Infinity Ward, the developer behind the blockbuster Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has said today that sales of the Stimulus Package DLC have jumped to 2.5 million in its first week of availability.

The DLC costs $15 USD and adds three multiplayer maps alongside updating two of the original maps.

The developer also notes that the DLC was downloaded 1 million times in its first 24 hours of availability.

Activision, the publisher behind the game, also added that the sales were a record for the Xbox 360.

Permalink | Comments

---

Microsoft has announced it will be launching Silverlight 4 next week, just a month after releasing the Release Candidate at the MIX10 event.

Silverlight is a web application framework that brings together multimedia, graphics, animations and interactivity into one runtime environment.

Says a spokesman: "April 13 is the launch, but we haven't announced a specific date for the release. Silverlight 4 will be available later this month.")

Here is a list of the updated features for the new software: http://timheuer.com/blog/archive/2010/03/15/whats-new-in-silverlight-4-rc-mix10.aspx

Permalink | Comments

---

The American Society of Media Photographers, the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, and the Professional Photographers of America have all joined together to sue Google over copyright infringement, claiming that the search giant has scanned millions of books and magazines that include copyrighted images, then displaying those images without consent.

The suit was filed in the same court where Google's long standing Book Search settlement is being considered. In that case, Google agreed to pay a $125 million settlement to compensate the rights holders.

Adds ASMP General Counsel Victor Perlman: "We are seeking justice and fair compensation for visual artists whose work appears in the twelve million books and other publications Google has illegally scanned to date. In doing so, we are giving voice to thousands of disenfranchised creators of visual artworks whose rights we hope to enforce through this class action."

Google responded, via eweek: "We are confident that Google Books is fully compliant with U.S. and international copyright law."

Permalink | Comments

---

iSuppli has done a full component teardown of the Apple iPad, and the cost of the hardware for the cheapest model comes out to about $260 USD. It is also important to note, however, that the teardown is only for the hardware, and does not include R&D or shipping.

The cheapest iPad, which includes 16GB of flash memory sells for $499.

The 32 GB version, with a $599 price tag, has $289.10 worth of hardware. The top of the line 64GB version, which sells for $699, has $348.10 worth of hardware.

The most expensive components are, as expected, the touchscreen and the processor. The multitouch display adds $95 USD to costs and the Samsung processor is $26.80. Flash memory depends on the capacity: $29.50 for the 16GB memory, $59 for the 32GB, and $118 for the 64GB.

The aluminum back casing adds $10.50. There are more components of course, but they cost under $10 a piece.

Permalink | Comments

---

According to the latest Experian Hitwise figures, two of the major search engines lost market share in March to Ask.com, which increased for the fourth consecutive month, and Yahoo.

Google fell marginally to 69.97 percent, Yahoo increased their share 3 percent to 15.04 percent and Bing fell for the third straight month, falling 1 percent to 9.62 percent.

Ask was the big winner, increasing 21 percent month-on-month to 3.44 percent.

Experian says 69 other search engines account for the remaining 1.93 percent.

Permalink | Comments

---

Techcrunch has a very interesting article today that speaks about "new DRM," the embedding of personal info into tracks purchased from major retailers such Apple and Wal-Mart.

Here is their post from an anonymous music industry 'insider':

Hidden in purchased music files from popular stores such as Apple and Walmart is information to identify the buyer and/or the transaction. You won't find it disclosed in their published terms of use. It's nowhere in their support documentation. There's no mention in the digital receipt. Consumers are largely oblivious to this, but it could have future ramifications as the music industry takes another stab at locking down music files.

Here's how it works. During the buying process a username and transaction ID are known by the online retailers. Before making the song available for download their software embeds into the file either an account name or a transaction number or both. Once downloaded, the file has squirreled away this personal information in a manner where you can't easily see it, but if someone knows where to look they can. This information doesn't affect the audio fidelity, but it does permanently attach to the file data which can be used to trace back to the original purchaser which could be used at a later date.

Retailers aren't talking, but there's ample proof of what's transpiring. Using simple file comparison tools it's possible to verify this behavior by purchasing identical songs using different accounts and see if they match. I emailed support departments for several retailers asking if they would acknowledge these actions and inquiring about what specific information they are embedding. Only 7digital responded saying they don't use any watermarks. What retailers won't say publicly is that the major record labels are requiring this behavior as a precondition to sell their music.

