Yes, we've been over the App Store approval thing a hundred times already, but never quite like this.

Apple's got a pretty strong policy when it comes to nudity, right? Right?

So Beauty Meter - an application that allows, hypothetically, a fifteen year old girl to share a nude pic to be rated would be totally out of the question right?

You'd at least expect there to be a nudity warning if you installed an app like this. I mean, it could be a non-nude hot-or-not app, there's certainly a precedent for that. In the case of Beauty Meter, however, you'll just get a warning that it might contain mature content and it's not for use by anyone under the age of 17.

Heck, in some countries 17 isn't even old enough to look at naughty things.

Now, clearly neither Apple nor the devs behind Beauty Meter can totally control who uploads what (the app even says as much when you launch it), but it makes me wonder: if an app like this can be approved, why not Drivetrain?

It's remote control for Transmission. It doesn't actually do any torrent downloading. There's no way anything it does is remotely illegal. It's pretty similar to a single-app MochaVNC, which has been in the store for ages, and I can certainly use to control Transmission from my iPod. But I digress.

Three things for certain: Beauty Meter will soon suffer the same fate as Hottest Girls, the approval process needs an overhaul, and the screenshot at Krapps is going to live in Internet infamy for a long time.

[via Krapps - thanks, @thmonline!]

I find it a little funny that TealPoint, makers of some truly awesome software for Palm's now-decrepit Operating Systems of days gone by, whipped out a launcher called TealOS that pretty much apes the WebOS that will supposedly "save" the bacon of the beleaguered handheld company. You know, Palm, the people who, after Apple dropped the ball, ran the PDA into the end zone back in the 90's?

See, if you out-innovate a company like Palm, you're going to get smacked with a cute "stop it" from someone's legal department. In this case, TealPoint has been told in no uncertain terms to stop distributing copies of TealOS (you can see it in action in the video above -- until Palm lawyers tell YouTube to pull it). Lucky for you lovers of fine software, you can get this rare vintage until Monday, March 30, 2009. My condolences to the families of the engineers who are going to burn some midnight oil "to try to get as many bug fixes and requested improvements in as we can" before Monday.

According to Engadget, a Palm rep had TealOS on a Pre at one point and seemed pretty stoked about it. Chalk that up to ignorant bliss, I suppose, as someone at Palm wasn't quite cool enough to grok how awesome this tool is -- especially if you are NOT rocking a Pre. Yeah, the Pre, the phone we don't know exactly when it will appear or what it will cost (but we do know it'll be a Sprint-tastic exclusive). Maybe this isn't funny. Maybe it is sad that Palm feels so threatened by such a tool (which only mimics the app launching portions of WebOS and doesn't provide a framework for creating applications) that they have to crush it. It's sadder still, as TealPoint's outgoing message on their tealtalk forum says "the program's success came at a badly needed time." Sound like the crashing economy and plummeting Palm marketshare has been unkind to them. Good thing they've got a friend like Palm in their corner, right? Yeah.

Four Google executives are in court in Italy today facing charges related to a video that was posted on the Italian version of Google Video in 2006.

This isn't the first time that Google has faced pressure because of videos that were illegally uploaded to Google Video or YouTube. But this time we're not talking about copyrighted music videos or movies. The video in question shows four kids harassing a boy with Down Syndrome. Google removed the video after receiving a complaint. But Italian authorities filed criminal charges of defamation and violation or privacy.

The case seems a bit ridiculous. On the one hand, it's horrible that people would make videos of offensive content and upload it to a site like Google Video. On the other, should Google be held responsible, or should the kids who created the video?

What do you think? Is this like suing paper manufacturers for creating a product that can be used to send death threats and ransom letters? Or is it different because Google could theoretically exert more control over the content that's uploaded to its servers?

We've all heard the anti-trust tirades before, but the EU just doesn't want to let up on Microsoft. They're not happy with claims that OEMs are "free to include other web browsers." Nope. That just won't cut it.

The answer: more bloat for the end user! Yes, the European Commission is considering forcing OEMs to distribute alternative browsers with their systems. As someone who works in the retail computer business, I cringe at this news.

Don't get me wrong - I load Firefox on every system I build, if for nothing else but backup when a customer overloads IE with toolbars and rogue ActiveX controls. But that doesn't mean I'd want a government body forcing me to install software that I might not otherwise.

Let's think about this for a minute, EU guys.

