Boston Dynamics is officially part of Hyundai Motor Group

Car manufacturing expertise could supercharge Boston Dynamics’ commercial hopes.

Hyundai Motor Group said Tuesday that it has officially completed its acquisition of robotics company Boston Dynamics. The deal was announced in December and valued Boston Dynamics at $1.1 billion. The purchase sees Hyundai pick up an 80 percent controlling stake in the company, with the previous owner, Softbank, retaining 20 percent ownership.

The deal will hopefully create a stable home for Boston Dynamics, which has continued to pump out the world's most impressive robots despite continual ownership changes. The company was spun off from MIT in 1992 and survived for most of its life on DARPA research grants. Google acquired the independent Boston Dynamics in 2013 as part of a brief interest in robotics led by Android co-founder Andy Rubin. Google freed the company from surviving on military contracts, but when Rubin left Google a year later, the executive interest in robotics left with him.

Google sold Boston Dynamics to the Japanese holding company Softbank in 2017 for a reported $165 million, a shockingly low price. By December 2020, Softbank found itself in dire financial straits after some of its other investments went south (Uber, WeWork, OneWeb) and started selling off crown jewels like Arm. Hyundai wanted to invest in more "mobility solutions," and Softbank was able to flip Boston Dynamics for a tidy profit.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Daily Deals (Prime Day and beyond)

Amazon Prime Day ends tonight, and some of the deals listed in our day 1 roundup are no longer available. But you can still score some deep discounts on tablets, smart speakers, wireless networking gear and much, much more today. Just keep in mind tha…

Amazon Prime Day ends tonight, and some of the deals listed in our day 1 roundup are no longer available. But you can still score some deep discounts on tablets, smart speakers, wireless networking gear and much, much more today. Just keep in mind that you need an Amazon Prime membership to quality for many […]

The post Daily Deals (Prime Day and beyond) appeared first on Liliputing.

EU antitrust regulators launch probe into Google’s FLoC plan

EC says Google hiding user data from advertisers may violate competition rules.

Close-up shot of the Chrome web browser's logo on an Android screen.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | NurPhoto )

The European Commission today said it has begun investigating Google for "possible anticompetitive conduct" in the market for online advertising technology.

The EC announcement said the formal antitrust investigation will "assess whether Google has violated EU competition rules by favoring its own online display advertising technology services in the so-called 'ad tech' supply chain, to the detriment of competing providers of advertising technology services, advertisers and online publishers." The EC said it will "examine whether Google is distorting competition by restricting access by third parties to user data for advertising purposes on websites and apps, while reserving such data for its own use."

Chrome and Android figure into the investigation. The EC said it will investigate "Google's announced plans to prohibit the placement of third-party 'cookies' on Chrome and replace them with the 'Privacy Sandbox' set of tools, including the effects on online display advertising and online display advertising intermediation markets." Google's Privacy Sandbox is also called FLoC, for Federated Learning of Cohorts.

Read 12 remaining paragraphs | Comments

EU Court: YouTube and Uploaded Are, In Principle, Not Liable For Pirating Users

The Court of Justice of the European Union has handed down a long-awaited copyright ruling that clarifies if and when online services such as YouTube and Uploaded are liable for pirating users. The Court finds that, in principle, these services are not liable under EU law. However, that changes when the services are aware of specific infringements.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

EU CopyrightWeek in and week out, YouTube’s users upload millions of hours of videos. As with any user-generated content site, this also includes copyright-infringing content.

The file-hosting platform Uploaded faces similar issues. While it can be used to share legal files, some people choose to use it to share pirated content.

This is a thorn in the side of several rightsholders, who argue that YouTube and Uploaded are liable for the infringing activities of their users. In Germany, this resulted in two lawsuits that remain unresolved but had a breakthrough today.

The first case was brought by music producer Frank Peterson, who sued YouTube and Google for making his music available without permission. In the second case, publisher Elsevier filed a complaint against Uploaded’s parent company Cyando, accusing it of distributing pirated books.

