Dangerous Ruling: Judge Lets Microsoft Seize & Redirect No-IP Domains Without Notice

from the breaking-the-internet dept

Microsoft posted a somewhat self-congratulatory blog post yesterday about how it was taking on a "global cybercrime epidemic" and effectively targeting systems used by malware. Of course, part of the details were that Microsoft totally misrepresented the nature of No-IP and how dynamic DNS solutions work. No-IP's parent company, Vitalwerks Solutions, was painted by Microsoft as being something of an accomplice to the malware epidemic, allowing Microsoft to convince a judge to seize a bunch of very popular No-IP domains without any notice or immediate recourse. Microsoft claims that it's just stopping malware, but the collateral damage from grabbing those domains is immense. According to No-IP:

Unfortunately, Microsoft never contacted us or asked us to block any subdomains, even though we have an open line of communication with Microsoft corporate executives.

We have been in contact with Microsoft today. They claim that their intent is to only filter out the known bad hostnames in each seized domain, while continuing to allow the good hostnames to resolve. However, this is not happening. Apparently, the Microsoft infrastructure is not able to handle the billions of queries from our customers. Millions of innocent users are experiencing outages to their services because of Microsoft’s attempt to remediate hostnames associated with a few bad actors.

As No-IP further notes, Microsoft could have easily contacted them, and the company would have taken action:

Had Microsoft contacted us, we could and would have taken immediate action. Microsoft now claims that it just wants to get us to clean up our act, but its draconian actions have affected millions of innocent Internet users.

Vitalwerks and No­-IP have a very strict abuse policy. Our abuse team is constantly working to keep the No-­IP system domains free of spam and malicious activity. We use sophisticated filters and we scan our network daily for signs of malicious activity. Even with such precautions, our free dynamic DNS service does occasionally fall prey to cyber scammers, spammers, and malware distributors. But this heavy-handed action by Microsoft benefits no one.

Except, instead, it appears that Microsoft went to court (secretly, without telling Vitalwerks/No-IP) and convinced the judge that the company itself was violating the law. And the court bought it:

There is good cause to believe that, unless the Defendant Vitalwerks is restrained and enjoined by Order of this Court, immediate and irreparable harm will result from its ongoing violations the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125) and the common law of negligence. The evidence set forth in Microsoft’s TRO Motion, and the accompanying declarations and exhibits, demonstrate that Microsoft is likely to prevail on its claim that this Defendant has engaged in violations of the foregoing laws through one or more of the following:

a. Leasing to Malware Defendants No-IP sub-domains containing Microsoft’s protected marks; and
b. Negligently enabling Malware Defendants to participate in illegal acts, and failing to take sufficiently corrective action to stop and prevent the abuse of its services, all of which harms Microsoft, Microsoft’s customers, and the general public.

Given the nature of the ex-parte (without Vitalwerks being able to present its side of the story) proceedings, Microsoft was able to paint the fact that a platform provider (which has a full anti-abuse program), was somehow liable for actions of its users. This flies in the face of a variety of laws and caselaw on secondary liability, which protect the service provider from being held liable for abusive behavior by its users. Yet here, not only did the court ignore all of that, it simply flat out handed over to Microsoft a whole bunch of No-IP's domains (which, clearly, Microsoft was unable to handle), bringing down a big chunk of the web that relied on No-IP's dynamic DNS services.

This seems like a tremendously dangerous move for the internet in a variety of ways. Microsoft needs to take some of the blame. Even if its goal was to stop malware proliferation, there are better ways to do that than to falsely blame No-IP, and to misleadingly represent the service to the court, allowing the domains to be seized and rerouted.

