Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.
That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.
Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.
Last week two Twitter accounts, Deadspin and SBNationGif, were taken down after the NFL reported them for sharing its footage.
The footage was, of course, in the form of Vine video, that most popular format for 'real-time' sports clips.
With many sports fans now accustomed to searching Twitter for 'Vine Rooney goal' or similar (insert joke here, UK soccer fans), these DMCA takedown notices are a big deal.
At a conference earlier this year, Hollywood big wig Ari Emanuel suggested that Google could do more to thwart digital piracy by helping to ensure that pirated content doesn't find its way into the world's largest and most popular search engine.
At the time, a Google executive called Emanuel's suggestion "very misinformed" and noted that identifying who owns content is not always an easy task.
But apparently behind the scenes, Google was far more amenable to the concept than it indicated publicly. In a post on Google's Inside Search blog on Friday, Google SVP Amit Singhal announced that the company has launched a new update that may ensure Google's top executives get invites to all of Hollywood's red carpet events.
There's arguably never been a better time for technology companies and developers. The proliferation of billions of connected devices, coupled with the explosion of new platforms and services, has created countless business opportunities, many still yet to be exploited.
But thanks to increasingly complex litigation around intellectual property, namely patents, the technology industry has also arguably never had to deal with so many headaches.
Google executives are probably breathing a sigh of relief today after a jury ruled that the search giant did not infringe upon Oracle's patents in the high-profile intellectual property battle being waged between two of the world's largest and richest technology companies.
The jury was tasked with determining whether Google was guilty of patent infringment on eight separate claims involving Android.
As Google and Oracle duke it out in court over claims that the search giant violated copyrights and patents now owned by Oracle in developing Android, it appears that the battle may have wide-ranging ramifications.
Yesterday, a jury decided that Google violated Oracle copyrights related to the organization and structure of Oracle's Java APIs, but was unable to decide whether Google had a valid fair use claim.
Publishing platform Tumblr's twenty-something CEO is fast learning that running a fast-growing company can be a tough job.
Last month, after telling AdAge that an advertising business model would be a "a complete last resort", David Karp, perhaps pressured by investors, announced that his company would begin selling ads.
As everyone goes Pinterest crazy, more and more stats are emerging about its potential for online retailers and marketers.
The problem is that "sharing whatever you like" and copyright infringement are, well, sort of the same thing. Especially as Pinterest encourages people to use "nice big versions" of what they find, and to "share from more than one source".
I've already started a pin board to track the legal issues ahead for Pinterest. But thanks to the terms, using Pinterest could end-up landing me in court for doing so. And that has a few smart users backing off from this hot new social network.
If you were to download a copy of a copyrighted book through BitTorrent, you might be accused of stealing. And as piracy becomes a larger problem for publishers, you might even find yourself in court facing a lawsuit.
But there's good news: if you're the government, you don't have anything to worry about.
The complicated battle between the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) and Meltwater/the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) finally came to a head yesterday afternoon.
With both sides claiming victory, the Copyright Tribunal has cut the NLA’s proposed online licensing fees and agreed that the suggestions were "not reasonable and required amendment".
Over the past month, battle lines have been drawn over a proposed new law in the US called the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
If passed, it will strengthen the American Justice Department’s power to go after websites that host disputed copyright material and could make sites such as YouTube, Tumblr, and Reddit liable for violations.
Last month we were contacted by the Newspaper Licensing Agency, which is owned by the UK’s national newspapers. It wanted to sell us a ‘newspaper copyright licence’. The licence would ensure that we become “copyright protected”.
Apparently we need a licence if we share press cuttings internally. It also applies to links shared that include “text extracts to explain what the link is”.
A licence is also required for photocopying newspaper content, scanning and email cuttings, printing from a newspaper’s website, cutting and emailing text from a newspaper website, and putting any cuttings on our website.
Much of this doesn’t apply to our organisation, but we want to make sure that we’re operating in an ethical manner and are keen to abide by the rules.
The issue is that the rules are:
b) self-defeating, and...
c) being set by people who aren’t really in any position to set them.
Let me explain.