On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:54 AM, belcampo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:belcampo@zonnet.nl">belcampo@zonnet.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<snip><div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Maybe reading this lightens things a little bit.<br>
<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/04/cablevision-common-sense-win-network-dvr-appeal/" target="_blank">http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/04/cablevision-common-sense-win-network-dvr-appeal/</a> <br>
</blockquote></div>
and follow-up with:<br>
Supreme Court declines to hear remote storage DVR appeal, cloud recording is on the way<br>
<a href="http://hd.engadget.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-remote-storage-dvr-appeal-cloud/" target="_blank">http://hd.engadget.com/2009/06/29/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-remote-storage-dvr-appeal-cloud/</a><div>
<div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmmm...but I think important difference here is that Cablevision already had a legal service offering legal content that the rights holders were receiving payment for...this case was around extending the notion of what constitutes a DVR plain and simple.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Andrew </div></div>