Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Virtual DVR Storage on Cablevision

For those of us who have used DVRs before, you know how convenient it is to record a TV show and then watch it on your own time. This way, you can do something more productive when a TV show is on, and you can fast forward through commercials. A drawback to DVRs is the fact that additional equipment must be purchased, and recorded shows takes up hard drive space. However, Cablevision came up with an offer that allows their customers to record TV shows where it is stored on their server, taking away equipment as well as hard drive space restrictions.

This immediately drew the ire of content organizations, who view network/VLAN-based DVRs as no different from a file sharing service. With a seemingly unlimited ability to store television shows becoming a possibility… a server farm can cluster recording, granting users who “record” them multiple access to the same stored file. Cablevision essentially only has to record each channel constantly, and then play it back to customers who opted into the recording at the time. Conceivably, a customer in the future could opt to record all channels at all times.

The United States Supreme Court chose not to review a New York-based federal circuit court, on the argument that such remote DVR usage is in violation of copyright laws. The latest ruling prior to the 10th-circuit appeal upheld Cablevision’s position, that a remote connection to Cablevision’s servers does not violate the Supreme Court’s position on placeshifting… a position that originated in the Court’s Betamax decision, which legalized video cassette recording of television shows.

The decision to not review the case marks the Supreme Court’s restraint in establishing new law of the land on such technologies. The Court continues to grapple with modern technology, on issues ranging from pornography to DVD encryption. While the federal appeals court decision will establish some precedent in placeshifting recorded shows over the internet, it is not as strong a precedent as if the Supreme Court had voted to uphold the ruling, as the law of the land.