Top EU Court Weighs in on Platform Liability

The German courts referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), requesting guidance. In particular, they asked if, and under what conditions, online services make a ‘communication to the public’ when it comes to pirated files and videos.

There is no question that the uploaders of these files ‘communicate’ to the public. But the copyright holders would like to extend this to YouTube and Uploaded, so these companies can be held liable as well.

After reviewing the questions from the German court, as well as the advice from an Advocate General, the CJEU ruled that, in principle, online services are not directly liable for pirating users.

“As currently stands, operators of online platforms do not, in principle, themselves make a communication to the public of copyright-protected content illegally posted online by users of those platforms,” the Court writes in a press release.

Communication to the Public

This is good news for YouTube and Uploaded, but the Court also clarified that there are situations where user uploads can be seen as a communication to the public. For example, when a service contributes to infringing activity by doing more than merely making its platform available.

“That is the case, inter alia, where that operator has specific knowledge that protected content is available illegally on its platform and refrains from expeditiously deleting it or blocking access to it,” the CJEU writes in its judgment.

There are more situations when a service can be seen as directly communicating pirated content to the public. For example, when a service knows that users upload pirated content, but fails to take “appropriate technological measures” to stop this.

The same applies when a service “provides tools on its platform specifically intended for the illegal sharing of such content or knowingly promotes such sharing”. That’s also the case when the platform has a “financial model that encourages users” to share infringing content.

Liability Exemption

The CJEU further concluded that online services can benefit from a liability exception as long as they have a passive role, and are not aware of any specific infringing activities.

“The Court finds that such an operator can benefit from the exemption from liability provided that it does not play an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of or control over the content uploaded to its platform.”

Injunction

Finally, the CJEU concluded that current EU law doesn’t prevent national courts from denying an injunction against the operator of a service who is not aware of any infringing activity. If a platform is notified of illegal content but refuses to take action, injunctions should be available.

The judgment, which is available in full here, provides more guidance for courts that have to rule on liability issues. However, as the full answers below show, it still leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

cjeu judgment

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

These are the 9 worst states to buy an electric car in

Unsurprisingly, EV accessibility is unevenly distributed across the country.

America is a land of contrasts.

Enlarge / America is a land of contrasts. (credit: stellalevi/Getty Images)

William Gibson's quote about the future being here, just not very evenly distributed, is a cliché at this point. But I was reminded of it this morning when I saw a new report on electric vehicle accessibility. Compiled by the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), the report scores all 50 states based on how hard they make it to buy an EV, whether that's banning direct-to-consumer sales or requiring extra registration fees or road charges. Unsurprisingly, the United States is a bit of a patchwork in this regard. But it's not quite as simple as red states making it hard and blue states making it easy to buy an EV.

The top 10

Ten states score top marks with the CCC: Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. All these states will allow direct sales of cars to individuals, and none will make you pay more to register your new EV than you'd pay for a new car with an internal combustion engine (ICE). (The District of Columbia would also go in this group if DC-based CCC had included it.)

California is conspicuous by its absence in that top 10. The state is the leading market for EVs within the US, with the highest adoption rate and the most public chargers. Nearly half of all US-registered EVs are on its roads. But California also has an escalating EV license fee that's currently $100 but is now linked to the consumer price index.

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Ärger um Drachenschanze: Dorf verhängt Sonderverbote wegen umstrittenem Youtuber

Seit Jahren ist das Dorf Altschauerberg Schauplatz von Provokationen gegen den Youtuber Rainer Winkler. Jetzt sollen neue Gesetze die Ordnung wiederherstellen. (Youtube, Video-Community)

Seit Jahren ist das Dorf Altschauerberg Schauplatz von Provokationen gegen den Youtuber Rainer Winkler. Jetzt sollen neue Gesetze die Ordnung wiederherstellen. (Youtube, Video-Community)