Filed Under: cybercrime, cybersecurity, domain seizure, dynamic dns, ex parte, takedown
Companies: microsoft, no-ip, vitalwerks

Chinese Government Publishes Secret List Of Microsoft's Anti-Android Patents

from the not-so-secret-anymore dept

A few years back, Microsoft trumpeted a series of high-profile licensing deals with manufacturers of smartphones and tablets whose Android-based products, it claimed, were infringing on its patents. As we pointed out, the deals proved nothing about the validity of that claim -- just that Microsoft and the companies concerned had come to some mutually-acceptable arrangement, of which nearly all details were kept secret. In particular, Microsoft refused to reveal which of its many patents it claimed were infringed upon by Android. This allowed it to point to the licensing deals as "proof" that Android was infringing without ever actually needing to demonstrate that in the courts. It could then go to other manufacturers and encourage them to sign up too, which of course strengthened its story yet further for the round of negotiations after that.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, China has just put a stop to that clever, self-sustaining approach by revealing the patents involved. Microsoft was required to list them as part of the approvals process by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) for the US company's acquisition of Nokia. As Ars Technica explains:

A list of hundreds of patents that Microsoft believes entitle it to royalties over Android phones, and perhaps smartphones in general, has been published on a Chinese language website.

The patents Microsoft plans to wield against Android describe a range of technologies. They include lots of technologies developed at Microsoft, as well as patents that Microsoft acquired by participating in the Rockstar Consortium, which spent $4.5 billion on patents that were auctioned off after the Nortel bankruptcy.

More specifically:

The Chinese agency published two lists on a Chinese-language webpage where it laid out conditions related to the approved merger. The webpage has an English version, but it doesn't include the patent lists. There's a longer list [MS Word Doc] of 310 patents and patent applications and then a shorter list [MS Word Doc] of just over 100 patents and applications that MOFCOM focused on.

Doubtless lawyers at many companies with products using Android are busy poring over those lists, which include US patent numbers as well as titles in English. At the very least, the release of these lists will make Microsoft's attempts to sign up new licensees much harder, since now companies will know exactly what Microsoft is claiming in this regard before they enter into any negotiations. Moreover, it's good news for the open source community, which is able to examine what claims Microsoft might be making about the free software elements of Android, allowing those to be challenged with prior art, say, or coded around.

But there's another important aspect here. Microsoft had managed to keep the lid on its secret anti-Android list of patents for many years. What changed things was the emergence of China as a sufficiently important market that the US company felt obliged to accede to the Chinese government's demands for a full list of the patents involved. The publication of the patent lists on the MOFCOM Web site is an indication that China will play by its own rules here, even -- or perhaps especially -- when it is dealing with what was once the world's most powerful computing company.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: android, china, patents
Companies: microsoft, nokia

Oops: Xbox Advertisement Results In Aaron Paul Turning On Your Console

from the reaching-through-the-screen dept

We talk a lot about what advertisements in our age are supposed to be and do, as well as what they aren't supposed to be or do. Ads should be content, fun and engaging content wherever possible. The less annoying an advertisement can be, the better, and attempts to pretend advertising isn't advertising should cease immediately. And, perhaps most importantly, a good advertisment connects with its audience. Or, perhaps I should say kinects with its audience. Check out this Xbox One ad, starring Aaron Paul from The Need For A Paycheck Speed.

Sort of your everyday, run of the mill console ad, right? Well, there's a problem that apparently whoever made this ad didn't forsee. Remember at the beginning of the ad, when Aaron Paul says, "Xbox on!" to turn on his console with the voice activated commands? Yeah, you already know where this is going...

Recently, a thread popped up on popular game forum NeoGAF with member MrPressStart saying, "What the fuck.... Sitting here watching tv and the xbox commercial starring Aaron Paul came on. Next thing I know I am reaching for the controller to turn it off."

Yeah, see, when we want ads to engage the viewer, we didn't mean to suggest that the ad should have an impact on their electricity bills. To be honest, most folks aren't super upset about this. In fact, many people out there find this every bit as hysterical as I do.

