Is Cablevision Caving On Remote DVR?

from the hopefully-not... dept

Wed, May 20th 2009 10:24pm — Mike Masnick

One of the more important copyright lawsuit decisions was last years appeals court ruling in the Cablevision remote DVR case, which we discussed at length at the time. Cablevision built a remote DVR system. It was almost exactly like a TiVo, except that the device sat in a Cablevision datacenter, rather than next to your television. Functionally, it was no different. It really was just the length of the wire and where the box sat. Now, using a DVR in your home to record TV is perfectly legal. But the TV networks hate that, even though DVRs may actually have helped the TV industry by making it easier for people to watch their favorite shows (no one ever said they were good at figuring out the big picture). So they sued Cablevision, claiming that because the box sat on Cablevision's property, it was no longer legal and now it was copyright infringement.

The networks love to set up absolutely ridiculous explanations like saying that Cablevision is like the person who sets up a gun to go off when a door opens, so it's not the person who opens the door who commits the murder, but the person who set it up. Except... that makes no sense. Murder is illegal. Recording a TV show for personal use is not. A more accurate analogy would be like setting up a pillow to fall on someone when you open the door. That's not illegal for either the person who opened the door, or the person who set it up... because the action (falling pillow/recording a show for personal use) is perfectly legal. But the networks want to ignore this, and tried to twist copyright law by saying that because Cablevision's remote DVR creates a buffer version for a fraction of a second, it's making a copy, and thus violating copyright law. Seriously.

While a district court bought the argument, the appeals court (thankfully) pointed out how ridiculous this interpretation of the law was, and said the device is legal. The networks are now appealing to the Supreme Court, and the court has asked the Obama administration for input. I know there's been massive lobbying from a lot of different parties trying to get the administration up to speed on the detailed issues, and hopefully the important points get across. While this may seem like a trivial issue, it could impact nearly every online service, that suddenly becomes liable for making a "buffer" copy on its own servers based on something you do on your computer. Lots of "cloud" computing services could suddenly face massive copyright liabilities.

Still... while we wait for the Supreme Court to go one way or the other with this, it appears that Cablevision has been negotiating a compromise on the device, which (as Broadband Reports notes) probably means making things a lot worse for consumers (funny how that works). Once again, we'd have a scenario where content companies are killing off innovation because they're unable to adapt themselves -- and that's a really sad outcome. However, it might also lead to an end of the lawsuit, which could leave the appeals court ruling standing (which would be a good thing, rather than risk a Supreme Court overturn).

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cloud computing, copyright, dvr, remote dvr
Companies: cablevision

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Techsupoort, 20 May 2009 @ 11:26pm

RE:
Good thing, rather than risk a Supreme Court overturn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pegr, 20 May 2009 @ 11:28pm

But that's not quite right either...
OK, first things first. I don't know how the system works, but I'm making some fairly obvious assumptions. That said...

CableVision isn't likely setting up a DVR for each subscriber. They are more likely recording all streams, then allowing their customers to replay streams at their direction. That pushes it into a grey area, though Mike is right; functionally, it is equivilant to using a DVR maintained by the cable company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 3:35am

One question would be home much material cablevision is storing that isn't ever used.

Another question would be where does this differ from moving to a sort of PPV system, where all network TV is turned into a series of shows you can watch any time, over and over, at your discretion? After all, end users could just mark every prime time on every channel for recording, and view it all later whenever they want, or view the same shows over and over.

Buffer copies are legally a very grey area indeed. It is actually not a bad thing to see it end up in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 21 May 2009 @ 4:07am

RS-DVR
Pegr - You can read the court ruling, which includes a description of how the RS-DVR system works.
As far as I can see, it's virtually identical to Tivo in it's basic function. The consumer has to record shows; he/she has to record a show from the beginning to get the whole show; and each consumer gets a specific amount of storage space on Cablevision's Aroyo servers. And if two people record the same show, the RS-DVR system stores two copies (one in each consumer's allocated storage space).

In my opinion, Big Media doesn't necessarily want to kill the RS-DVR; they want to get PAID for it. They'd like to get paid for Tivo, too. The thing is that they think they have a better chance to use litigation to get Cablevision to cough it up. Given that Big Media won the first round, perhaps they're right. It doesn't seem fair, but as William Munny (Clint Eastwood in "The Unforgiven") once said said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 4:14am

Whatever happened to our system of checks and balances? Since when do the courts seek input from the Executive branch? So Obama runs the banks, car companies and now the courts? Who said communism failed, it just moved countries!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
YouAreWrong, 21 May 2009 @ 5:15am

Re:
The Supreme Court seeks an opinion from the Solicitor General (an executive position) in many prospective cases, especially those of technical nature.

