Summary
A federal appeals court has cleared the way for cable and satellite companies to allow consumers to record and store programming remotely on the cable company's servers. This will provide more storage and perhaps more functions than on a DVR, and bypass the need to even have one. The case stands a good chance of being appealed to the Supreme Court for a final ruling that could be as far-reaching as the 1984 Sony Betamax case for consumers, manufacturers and managers of devices and systems for recording, and copyright holders. In a broader sense, the case also is a reaffirmation for those seeking to innovate in remote computing functions and networked services. And, finally, this case stands the chance of throwing moviemakers and other content providers into the briar patch once again, despite themselves. Before the Sony decision, the industry thought the sky would fall if home recording were legitimated. Instead, a $ multi-billion industry formed. Will it happen again?
Analysis
Recording from home with DVR-like functions is about to become easier and available to a much broader group of cable subscribers and others. In the latest round in a decades-long bout between corporate heavyweights, with consumers, public interest groups and libraries, among others, in the corners, a federal court of appeals in New York yesterday overturned a lower court decision and ruled that Comcast did not infringe the copyrights of Cartoon Network, CNN, movie companies and others by permitting remote storage and retrieval of programming and other content. That means that cable subscribers who do not have TiVo or a DVR will nonetheless be able to record and view programming -- through a conventional cable box.
By finding that copies formed remotely on the cable company's computer servers, and then transmitted only to a particular cable subscriber, all at that subscriber's initiation, did not directly infringe the copyright rights of content owners, the court opened the door to: 1) digital recording by many more people; 2) further innovation in remote computing services; and 3) stimulating further development of business models by copyright holders.
To be more specific, beyond the greater opportunity and convenience for consumers from digital recording at will, the decision could prove to be a boon to several industry sectors. Cable companies should benefit from many more of their subscribers being able to digitally record by dint of the remote service. Programmers, contrary to their concerns, should benefit from more people watching their offerings by time-shifting through recording. (Advertising could take a hit, however, through skipping of commercials in a recording.) Developers of services online should benefit from more legal flexibility; the road to greater innovation is opened a little further. And, copyright owners, which already have not only survived, but thrived, on massive home recording, may find ways once again to capitalize on a new form of such recording.
All of this potential change, however, may have to wait. This case could easily be appealed to the Supreme Court. Then, the Court would have yet another in a series of industry-defining decisions to make. Having opened the world to home recording in the Betamax case, and prescribed limits to recording and use in the Napster and Grokster cases, the Court's decision could once again have enormous effect on the development or not of new functionalities and consumer uses.
Whatever the decision, this long-running bout will continue; there is no knock-out. This is only the round on remote storage and retrieval. No doubt there will be many more as new innovations for manipulating data are found, while creators and owners of content seek to preserve legitimate rights.
