Comments on: Supreme Court declines to hear cable DVR case

U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Justice Department to look at the issue of whether cable operators can deliver networked DVR services.

[rmva]

Just exactly what was the reason the Supreme Court "tossed" the case to the Justice Department? A question of law? A question of fact? This tossing stuff is a little vague.

[unknown unknown]

The Supreme Court can decline a case for any reason. They only hear a small minority of the cases that petition them. As LawyerPerson below says, they haven't really declined or tossed the case, only ask for input from the justice department.

[LawyerPerson]

The headline of this story and some of the text is misleading. The court did not decline to hear the case yet, nor did it kick the case to the Justice Department for decision. The petition for certiorari is still pending before the court. The court has asked the U.S. government to weigh in on the case, to aid the court in determining whether it should grant the petition. Those requests go to the Solicitor General of the U.S. who is a functionary of the U.S. Justice Department whose responsibility it is to represent the United States in the Supreme Court, among other things. This is not particularly unusual, although it does indicate a level of interest in the case on the part of the justices. Once the Solicitor General has responded the court will make its decision on whether or not to grant the petition.

[ballssalty]

Beat me to it! I was about to say this was a very misleading headline. It should read Supreme Court ask DOJ to review Cable DVR case.

If the headline was accurate it would mean the Appeals Court ruling stands and would pave the way for the service.

[zizzybaloobah]

Doesn't Verizon FiOS offer anyroom DVR? - isn't it the same idea/technology as described here for Cablevision? At least that's the impression I get from the commercials.

Of course greedy Comcast has to come along and confuse the issue with their on-Demand that can be started in one room and finished from another. Sorry fellas - that aint the same nor nearly as cool as any room DVR.

[gefitz]

Thanks Lawyer person! Muuuuuuuch clearer!

[Captseadog]

The head line is deceiving because cnet is now owned by CBS. CBS is notorious for slanting stories to make them seem bigger then they are.

[groink_hi]

Legally, I don't see the difference between, for example, a Californian recording HBO on a DVR in his home vs a DVR in New York City. The content is exactly the same, and the subscriber is paying for HBO hence fair use.

I think what the problem here is regional programming. I deal with this style of programming on a daily basis. For example, a Japanese TV company licenses a show to a TV station in New York City. Usually, the license covers only the region the TV station covers. What the license won't allow is for a Californian to obtain a copy of the show, since he does not reside in New York City in any form (owning a home in NYC, for example.)

In Japan, it has a law called HOBANKYO, which basically states that a TV program broadcast in Japan cannot be sent outside of its borders - in any form, whether it is via VHS tape, disc, Internet streaming, etc. A company in Japan tried to pull the exact same business model as Cablevision. And, HOBANKYO basically put a stop to the business model.

I'm wondering if the U.S. has a law similar to HOBANKYO. I would assume one does exist because, for example, SlingMedia does not allow streaming via its products like SlingBox, to multiple points on the Internet. The SlingBox also doesn't support recordings. And, the pain-in-the-*ss CableCard 2.0 is so limited and so very little supported. Try finding a TiVO that supports CableCard 2.0's two-way protocol.

I can see why the Supreme Court sent this back to the DOJ. The Court probably doesn't want to sent a precedence while many other lawsuits are currently pending, such as Comcast vs the FCC over the use of non-CableCard based set-top boxes, and so on.

[tvhawaii]

>>The SlingBox also doesn't support recordings. <<

What about something like this?

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-19167_1-10137052-100.html

[tvhawaii]

So is Cablevision saying that the 'consumer' will pay the licensing fee when they -view- the programming?
I know Hollywood likes to maintain the status quo, but as long as they get their money, isn't this "Cable DVR" fair?

[bruceslog]

But, Cablevision has ALREADY paid the licensing fee when Cablevision originally licensed and aired the program that may or may not be recorded by consumers...
This would be double taxing.
NOT Fair !!