Monday night the Sony press conference was pretty spectacular.  Once the new products and services was talked up, Sony played the MIB3 trailer in 3D and then Will Smith came on stage briefly (cool stuff) and I was on the front row.  A few moments later Kelly Clarkson made a appearance and sang.

Back to the tech after the jump…

Sony highlighted a few new products and services on the eve of CES 2012 like the Sony Entertainment Network, which includes Web Unlimited, Music Unlimited, PlayMemories Online, PlayMemories Home, PlayMemories Mobile and PlayMemories Studio giving consumers a “one-stop-shop” for all their their entertainment, making it accessible through the cloud to all the new Sony devices at home or on he go.

Along with cloud services Sony had new products to show off, like a new split-screen, Tablet P, folding tablet, also revealing the Tablet S and new Tablet P is now PlayStation Certified.

The new PS Vita, handheld game console will be available February 22, 2012.

Once Sony’s acquisition of Sony-Ericsson is complete the new company will be called Sony Mobile Communications.  The new Experia phone were unveiled and are also PlayStation certified. The Xperia S wil be available globally and the new Xperia Ion is the first LTE offering and is exclusive to AT&T.

Sony Internet TV will hit stores as the first HDTVs powered by Google TV.  A new picture engine Sony calls X-Reality recreates and restores the lost clarity from internet streamed video.  A new titanium active shutter 3D glasses revealed.

A new VAIO hybrid notebook/tablet prototypes were shown off as a concept.

The new Handycams look really slick and should perform even better.  Sony has added new stabilization technology to increase stability 13 times and the integrated projector has gotten an overhaul with increased lumens.

The new Bloggie Live hit the stage and now with WiFi you can stream your video live as it’s recording and the Bloggie Sport looks rugged and is waterproof to 5 meters.

The new Walkman Z is Android powered with WiFi and Bluetooth sporting a NVIDIA Tegra 2 processor and will be available soon in the US.  A new line of balanced armature ear buds was announced as well.

Sony is really pumping 4K technology and revealed a new 4K home theater projector and cinema camera.

Sony didn’t discus DSLR and point and shoot cameras in any detail, possibly due to the supply shortages and the inability to bring anything new, however, there a plenty of new toys and I’ll do my best to get my hands on as many as possible.

Every month I find myself trying to keep it under the 250GB Comcast bandwidth cap and I end up having to throttle my own bandwidth consumption.  If I go over, I run the risk of having my service cancelled.  It happens.

I don’t use P2P services – with the exception of the occasional download of a legal torrent from someone who has posted their work online to share with others.  Those make up less than a couple GB per month though.

I use the Internet to upload photos and videos to SmugMug, Flickr, Facebook, Vimeo, YouTube and so on.  I also consume almost all of my video entertainment from the Internet via Netflix streaming, YouTube or Vimeo. I backup my personal files to a cloud service.  And I think all of this is pretty normal and legal Internet usage.

And it’s only going to get more normal.

Comcast says that “around 99%” of it’s customers use “significantly less than 250GB of bandwidth per month” – and they’ve been saying it for years.

That’s an interesting statistic and lets them puff their chest out.  However, I have a hard time trusting anything Comcast says from years of being lied to by their customer service reps.  Just how loose are they being with the word “around”?

The speed is fine.  In fact, it’s great.  The service is reliable most of the time where I live.  I could upgrade my Internet service to something faster; however, I don’t need something faster. I need more data in and out every month – and that’s not an option.

I would choose another service provider if that was an option; however, it’s not.  The only other provider is a DSL provider (Frontier), which I’ve tried and the speed is abysmal and it has an even lower cap.  Just about every provider has instituted a bandwidth cap, so Comcast isn’t alone here.

I’m now back to the point I was in the 90s with my Internet service provider applying a choke-hold to how much Internet I can have.  Then it was minutes (AOL, I’m looking at you), and now it is data consumption.  Sure, we can be on the Internet 24/7; however, we just can’t consume too much of it or the gatekeeper will cut us off.

I’ve gotten pretty good at throttling my own consumption; however, I do sometimes slip up and go over the limit.  While Comcast hasn’t kicked me off for any of these incidents yet, I’m worried that some month I’ll miss the mark by too much and get a nastigram telling me that Comcast no longer wants me as a customer.  I shouldn’t have to worry about that in 2012 – but I will.

That being the case, I suppose my New Year’s resolution should be to use less Internet in 2012.

Thanks Comcast.  Happy New Year to you too.

via chartsbin.com

Pando Networks (see press release) recently published data on world wide internet speeds, by country and by city.  The data was collected between January and June of 2011, via 27 million downloads from 20 million computers in 224 countries.   I’m pretty sure you’ll be surprised by the countries listed in the top five, and check out how the superpowers like the U.S. and China fared.

Check out the informative infographic (was that redundant?) after the break, including access to an interactive version of the map as well.

Visit here for the Interactive Version of the Map via Chartsbin.com 

 -via Mashable

Facebook has unveiled a new Skype-powered feature that allows you to video chat with your friends.

