Yesterday, Cablevision filed its appeal brief in the battle over its remote DVR. In March, a federal judge in New York held that it was illegal for the cable company to host the Tivo-like devices at a central location. My earlier take on that decision is here.
In that decision, the judge confused the doctrines of direct and secondary infringement, and ignored a lot of solid precedent that would have shown that Cablevision's devices were perfectly legitimate. Instead, he provided a litany of distinctions between the Supreme Court-approved VCR and the remote DVR that, upon inspection, really didn't make a lot of sense.
To see just how little, take a look at the excellent appeal brief filed by Cablevision. It's a surprisingly quick read for its length, and it deftly takes apart the poorly-reasoned decision of the lower court. Hopefully, the Second Circuit will see the (reversible) errors of the district court's ways.