Certain record labels have aspirations to use this hidden data to control future access to music in a return to DRM (digital rights management). The labels yearn to control where you can listen to your music and this could be a backdoor for them to achieve it. When personal libraries are stored in the cloud, it becomes possible to retrieve this personal data and match it to a user identity. If the match is successful the song plays, but if not, access can be blocked through a network DRM system such as the one Lala patented (which is now owned by Apple).

For the scheme to work record labels need all retailers to support this and so far some notable names are resisting. Napster, Amazon and UK based 7digital are selling clean MP3 files. Files purchased from these stores do not have any user information whatsoever embedded into them. Other retailers such as Apple and Walmart have succumbed to label pressure to embed personal info.

Retailers and record labels should have the right to sell dirty files if they wish, however they should be obligated to disclose their practices in advance. Consumers should have this information so they can make an informed buying decision about whether to support dirty or clean MP3 vendors. If Barnes and Noble printed your name on pages of books you purchase that would be important information to know because it would affect the value of your book. Here the clandestine actions are even more worrisome because it could lead to a future lockdown of purchases. If the labels have plans to require cloud vendors to use this information in the future, they should disclose that as well.

For those of you who want to be able to compare "clean" versus "dirty" e-tailers, check this site: http://mp3storeguide.com/

Permalink | Comments

---

Engadget is reporting today that the top selling e-reader, the Amazon Kindle, may be reaching Target retail shelves as soon as April 25th, marking the first time the device will be available outside of Amazon.

The move would make sense given the new launch of the Apple iPad, which is available in brick-and-mortar Apple and Best Buy locations and had extremely strong sales opening weekend. Additionally, the popular Nook is available in Barnes & Nobles retail stores.

Amazon and Target have been partners for almost a decade, with Amazon running Target's e-commerce website.

So far, both Amazon and Target have said they "do not comment on rumor or speculation."

Permalink | Comments

---

The US Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia has ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to enforce network neutrality rules for broadband internet providers.

The ruling came in Comcast's appeal of the that agency's 2008 ruling on the cable giant's practice of throttling P2P traffic.

Although the court's decision means the FCC doesn't have the authority to punish Comcast for their "network management" practices, their legal problems aren't over yet. In fact it clears the way for lawsuits pending in federal court which have been held up by the question of FCC jurisdiction.

There's also the potential for action by the Federal Trade Commission over alleged false advertising of their service.

What makes things more complicated is that the FCC may still be able to establish jurisdiction over net neutrality by revisiting a 2002 ruling on the nature of internet service. At that time it was determined that broadband internet was merely an information service, and therefore not subject to the same level of regulation as common carrier service like traditional phone lines.

Common carriers are already required to be neutral with respect to content and use of their services. For example, a traditional phone company can't prioritize incoming calls from one provider over another.

But such a ruling would certainly spark a new round of lawsuits, and not just from Comcast. You can be sure that broadband internet providers around the country are opposed to this level of FCC regulation and they actually have some valid points.

Simply put, the issues involved in net neutrality are much more complex than with simple telephone service. They are also much more politically charged.

The FCC Chairman is appointed by the president, and is generally expected to set policy based on the views of the current administration. This often leads to extreme shifts in regulation based on the bias of the sitting President.

The Chairman's own bias can also be problematic. In 2003, under Michael Powell's chairmanship, the FCC took it upon themselves to give broadcasters control over copying of TV programming through the use of the so-called broadcast flag.

Although it was later shot down by the same federal court involved in the net neutrality ruling, and for basically the same reason, it shows what can happen when the FCC oversteps their authority.

There's also some question whether the FCC would have taken action against an internet service provider over P2P throttling had it not been a cable company. The bias against the cable industry by then chairman Kevin Martin has been well documented.

And you don't have to look any further than last year's DTV transition to see the pitfalls of putting public policy in the hands of the FCC without significant oversight.

The FCC was charged with ensuring the smooth transition from analog to digital broadcasting, and essentially given carte blanche authority to handle it as they saw fit. Warnings from the Government Accountability Office, broadcasters, electronics retailers and engineers were all ignored by Chairman Martin, who insisted that everything was fine.

Conveniently, thanks to the transition being scheduled shortly after a new President took office it was already a foregone conclusion he would be gone before it actually happened.

Equally convenient was the silence of other FCC commissioners, who suddenly began criticizing Martin's handling of things with the transition just weeks away. When the date was pushed back due to a lack of consumer preparation they were quick to make him the scapegoat.

Net neutrality is an important issue, and something that merits serious debate and potentially regulation. Do you really want it left to the whims of the FCC?

Permalink | Comments

---