calculation process.
Given their current influence in Washington, as evidenced by the recent actions of Immigrations & Customs Enforcement and ongoing legislative efforts on their behalf, don't expect that to happen any time soon.Permalink | Comments
fredag 26 augusti 2011
Traktor Kontrol S2 digital DJ system shaves a few inches and bones off its big brother
Look, last year's Traktor Kontrol S4 was pretty damn awesome but, at $1,000 and about the size of your average Williamsburg DJ, it wasn't exactly for everyone. That's where the S2 comes in. Instead of four channels, it's a "2+1" setup that supplements the two standard audio ones with a dedicated sample channel. You still get the same high-resolution jog wheels and integrated 24bit / 96kHz sound card, but Native Instruments managed to shave a few inches, pounds and bucks off its predecessor. At $669 it's much more affordable -- still not exactly an impulse purchase, but within the range of most serious hobbyists. Check out the gallery bellow as well as the video and the PR after the break.
Gallery: Traktor Kontrol S2Continue reading Traktor Kontrol S2 digital DJ system shaves a few inches and bones off its big brotherTraktor Kontrol S2 digital DJ system shaves a few inches and bones off its big brother originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:16:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink | | Email this | Comments
Gallery: Traktor Kontrol S2Continue reading Traktor Kontrol S2 digital DJ system shaves a few inches and bones off its big brotherTraktor Kontrol S2 digital DJ system shaves a few inches and bones off its big brother originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:16:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink | | Email this | Comments
Olympus PEN E-PM1 launches for under $500
The last time I talked about the Olympus PEN E-PM1 digital camera was back in late June when photos of the camera leaked. At the time, we didn?t know when the camera would land or what it would sell for. The wondering is now over with the camera officially debuting this week. The E-PM1 digital [...]
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)