Over on Reddit (via BBC), numerous Redditors apparently experienced the same thing. "Haha, this just turned my Xbone on," wrote larae_is_bored. "Awesome!" Redditor brownbear1992, "Aaron Paul just started my xbox. Guess I better play it now it's on." Another Reddit user, The_Iceman2288, added, "Him saying 'Xbox on' turned on my Xbox. Dammit Jesse!"

The general amusement or apathy over this aside, this does indicate how both device-makers and advertisers are going to have to account for voice activated everything moving forward. An Xbox flipping on while you're sitting in front of the TV is one thing, but the whole voice activated thing is only going to expand, and voice activation may become something which must be accounted for in the future. Advertisers may have to worry about what they're going to turn on and product-makers had damned well better be looking into how to protect voice-activated devices from this kind of inadvertent activation. But for now, just enjoy the thought of Jesse Pinkman turning on people's Xbox Ones.

Filed Under: aaron paul, advertisement, voice recognition, xbox one
Companies: microsoft

Mike Rogers Says Google Is Unpatriotic For Not Wanting NSA To Spy On Its Users

from the because-mike-rogers-is-a-hypocrite dept

This past Wednesday, the CIA held its first ever Conference on National Security at Georgetown University. It included plenty of the usual talking heads spouting nonsense, but I wanted to focus in on one particular talking head spouting particularly ridiculous nonsense. It's our old friend, Rep. Mike Rogers, who is retiring from Congress to try to become an even bigger blowhard on talk radio (as if that's possible). Apparently, Rogers is using this conference to practice the classical blowhard strategy of making a variety of absolutely ridiculous claims that directly contradict each other.

So, for example, he kicked it off by attacking Silicon Valley tech companies for fighting back against NSA surveillance, and for arguing (accurately) that the NSA's efforts have created a major business problem for them around the globe, as people outside the US no longer trust them. In Rogers' mind, that means these companies are putting "European profits above national security." This isn't even close to true, but that's what Rogers is claiming (at about 2 hours 10 minutes into the video, which is also embedded below):

While I'm on my soapbox, we should be really mad at Google and Facebook and Microsoft, because they're doing a very interesting, and I think, very dangerous thing. They've decided to come out and say "we oppose this new FISA bill, because it doesn't go far enough." And when you peel that onion back a bit and say "Why are you doing this? This is a good bill, it's safe, it's bi-partisan, it's rational. It meets all the requirements for 4th Amendment protections and privacy protection and allowing the system to work."

And they say, "Well, we have to do this because we're trying to make sure we don't lose our European business." I don't know about the rest of you but that offends me from the words "European business." Think about what they're doing. They're willing to, in their mind, justify the importance of their next quarter's earnings in Europe versus the national security of the United States. Everybody on those boards should be embarrassed and their CEOs should be embarrassed and their stockholders should be embarrassed. That one quarter cannot be worth the national security of the United States for the next ten generations."

This is wrong and ridiculous on so many levels, but let's just jump to the biggest one and then circle back later to the rest. Less than 15 minutes later (at about 2 hours 25 minutes into the video), Rogers was arguing how important the internet is to our economy, and how a cyberattack might destroy it. He's basically discussing his beloved CISPA and its "information sharing" components, which is really a backdoor way to "legalize" companies handing over all their data to the NSA without warrants.

One sixth of our economy now, is through the internet! One sixth! So this notion that we're all going to say "well the government should do nothing and just completely keep away" -- and I'm not for regulation, by the way, that's not what I mean, but I mean in some way to... to help defend these private networks or allow them to defend themselves -- if we don't get it right, one-sixth of our economy is going to go away. Like that (*snaps*). If every time you turn it on, you lose money, how many times are you going to turn it on and use the internet for commerce? You're not!

Right. Did you get that? If the NSA is violating all of your privacy, no big deal, and people will continue to use the internet and contributing to the economy -- and if it hurts the economy, well that's just the price we pay for national security. But, if those evil foreign governments violate your privacy, well, then all of you will stop using the internet and it will destroy our economy.