And it's only unconstitutional for the executive or legislative to ask the judicial what they think. It's not unconstitutional for the judicial to ask the others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 21 May 2009 @ 5:29am

Hey big content companies
Technology advances, adapt or die bitches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 21 May 2009 @ 6:02am

But the TV networks hate that, even though DVRs may actually have helped the TV industry by making it easier for people to watch their favorite shows (no one ever said they were good at figuring out the big picture).

There are a number of shows I watch now, that formerly before having a DVR I was unable to watch. I do fast forward past many of the commercials, but I still see them go by and on the occasion it's something that I may be interested in - I may take down a number or heck with it on the DVR I can always go back and get information as needed.

Remember the days before the net if you wanted one of those Time-Life music collections or some other record that wasn't available at retail how you would have to hunt for a pen or rather just think 'I'll get the number the next time'.

You think they would be happier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xanthir, FCD, 21 May 2009 @ 6:23am

Too much precedent to get overturned
This case is straight retarded. The argument that buffering a copy is infringment is trivially false, as your computer does that every single day. Hell, it does it for more than a fraction of a second with cached files that may stick around indefinitely! The law already recognizes that this brand of copying is completely legal.

If the SCOTUS did take up the case, there's no way they could rule in anything but Cablevision's favor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dean collins, 21 May 2009 @ 7:40am

It's a big deal
I'm surprised more people aren't making a bigger deal about this.

I wrote a post last year about what this could mean for the future of video and music licensing here
http://deancollinsblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/cloudification-of-your-content.html

(lol or just go to www.Cloudification.net - i cant believe that domain wasn't taken).

Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.Cognation.net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean T Henry, 21 May 2009 @ 8:14am

Re:
Before DVR I would use a... shall I say it? VCR! It was great the only feature it did not have was watching to rewind when watching.

I do not see the problem with them doing this it is a more restricted version of "On demand".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous12, 21 May 2009 @ 8:28am

I don't know about you, but I want that DVR in my house.
I don't care if the functionality is the same. I also want to be able to move content from my DVR, but even though that is technically possible, it is not currently an option.
If it does become an option some day, having the DVR at the cable company is NOT the best deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 21 May 2009 @ 10:38am

Pillows
> A more accurate analogy would be like setting
> up a pillow to fall on someone when you open
> the door. That's not illegal for either the
> person who opened the door, or the person who
> set it up.

Actually, dropping a pillow on someone (without their knowledge or permission) is technically a battery, and it *is* illegal. Technically.

I love being the killjoy! ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 21 May 2009 @ 12:08pm

Re: RE:
Dude what's the point.

"A more accurate analogy would be like setting up a pillow to fall on someone when you open the door."

Without a comment on context or content quotes like that lack meaning.
But you were first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Acai, 21 May 2009 @ 12:38pm

There are a number of shows I watch now, that formerly before having a DVR I was unable to watch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 21 May 2009 @ 12:49pm

Why would anyone want to have their shows remotely recorded by some company? What is behind the current push to have companies store all your data rather than keeping it locally?

I know the corporate motivation for it, but a lot of users seem to be in favor of it too. I just don't get why you'd want to rely on some company to keep your data, be it TV shows, pictures or whatever, for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2009 @ 8:19pm

So, let me get this straight. The cable company, presumably because of some licensing, can take the incoming feed, send it through the world's biggest cable splitter, and thereby make zillions of copies, one for each of their customers, to send down their cables ... but making one lousy additional copy after that is infringing? WTF?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
viv energy drink, 5 Aug 2009 @ 5:48pm

In my opinion, Big Media doesn't necessarily want to kill the RS-DVR; they want to get PAID for it. They'd like to get paid for Tivo, too. The thing is that they think they have a better chance to use litigation to get Cablevision to cough it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2009 @ 5:23pm

The upside to the remote dvr is not being limited to the size of a hard drive on the actual box...ie, 100 hrs, and being able to access the material from every other receiver in the home as well, rather than just from the set-top dvr. However how are they going to let you pause, fast forward, etc... live tv?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
norton internet secuirty, 20 Jan 2010 @ 6:43am

I love DVR, it allows me to watch my favourite programmes after I get home from work !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sparky, 10 Nov 2010 @ 11:09am

Re:
The reason why a cablevision customer would want the remote DVR is because it allows you to watch recorded programs and different tvs
[ link to this | view in thread ]