Windows also includes some other things that have competitors: Wordpad, Paint, Media Player, Defender, and Remote Desktop Connection, to name a few. Does that mean that a new PC will have to include Jarte, AbiWord, Gimp, Paint.Net, WinAmp, VLC, GOM Player, Media Monkey, AdAware, SpyBot, MalwareBytes AntiMalware, Kerio, Comodo, ZoneAlarm, PC Anywhere, VNC, TeamViewer, and a slew of other apps whose functionality Microsoft has built in to Windows?

Where does it end?

And why do I get the feeling that, ultimately, the consumer is going to get the short end of the stick?

YouTube has been linking copyrighted videos uploaded by third parties to their respective content owners. This occurred with a Modest Mouse video, which YouTube linked to the official Modest Mouse page. The link says "Contains Content From: Sony BMG," and it may be YouTube's way of preventing content owners from removing videos uploaded by fans.

Up until now, YouTube has said it shouldn't be held responsible for the copyright violations performed by its members, but it has also been very cooperative in removing copyrighted material when asked. Last year Google announced a video identification system, permitting content owners to identify (and choose how to share or remove) their content, so it seems this is what's at play here.

We're sure YouTube doesn't like to remove member videos. It's bad for business: a site with unhappy members typically means a site that eventually has no members. But if YouTube's just linking videos instead of removing them, it must be a positive step for consumers in the ongoing Copyright war.

[via Valleywag]

Perhaps it's a blatant F.U. to content creators everywhere or maybe it's just an F.U. to Rockstar, but the Pirate Bay has gone out of its way to temporarily rename itself "Liberty Bay" in honor of the upcoming Grand Theft Auto IV.

The purpose for the publicity stunt is unclear, but -- considering the company's line of work -- it's likely to get the word out on the highly-rumored rumored Grand Theft Auto IV torrents that all the young kids blab about nowadays. Though we don't think the site's blog will address the gutsy move unless Rockstar starts throwing a fit, we'll let you know if things gets messy.

[via Kotaku]

We can't deny some of us here at Download Squad love open source software. But there's not a damn fool here that will disagree with the statement: "Bill Gates is an extremely intelligent man." We won't disagree that he's done amazing things for technology as a whole. And yes, we even wish heartily we had the faith in ourselves to say if we had that much moolah, we'd be even half as charitable with it.

But right now we're all kind of standing around scratching our heads and saying, "Wha?"

Today Techdirt points out a nice little quote by the venerable Mr. Gates in a Wired article. It seems as though Gates says that open source created a licensing situation "so that nobody can ever improve the software." All right, now, that would be a self-defeating license, wouldn't it? What have the brain-sucking aliens done with the Bill Gates we all know and love whose intellect we respect greatly?

Of course, we're willing to throw poor Bill a bone. The Wired quote is not a complete quote. It very well could be out of context. They then quote him saying that pharmaceutical companies who invent drugs should be able to charge for them. Well, yeah. Duh. And people who develop open source applications can also charge for them.

Open source doesn't necessarily mean it's free as in beer. Conversely, just because the local brewery is giving away free lager, it doesn't mean you'll get anywhere asking for the recipe.

We're wondering if Wired slipped up, or if Bill Gates is truly puzzled about the distinctions between free software and open software? Has he read the GPL? There are quick versions on their site... so even those of us who aren't as smart as Gates can get the general idea.

[via Techdirt and Wired]

Facebook may be synonymous with social networking these days. But just a few years ago, wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg was a student at Harvard, where the founders of ConnectU say he stole their idea for a web site where students could connect with one another. The two companies have been fighting things ou tin the courts for a while now, and today the New York Times reports that Facebook is "finalizing a settlement with the founders of ConnectU."

Neither Facebook nor ConnectU have issued statements regarding the rumored settlement, and it's not clear what the terms of the settlement are. But Facebook has apparently dropped its countersuit against ConnectU.

We're fairly confident that Facebook with its pockets (and swimming pools) lined with money and its corporate lawyers could have crushed ConnectU in court. But the settlement helps keep the ordeal out of the public eye and could help protect Mark Zuckerberg's ego. Parts of his diary have already been published as a result of the legal action.

A couple is accusing Google of diminishing the value of their property and causing them "mental" suffering" for including their recluse home in the Google Maps Street View project. The road leading up to their house is apparently labeled "private", something the Street View operator must've missed. We checked the Street View footage up to the house and didn't notice any clear "private" signs, but don't take our scientific analysis as fact.

They didn't like that Google invaded their "privacy". Some of the court papers are available online, and if you check them out, you'll notice mainly boring gibberish but also the address of the home. Suing Google has already done more damage to their "privacy" than the pictures on their own.