In short: if NSA hacking into Europeans eats into US companies' profits: that's patriotism. But if Europeans hack into US companies, then everyone will stop using the internet and it will destroy us all.

And then he goes even further:

If one financial institution -- we have one particular financial institution that clears somewhere about $7 trillion in global financial transactions every single day. Imagine if tomorrow that place gets in there, and through an attack of which we know does exist -- the potential does exist -- where the information is destroyed and manipulated. Now you don't know who owes what money. Some of that, they have lost transactions completely, forever. Imagine what that does to the economy? $7 trillion. Gone. Right? Gone! It's that serious!

So, profits of Wall Street banks are patriotic. But profits of Silicon Valley companies... well, they can be sacrificed for national security.

Except, of course, the underlying assumption in all of this -- which has been proven time and time again to be false, is that these efforts actually help with national security. Mike Rogers was one of the leading FUDspreaders, concerning the claim that the section 215 bulk phone records collection helped national security. Except that's been proven to be false time and time again. Both judges and the President's own task force have marvelled at the total lack of evidence that the bulk records provision was necessary.

The complaints from various tech companies (who Rogers himself admits makes up a huge part of our economy) is not about their "next quarter" of European profits, but about the very idea that he and his friends have more or less convinced the rest of the world that American internet companies are not trustworthy. That's not about next quarter's profits, it's about violating the privacy of everyone around the globe -- for no actual benefit.

So, in the end, we see what hypocritical views Rogers has. It's shameful and unpatriotic for Silicon Valley to be concerned about the privacy rights of their users, because that might lead to an attack on national security, and that attack on national security might harm the profits of Silicon Valley and (more importantly) Wall Street, and any attack on profits is unpatriotic (except, apparently, the profits he wanted them to give up first). Confused? Don't be. What Rogers is really saying is he doesn't give a shit, so long as the NSA gets to violate everyone's privacy, and he'll make any ridiculous argument to keep that happening. And, of course, to keep it secret, because if you don't know about it, he still thinks your privacy hasn't been violated.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, cia, cia conference, fisa, fud, mike rogers, national security, nsa, patriotism, privacy, section 215, usa freedom act
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft

Microsoft Challenges Idea That US Government Can Go Fishing For Emails Stored Outside The US

from the going-to-be-an-important-fight dept

Back in April, we wrote about a magistrate judge ruling that Microsoft had to comply with a warrant asking for data that was held on servers in Dublin. Microsoft argued, quite reasonably, that a US warrant doesn't apply outside of the US. Unfortunately, magistrate judge James Francis disagreed, saying that while it's true that traditional warrants only apply inside the US, this is different because it's "digital." He argued that because the issue was about information, rather than physical property, it could be considered more like a subpoena than a warrant. As we noted, Microsoft made it clear that it would challenge this ruling, and now it has done so, arguing that the ruling flies in the face of the law and the Constitution. This summary from Microsoft's filing is pretty clear on what an incredibly big deal this is, with the government basically seeking to get the best of a subpoena and a warrant without any of the protections and limits required of either:

The Magistrate Judge issued a warrant under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") that on its face, purports to authorize the Government to search any and all of Microsoft's facilities worldwide. Microsoft moved to vacate the warrant because the private email communications the Government seeks are located in a Microsoft facility in Dublin, Ireland and because Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach outside U.S. territory. The Government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft's Dublin facility. Likewise, the Government cannot conscript Microsoft to do what it has no authority itself to do -- i.e., execute a warranted search abroad. To end-run these points. the Government argues, and the Magistrate Judge held, that the warrant required by ECPA is not a "warrant" at all. They assert that Congress did not mean "warrant" when using that term, but instead meant some previously unheard of "hybrid" between a warrant and subpoena duces tecum. The Government takes the extraordinary position that by merely serving such a warrant on any U.S.-based email provider, it has the right to obtain the private emails of any subscriber, no matter where in the world the data may be located. and without the knowledge or consent of the subscriber or the relevant foreign government where the data is stored.

