True.

That's why I covered that aspect in my second response.

It's striking, though, that we're dealing more with the technology minutiae than the end-user reality of the situation. (the emph is crucial to the point) Given the end user reality, I don't see the difference in principle.

By the way, James.... I forgot one feature TW has been offering which adds a bit of cloud to all of this; "Start Over". Digital customers have the ability to show up at any time during the program and issue the order to 'start over' the program so you won't miss the thing. this shows several things. first, it tells me they're ALREADY storing everything. Since you mentioned the commercials... the real source of revenue anyway... one 'feature' of "start over" is that you can't shuttle past the commercials.

The new DVR service would work by storing a viewer’s recordings in computers housed at the cable operator, rather than in a box attached to the viewer’s TV set...

I think a lot of this will revolve around how it's implemented, or at least how they spin the implementation. I can see how a "'pre-emptive' recording by the service provider" and a "specific recording by the ultimate consumer" can be viewed as different beasts, even if the final product is indistinguishable between the two.

Well, the one you have pictured uses a fair sized hard drive for the purpose of storage. As I say, I have one of those beasts.

That said, TW up here also has programs that they store at their central site they call 'on demand'. OD does carry a premium price for the producers... even the OD that TW offers for free.

Now, I can see where that technology wouldn't need to be changed much to function like a DVR. It would have the advanage of being far less of a maintainance worry, than would having the technology installed in end user's houses.... on top of the leveaging of storage you mention.

Now, as I gather it, there was very little challange to the customer domocile equipment, (Whcih stores stuf in a device on the consumer's property) because the case law surrounding the end user's right to record and playback was well established with the VCR. (Interestingly, a lot of the principles applied were orignally heard and developed incoidental to RIAA lawsuits regards audio tape.)

If you're correct that the technology is at the cable company's end, but in effect rented by the customer, I grant the technology is different, but I fail to see any difference in legality. The customer is making use of his right to record and playback in his home.

Every time there's an advancement in technology these parasites try to extrot more money from the end user. In that sense, they're not unlike government.