Easily digestible tech news...

We were just talking about how copyright law has been unable to keep up with technology changes, but that's not the only law that rapidly changing technology is already impacting. As the pace of technology innovation continues to increase, things are only going to get even more troublesome -- leading to all sorts of legal conundrums to deal with. Parker Mason alerts us to a post at Science Fiction blog io9, which tries to predict five future lawsuits that are likely to come about as a result of certain technology advances. These involve questions about things from the liability of artificial intelligence to the privacy of your thoughts due to brain scanning. If you want one sure thing, it's that there will be no shortage of work for lawyers.

Last week, we wrote about supposed efforts in India to build a $10 computer . However, Indian officials later explained that there was a typo in the transcript to the speech in question, and they really meant a $100 computer. But don't think others aren't trying for cheaper computers. The Raw Feed points out that some folks at MIT (ironically, the home of OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte) are working on building $12 computers for the developing world , using the old Apple II as a base. It seems like an interesting plan, though still quite far away from reality. But, still, in this space, more competition is good, no matter how much Negroponte wishes he were the only provider.

Much has been made of John McCain's status as a self-proclaimed "computer illiterate." Juxtaposed with his rival, the Blackberry-wielding, iPod-listening Barack Obama, McCain's inexperience with all things digital have raised concerns that he is out of touch with normal Americans. Although McCain is reportedly attempting to use computers more often , a bigger question remains unsolved: should the President of the United States use a computer? Lee Gomes at the Wall Street Journal seems to think the best policy is to " avoid computers ." Among such significant insights as any computer should remain outside the Oval Office "since it wouldn't match the furniture," is a recommendation that the President be limited to 20 minutes of computer time "to keep up with the common folk" by reading blogs, playing Solitaire or watching YouTube. But, don't get carried away! "The severe time rationing is necessary because a computer, far from making you more productive, instead loads you down with things to do, and it's important for the machine to know who is boss." It is slightly shocking that the WSJ would have you believe that computers are only good for keeping up-to-date on the latest cute cat videos (as long as you don't get bogged down in pop-ups -- which Gomes warns is how most computer users waste away their time). Of course the President should delegate menial tasks to staffers, but Gomes and others who think that technology is peripheral to the role of the Commander-in-Chief miss the point. Computer literacy isn't about "being in touch" with the "common folk," it is about understanding the foundation of the knowledge economy. The next administration will need to correctly address important policies with technology at their root , and if the leader doesn't understand the fundamental potential and differences of digital technology, the results will be much more catastrophic than wasting time deleting spam. Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community . To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here .

What is it with people wanting to blame technology for crimes rather than the idiots who perpetrate the crimes? The latest is that Thailand has banned the sale of Grand Theft Auto IV after an idiot kid killed a cab driver when he tried to carjack the taxicab. The kid claimed that he was copying a scene from the game, and wanted to see if it was as easy to do as in the game. In other words: "Not my fault! The game made me do it!" And, of course, the government believed this killer, rather than recognizing that it wasn't the game, but this kid's own demented brain that was responsible. If it wasn't GTA IV, it would have been something else. Banning GTA IV isn't going to stop such violence, but it will give anyone caught for murder a nice excuse about why it's not their fault.

Back in June, we noted how sad it was that we were all so happy that Garfield creator Jim Davis didn't freak out about the derivative comic strip "Garfield Minus Garfield." In this day and age, we're so used to creators sending out cease and desist letters and claiming "ownership" that it was refreshing to see a content creator actually happy about someone building (or, in this case, subtracting) off his work. This should be the norm -- but instead it's a unique thing. Witness the silly spat over who "owns" Flat Stanley, for example.

A few years back, there was a research paper released that posited that the fines sought by the RIAA for copyright infringement were unconstitutional . While this argument has been brought up in some court cases, and even considered by judges, it's yet to have been an important part of any decision. That may be about to change.

With most reports assuming that the FCC will vote in favor of some sort of wrist slap on Comcast for its traffic shaping this week, one of the things that doesn't make sense is the folks who are cheering about this move who also fought like dogs to keep the FCC from implementing the broadcast flag. As you may recall, a few years back, the entertainment industry pushed for the FCC to mandate a broadcast flag that would allow it to define rules for whether or not its content could be recorded by DVRs. The courts rightfully determined that such a mandate was outside the scope of the FCC's authority. However, an FCC ruling on net neutrality is basically covering identical grounds, yet many of the groups cheering this decision are the same who fought against the Broadcast Flag , claiming the FCC had no mandate.

Not so long ago, the BBC did a scare-mongering show about the supposed "threats" of WiFi radiation on children. Never mind the fact that it was later pointed out that the program used horrendously bad science , that actual scientific tests have shown the fears to be totally overblown (the amount of radiation is minimal, and double blind tests find that people cannot tell when WiFi is on, despite claims to the contrary) and that even the BBC later admitted that the show was poorly done and presented only one side of the story (the fear mongering one) while blatantly making the one reasonable person on the show look bad. It also left out some of the conflicts of interests concerning one of the scientific "experts" on the show (the guy who sold anti-radiation products and has a clear reason to build up fear mongering around WiFi radiation).

The news that The Rolling Stones have ditched EMI for rival Universal Music is being painted in the press as the latest blow to EMI since it was taken over by a private equity firm. It's already lost Radiohead and Paul McCartney, and other artists like Coldplay have complained about the direction that EMI is moving in. However, before people bury EMI, perhaps it's worth looking at the upside for EMI here. The Rolling Stones, from the sound of things, were looking for a hugely lucrative deal, knowing that they were a premium brand. But EMI is in the process of trying to reinvent itself for the next generation of music. Getting tied into a hugely expensive deal with a legacy band would make that much more difficult. Yes, losing an old school big name band is a blow to the EMI brand, but the next generation may be a lot more interested in being represented by a label that actually understands the market, rather than one that is actively trying to fight where the industry is heading.

Last week, we wrote about how the massively successful opening of The Dark Knight showed (once again) how little an impact "piracy" has on movies. But don't tell the movie industry that. The LA Times is running a bizarre article with movie industry folks claiming that their anti-piracy efforts are the real reason the movie was so successful in the theaters . Never mind the awesome reviews. Never mind the fact that many people wanted to see the movie in IMAX (which you can't replicate at home). Never mind the fact that going out to the movies is still a social experience. Never mind the fact that the movie was available online soon after it was released (despite what the article claims).