This interpretation not only blatantly rewrites the statute, it reads out of the Fourth Amendment the bedrock requirement that the Government must specify the place to be searched with particularity, effectively amending the Constitution for searches of communications held digitally. It would also authorize the Government (including state and local governments) to violate the territorial integrity of sovereign nations and circumvent the commitments made by the United States in mutual legal assistance treaties expressly designed to facilitate cross-border criminal investigations. If this is what Congress intended, it would have made its intent clear in the statute. But the language and the logic of the statute, as well as its legislative history, show that Congress used the word "warrant" in ECPA to mean "warrant," and not some super-powerful "hybrid subpoena." And Congress used the term "warrant" expecting that the Government would be bound by all the inherent limitations of warrants, including the limitation that warrants may not be issued to obtain evidence located in the territory of another sovereign nation.

The Government's interpretation ignores the profound and well established differences between a warrant and a subpoena. A warrant gives the Government the power to seize evidence without notice or affording an opportunity to challenge the seizure in advance. But it requires a specific description (supported by probable cause) of the thing to be seized and the place to be searched and that place must be in the United States. A subpoena duces tecum, on the other hand, does not authorize a search and seizure of the private communications of a third party. Rather. it gives the Government the power to require a person to collect items within her possession, custody, or control, regardless of location, and bring them to court at an appointed time. It also affords the recipient an opportunity to move in advance to quash. Here, the Government wants to exploit the power of a warrant and the sweeping geographic scope of a subpoena, without having to comply with fundamental protections provided by either. There is not a shred of support in the statute or its legislative history for the proposition that Congress intended to allow the Government to mix and match like this. In fact, Congress recognized the basic distinction between a warrant and a subpoena in ECPA when it authorized the Government to obtain certain types of data with a subpoena or a "court order," but required a warrant to obtain a person's most sensitive and constitutionally protected information -- the contents of emails less than 6 months old.

Verizon has stepped in as well, pointing out that if the original ruling is allowed to stand, it could have significant negative impact on the ability of US businesses to get non-US users to trust them -- an increasingly important issue in light of the Snowden revelations.

The magistrate’s ruling, if left standing, could cost U.S. businesses billions of dollars in lost revenue, undermine international agreements and understandings, and prompt foreign governments to retaliate by forcing foreign affiliates of American companies to turn over the content of customer data stored in the United States.

The recent revelations about U.S. intelligence practices have heightened foreign sensitivities about the U.S. government’s access to data abroad, generated distrust of U.S. companies by foreign officials and customers, and led to calls to cease doing business with U.S. communications and cloud service providers. Studies have estimated that this distrust will result in tens of billions of dollars in lost business over the next few years. The magistrate’s ruling, if left standing, will dramatically increase the harm to American businesses. It would mean that foreign customers’ communications and other stored data would be available to hundreds or thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, regardless of the laws of the countries where the data is held. Foreign customers will respond by moving their business to foreign companies without a presence in the United States.

If you hadn't figured it out by now, this case is going to have tremendously important ramifications for privacy around the globe.

Filed Under: doj, ecpa, email, international, james francis, magistrate judge, privacy, sca, subpoena, warrants
Companies: microsoft

One More Benefit From Snowden: Companies No Longer Lulled Into Helping NSA Without Legal Basis

from the sunshine-does-amazing-things dept

One of the earliest Snowden revelations wasn't just that the big telcos were closely cooperating with the NSA, but that they had sometimes proactively volunteered to hand over much more information than the law required. So far, there has not been any evidence that tech/internet companies were quite so cooperative, but it does seem clear that many were, at the very least, incurious concerning what the NSA was up to and somewhat apathetic concerning actual requests that came in from the NSA. While there were a few companies (not many) that appeared to push back in a few circumstances (again, not many), for the most part, when someone from the federal government showed up with requests, companies were pretty quick to comply.

