Comment Not quite "free license" for cable operators... (Score 1) 112
The Second Circuit repeatedly explained that its rejection of petitioners' public-performance claim depended on a range of factors: not only that each transmission would be sent to a single recipient, but also that (1) each transmission would be made using a unique copy of the relevant program; and (2) each transmission would be made solely to the person who had previously made that unique copy. See, e.g., Pet. App. 30a-31a, 36a, 39a, 41a.
If I read this right the cable operators are in for one hell of a bill in both storage and replication hardware to create duplicate copies for each user request. Storage is cheap, but since there are also legal (and relatively short) limits on how long you can buffer something before it counts as a copy this tends to complicate scalable data replication. Not impossible, just adds extra cost and complexity. Which no doubt will be passed on.
But by definition we're consumers and we get to vote with our dollars. If this service is a value add pay a little more. If not, don't pay for it. If you aren't given a choice (i.e. added to your bill anyway) drop cable and go Hulu, Apple, Blockbuster, Netflix, or pick your own provider. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to subscribe to cable.
The value adds I see are data integrity and (if Cablevision does this right) the ability to take my recordings with me if I move. Or preserve my recordings if my non-DVR box bites the dust, If you're attached to your content and don't want to invest in your own DVD burner or something this seems worthwhile. I'm not personally this way, but some people are freaky about their DVR content.