Facebook says it will be rolling things out over the next several days; however, you can get access right now with this link.

In short time, you should see the video call button appear in your chat window, which will allow you to quickly start up a video chat with your online friends.

Check out Facebooks intro video / commercial below.

After some failed attempts at the social web with Wave and Buzz, Google has unwrapped its new social agenda: Google+.  It’s still in soft launch flavor right now as an invitation-only product; however, Google spilled all the details in a blog post for the product’s launch.

Check out the above video and link for details, or head straight on over to Google+ to sign up for your invite.

Peer-to-Peer networking programs have been a hot topic both online and in the court room over the past decade or so. There is an overwhelming amount of information related to this topic online and much of it is flat out wrong – or, at the very least, overlooks the true legal issues that drive the case law handed down by courts.

Over the next several weeks (or maybe months), I will be refreshing an article that I wrote in law school, which primarily focused on the effect of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005) (aka MGM v. Grokster), on P2P networking.  Because this article originated as an academic endeavor, I am leaving case law and statutory citations in place for the sake of reference.  Non-lawyers can feel free to simply ignore the numbers following case names and specific statutory citations.

While most of us see Napster as the beginning of the war between the RIAA/MPAA and Internet users, the introduction of the legal theories that are argued in relation to recent P2P software programs like Grokster and Napster came from the 80′s when Betamax players and VCRs were on the rise.  The Supreme Court case of Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) sets the primary foundation for current law related to the legality of P2P software.

An Introduction to Indirect Liability

Copyright is established by the Constitution and codified in statutes set for the Article 17 of the United States Code.

It is clear that the use of copyrighted works in violation of those exclusive rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. §§ 106-122 is an actionable infringement.  What is not so clearly included in an author’s statutory rights is the ability to maintain an action against those who would enable others, either intentionally or unintentionally, to infringe upon an author’s copyright.

Courts have chosen to approach the notion of indirect liability by applying two firmly rooted principles of tort law to those who enable copyright infringement – (1) vicarious liability; (2) contributory liability.

1. Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability in copyright infringement stems from the traditional common law agency rule of respondeat superior, which is based on the premise that a master is liable for the wrongs of his servant.  A vicarious infringer’s liability “depends upon a detailed examination of the relationship between” the master and the infringing servant.  Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 306 (2d Cir. 1963),  Although Congress has not specifically provided for the liability of an indirect infringer (see 17 U.S.C. § 501 – apparently the language “Anyone who violates . . .” includes indirect liability malfeasors), courts have made clear that vicarious liability may exist where there is a direct infringement and the relationship qualifies as a sort of quasi-respondeat superior.  (See Shapiro at 307, noting that “courts have not drawn a rigid line between the strict cases of agency, and those of independent contract, license, and lease.”)

Vicarious liability for copyright infringement may extend beyond the scope of the traditional notions of respondeat superior where two key factors are present:

1. where “the right and ability to supervise coalesce
2. with an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials.” (Shapiro at 307.)

The Second Circuit in Shapiro noted that, when these two factors are present, “the purposes of copyright law may be best effectuated by the imposition of liability upon the beneficiary of that exploitation.” (Shapiro at 307.)

The Shapiro court noted the seemingly harsh result that can occur under such an analysis that fails to consider the knowledge of the potential vicarious infringer; however, “[t]he protection accorded literary property would be of little value if . . . insulation from payment of damages could be secured . . . by merely refraining from making inquiry.” (Shapiro at 308.)  The burden, therefore, must fall on the “innocent infringer” to exercise “diligent inquiry” or to otherwise “guard against the infringement.” (Shapiro at 308, suggesting other methods of protection, such as an indemnity agreement or insurance.)

2. Contributory Liability

In cases of contributory infringement, unlike the analysis for vicarious infringement, knowledge is a requisite for liability of an indirect infringer.  Particularly, liability is commonly found where “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.” (Gershwin Publ’g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)). This notion is related to “the common law doctrine that one who knowingly participates or furthers a tortuous act is jointly and severally liable with the prime tortfeasor.”  (Gershwin at 1162.)

Summary of Indirect Liability Concepts

As you can see above, the two primary analysis of indirect copyright infringement are very different in the manner in which liability is imposed.

Vicarious liability is imposed by the relationship of the infringer to the person or entity that has control over that infringer.  Alternatively, contributory liability is imposed when one party induces or otherwise acts with knowledge to cause another person to infringe.  Contributory liability requires both knowledge and some form of overt action in order to be held liable for the infringing actions of a third party.

The Betamax Case and Its Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (aka The Betamax Case), is a landmark decision in copyright law and the starting point for nearly any discussion of P2P networks or programs.

Sony is also well known for its discussion of “fair use” under 17 U.S.C. § 107 as related to time-shifting content, which is still very much relevant in today’s hot topics of DVR use and cloud-based data storage/streaming.  However, the most important elements of the Sony Corp. decision for the purposes of the P2P debate are its analyses of contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement.