To some extent, you can understand why: not only is it easy to assume that government officials demanding information from you have some sort of serious reason for doing so, all of it happened in secret -- meaning that the "benefits" to pushing back often seemed slight, while the costs could be tremendous.

Ed Snowden changed that cost-benefit equation in a big, big way.

And it's most obvious in this simple way: companies are now proactively doing everything possible to counteract the NSA, realizing that they actually have to think about the impact on their customers when (not if) these programs become public. What used to be a simple relationship, with a lot of help from various companies, has changed to something much more approaching a directly adversarial relationship.

As fast as it can, Google is sealing up cracks in its systems that Edward J. Snowden revealed the N.S.A. had brilliantly exploited. It is encrypting more data as it moves among its servers and helping customers encode their own emails. Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo are taking similar steps.

After years of cooperating with the government, the immediate goal now is to thwart Washington — as well as Beijing and Moscow. The strategy is also intended to preserve business overseas in places like Brazil and Germany that have threatened to entrust data only to local providers.

[....]

A year after Mr. Snowden’s revelations, the era of quiet cooperation is over. Telecommunications companies say they are denying requests to volunteer data not covered by existing law. A.T.&T., Verizon and others say that compared with a year ago, they are far more reluctant to cooperate with the United States government in “gray areas” where there is no explicit requirement for a legal warrant.

There is still a long way to go, but just the fact that companies now have to take into account "how will this look when splashed across the internet" means that they're already going much, much further in protecting the privacy of their users and customers.

Filed Under: companies, ed snowden, nsa, surveillance, voluntary assistance, warrants
Companies: at&t, facebook, google, microsoft, verizon, yahoo

Big Tech Calls On Senate To Stop NSA's Bulk Surveillance Program

from the speak-out dept

In honor of the Reset the Net campaign, and the one-year anniversary of the first Ed Snowden revelation, a bunch of big tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Apple, DropBox, LinkedIn, Yahoo and AOL, have published an open letter to the Senate asking it to pass real surveillance reform, rather than the weak sauce that the House passed in its massively watered-down USA Freedom Act. At the same time, a lobbyist representing a group of big tech companies specifically warned the Senate that the House version was too weak and needed to be much stronger. This is a good first step, but we need to see the pressure on the Senate ramp up even more.

Filed Under: nsa, reset the net, senate, surveillance, usa freedom act
Companies: aol, apple, dropbox, facebook, google, linkedin, microsoft, twitter, yahoo

FBI Drops Another Questionable NSL After Microsoft Challenges It In Court

from the fighting-back dept

Microsoft has announced that its challenge against a National Security Letter (NSL) has finally been unsealed after the FBI dropped the request. If you're not familiar with them, the NSL is a process by which the FBI can basically demand a company hand over just about anything, by claiming its a matter of national security. As we've discussed, National Security Letters -- which come with built in gag orders -- are very rarely challenged. Two years ago, we noted that despite 50,000 NSLs, many of them later determined to be abusive, there had been only four challenges and the FBI simply dropped the requests on two of them.

Since then, it seems clear that there has been an uptick in companies challenging though they're still hidden by the gag orders. Microsoft specifically challenged that gag order, leading the FBI to withdraw its letter. But, that also means that the FBI doesn't get in any trouble at all for abusing the NSL process and fishing for information. Already, one court has found those letters unconstitutional, but that decision has been stayed while it goes through the lengthy appeals process. In the meantime, the FBI gets to keep fishing. It's good to see Microsoft challenging them, but this story could just as easily be "FBI gets away with yet another fishing expedition."