Aaron and Christine Boring want at least $25,000 and the 360 degree pictures destroyed, but something tells us the case doesn't stand a chance against Google's well paid, state-of-the-art, corporate lawyers, which come from the best lawyer factories in the nation.

Lately, some ISPs have been using BitTorrent throttling techniques to prevent BitTorrent programs from working properly. It is understandable that ISPs need to manage their networks in order to ensure that every customer gets a fair share of the bandwidth pie, but as individuals, traffic throttling techniques take away from the service we were promised when signing up.

If you choose to share the data collected via the Network Status Monitor, the Azureus team may analyze and compare it with the data collected from other users in order to develop ways of circumventing BitTorrent throttling. The plug-in only works on Windows machines for now, but Mac support is coming.

Due to another company trademarking "G-Mail" in Germany, similar to Google's "Gmail" in the US, the search engine giant lost an appeal to use "Gmail" in the European Union. G-Mail stands for "Giersch Mail" in Germany, where Daniel Giersch runs an electronic postal delivery service -- if that's not email, we couldn't say what it is.

As a result, Gmail is now known as Google Mail in Europe. Google's email service is also known as Google Mail in the UK, where another company trademarked "Gmail" shortly after Google launched the service.

And the moral of the story is: The next time you launch any product or service, make sure to trademark the name before. As for Google, the company "got caught slippin" -- as we say in the hip hop world -- so too bad, so sad.

Three little letters, about a year ago, had a death-grip on the music industry: DRM. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea? DRM limits the unauthorized copying and sharing of music. We can see that argument. It also limits what music can be played on certain devices. Should you get a new computer or device and need to transfer your licenses, all we can say is -- good luck with that. We speak from experience.

Recently record labels and at least a few online music sellers have moved away from offering DRM-laden music. And today, Napster announced it was making the move to DRM-free downloads. (The company's subscription service still includes DRM) Napster, the service that once offered DRM-free songs (illegally), and then legally sold DRM'd songs, has been reborn into the service it should have been all along -- legal music, DRM-free.

Moving to the MP3 format opens up Napster to a wider array of devices, including the ubiquitous iPod. We're not financial gurus, but we sense this can only mean good things for Napster, and for the music industry as a whole. Music that we can play on any device we might have, on any computer we might have? We might break our music boycott. We might even have the heart to upgrade the circa 2004 Zen Touch to something new. You know, now that we can actually own our music, and not just rent it for the life of the device.

[via Reuters]

Google is no stranger to lawsuits. Everyone from Viacom to the country of Thailand has taken legal action against the internet behemoth. Heck, we're betting at least half our readers have tried to file a suit against Google at one time or another.

But we've now found the incontrovertible best lawsuit ever filed against Google. And by best, we mean funniest. And kind of the saddest. This handwritten lawsuit claims that if you take the plaintiff's social security number and turn it upside down, and then scramble the numbers you get a code which spells Google. So obviously Google was trying to violate the plaintiff's civil liberties by adopting his social security number as their company name.

Seriously. That's what he's claiming. We're not kidding. Check out the suit yourself after the jump.

[via Techdirt]

Last week NBC and News Corp announced the name of their new online video venture: Hulu. In the time since then, TechCrunch uncovered the fact that Hulu translates to "cease" and "desist" in Swahili. And now online publishing site Lulu has filed a lawsuit against Hulu.

OK, so the names sound similar. But what exactly is Lulu alleging in its suit?

• Trademark infringement
• Unfair and deceptive trade practics
• federal cyberpiracy

No, seriously. That's all in the first line of the press release. Lulu claims that the Hulu name was chosen because Fox and News Corp "have intentionally attempted to create confusion in the marketplace." Because there's a pretty good chance that people will confuse a site that lets you watch TV shows online with a site that lets you publish your own books.

OK, well, Lulu does claim that in addition to online vieo, Hulu plans to offer products and services that are similar to those provided by Lulu. But the way we figure it, that means Hulu will be selling Heroes mugs and T-shirts.

The suit doesn't appear to seek any monetary damages. Lulu just wants Hulu to change its name.
[via Lost Remote]

Google gets brought to court again in this classic case of trademark infringement for sponsored ads. This time American Airlines is in the high flying plaintiff's seat.

American Airlines have dropped a trademark case on Google's doorstep because Google allowed the purchasing and bidding on their trademarked name, which just happens to be two generic names butted together. What will the outcome be? Maybe just a little bad PR for AA.

Keywords brought to the table include:

• American Airlines
• Free AA Travel Offers
• americanairlines.com
• American Air Lines