The facts of the case are well known and rather straightforward.  Sony made the Betamax recorder and sold these units to the public.  Some consumers would use the Betamax recorder to record television shows broadcast on public airwaves.  Universal Studios and other content owners who held the copyrights to some of the broadcasts that were recorded by consumers using the Betamax recorder sued Sony for contributory infringement.

The Court recognized that the Copyright Act is silent with regard to an indirect infringement analysis. (Betamax at 419-420.)  Even though the Patent Act expressly provides for liability against indirect infringers, (Betamax at 434) the Court noted that “[t]he absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability” on vicarious and contributory infringers. (Betamax at 435.)

Although the Court seemingly confuses the two forms of indirect infringement, it appears to settle on an analysis under contributory infringement. (See Betamax at 436-40.)  Later, the Ninth Circuit would note that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Betamax did not apply at all to vicarious liability for copyright infringement.  See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that “when the Sony Court used the term “vicarious liability,” it did so broadly and outside of a technical analysis of the doctrine of vicarious copyright infringement”).

The Betamax Court noted “as in other situations in which the imposition of vicarious liability is manifestly just, the ‘contributory’ infringer was in a position to control the use without permission from the copyright owner.” (Betamax at 436.)  Such an inquiry seems proper under a vicarious liability analysis; however, the Court went on to state that

“[i]f vicarious liability is to be imposed on [Sony], it must rest on the fact that they have sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that their customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material.” (Betamax at 439.)

Academic aside: Note that “knowledge,” constructive or otherwise, is not a traditional requirement for the imposition of vicarious liability (e.g., the master/servant relationship).  It is the nature of the relationship for vicarious infringement that imposes liability on the one who is in a position to control the infringing act rather than his knowledge of the infringing act.  (Betamax at 439.)

The Court made several key points regarding contributory infringement in patent cases.  The Court noted that one who “actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” (Betamax at 440 n.20, quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271.)  Outlining the basis for contributory liability under patent law, the Court noted the following:

Unless a commodity “has no use except through practice of the patented method,” the patentee has no right to claim that its distribution constitutes contributory infringement.  “To form the basis for contributory infringement the item must almost be uniquely suited as a component of the patented invention.  [A] sale of an article which though adapted to an infringing use is also adapted to other and lawful uses, is not enough to make the seller a contributory infringer.  Such a rule would block the wheels of commerce.” (Betamax at 441.)

From these principles the Court crafted the rule that, although a device may be capable of infringing uses, for defendants to avoid liability for contributory infringement in the sale of the device, the device “need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” (Betamax at 442.)  And thus, the Sony rule was born.

Closing Thoughts

The Sony rule is a part of every discussion related to P2P – from Napster to Grokster to Limewire, and whatever else is next.

In the next part of this P2P networking series, I will discuss some of the technological developments that came after The Betamax Case and how the courts dealt with the indirect liability analysis of that tech.  Ultimately, we will get down to the nitty gritty with each of the major P2P networking cases and how the courts still treat P2P software just like the Sony Betamax player from a legal standpoint.

Don’t know what Net Neutrality is and why it matters?  Watch the below video.

A deeper explanation from Studio Daily Blog. Get even more info and get involved at Freepress.net.

Google just laid out some more details on the new Google TV that should arrive on Sony and Logitech devices later this month.  The biggest part of the news was what’s happening with some of Google’s content parters, which Google highlights in the 4 points below.

Turner Broadcasting has been hard at work optimizing some of their most popular websites for viewing on Google TV, including TBS, TNT, CNN, Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, available anytime through Google TV.

NBC Universal has collaborated with Google TV to bring CNBC Real-Time, an application that allows you to track your favorite stocks and access news feeds while enjoying the best financial news from CNBC directly on the TV screen.

HBO will bring access to hundreds of hours of programming to Google TV with HBO GO. Authenticated subscribers will soon be able to access all of their favorite HBO content on-demand in an enhanced website for Google TV.

NBA has built NBA Game Time, an application that lets you follow game scores in real-time and catch up on the latest highlights from your favorite team in HD.

We also got confirmation on Netflix instant streaming and Amazon VOD service through Google TV devices.  Check out the short teaser video below for more on what the interface will look and work like.

If you missed day one of live broadcasting on YouTube, like I did, you can still catch some of it today.

YouTube is experimenting with live broadcasting and has recruited select partners to participate.  YouTube says depending on how things go, Live on YouTube could roll out more broadly, but for now YouTube the live streaming platform is purely trial.

Beginning at 7:30am pst today YouTube will crank up live broadcasting again.  Hit the schedule above to find something to watch.

Isn’t this kinda like getting to the end of the Internet?

I’m currently sitting at around 13% and have been in that range for several months now.  As much email as I get, I still can’t imagine catching up with the Gmail storage cap.  Of course, I recall getting my Gateway Desktop in 1998 with a Pentium II 266MHz processor and 8GB hard drive.  I’m pretty sure I uttered the words “I’ll never use up that much storage.”  And then there was Napster…

[via Flickr]