Filed Under: challenge, doj, fbi, national security letter, nsl, nsls
Companies: microsoft

Xbox One Caves Again: Console Will Now Be Offered Sans Kinect

from the customers-rule dept

It's been a relatively tough road for Microsoft's Xbox One, even as it's early in the console's life. You should recall that the console was initially designed to require some degree of online connectivity to work; a plan that was subsequently walked back after consumers revolted. It was the same for proposed limitations on used games, which caused similar outrage. The console was also supposed to not be fully operational without the bundled Kinect engaged, but that plan was also scrapped because customers hated the idea. Left in place were consumers questioning why they had to pay for the Kinect device at all, given the paltry sum of games that actually utilized it.

Well, the trend continues, now that Microsoft has announced in an absolutely tone-deaf blog post that there will now be an Xbox One offering that comes sans Kinect. The post, laughably, is entitled "Delivering More Choices for Fans."

Today, we're excited to share more ways your feedback is impacting the products we build. First, beginning on June 9th, in all markets where Xbox One is sold, we will offer Xbox One starting at $399*. This is a new console option that does not include Kinect. For $399, our new Xbox One offering will continue to deliver access to the best blockbuster games like "Titanfall," "Call of Duty: Ghosts," "Forza Motorsport 5," "Dead Rising 3," and the upcoming "Watch Dogs," "Destiny" and "Sunset Overdrive." You will also be able to access popular entertainment apps, such as Twitch, YouTube, and Netflix, as well as watch live TV and use OneGuide. Finally, you will continue to be able to use many of the unique features of Xbox One including the ability to get game invites while you watch TV, switch between games and entertainment apps, enjoy Twitch broadcasts, and upload your favorite gaming moments. Next, we're bringing more value to Xbox Live Gold members and offering all Xbox 360 and Xbox One owners access to entertainment apps whether or not you have an Xbox Live Gold membership.

Let's deal with these in order. The demand for a console that comes without the bundled Kinect device has been around since, oh I don't know, before the console was even released. To pretend that Microsoft is now benevolently bending to the will of consumers makes it sound like they haven't been aware of the demand until recently. That's not true. They're actually bending to consumer will of another form, the resulting trouncing of their console by Sony's Playstation, which has a better record (for this generation, at least) of actually delivering to consumers what they want. Relatively speaking, they're getting their asses kicked, and now they're scrambling to try to appease potential customers.

As for Microsoft finally releasing their entertainment apps to folks who aren't paying for the Xbox Live Gold membership, this isn't so much Microsoft giving their customers something for free as it is finally not requiring them to pay for the same thing twice. For instance, previously, if you had a Netflix account, you had to pay for that account and an Xbox Live Gold membership in order to use Netflix on your console. That's insane. Correcting insanity isn't something to be lauded.

Filed Under: kinect, listening to consumers, xbox
Companies: microsoft

Over 100 Internet Companies Call On FCC To Protect The Open Internet

from the don't-fail-us-fcc dept

As the net neutrality debate has kicked into overdrive, over 100 internet companies -- including most of the big names such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Netflix, Amazon, Ebay, Reddit, Automattic, Yahoo, Kickstarter, as well as many smaller names, such as us here at Floor64/Techdirt -- have all signed onto a letter to the FCC asking it to actually suck it up and protect the open internet. Consider this a warning shot to the FCC from the internet community. The community knows what's at stake in this fight and it's watching closely what the FCC does. Having helped to get some of the companies to sign on, I can say that many leaders at companies are both very informed on the topic, and very engaged about it. If the FCC thinks it can sneak one by the tech community, that may be more difficult than it expects.

Along those lines, one FCC commissioner, Jessica Rosenworcel, has suggested that the FCC should put the brakes on its net neutrality plans to think things through a bit more carefully -- though apparently FCC boss Tom Wheeler has rejected that idea and plans to move forward with his rule-making proposal next week.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, jessica rosenworcel, net neutrality, open internet, silicon valley, tech industry, tom wheeler
Companies: amazon, automattic, ebay, facebook, floor64, google, kickstarter, microsoft, netflix, reddit, twitter, yahoo