Back in the 1970s, a case went before the US Supreme Court: Networks and movie studios were accusing Sony of violating copyright laws by selling a product that allowed home users to record and play back copyrighted material. The Supreme Court ruled in Sony's favor. Commonly referred to as "The Betamax Ruling", the court decided the recording and saving of programming for personal home use is legal and does not violate copyright law. Fast forward to 2010: There are enough threads on this board about "copying" hard drives and setting up RAID "backups" to choke a donkey, not to mention a ton of free advertising for Hippauge's PVR device. (It reminds me of my days in college when stores displayed rolling papers and bongs beside a sign reading "For Tobacco Use Only") Using the Supreme Court's "Betamax" ruling as a test, how is using a PVR any different from installing a Linux-based ("hackware") program to copy files off a DVR and into a format that's compatible with Windows Media Player? Aside from having the PC perform the decoding, both do exactly the same thing with the same end result: A copy of a movie or TV show for personal use. I am not condoning the illegal resale of copyrighted materials; just asking what I feel is a legitimate question. I have many hours of content saved on my DVR and would prefer to save it in the event my current DVR bites it or I decide to upgrade to a newer model. Although I have advanced PC knowledge, I prefer a simple approach (my home network and existing PC) versus tearing apart my DVR and/or not being able to watch what I've already paid for and recorded when I eventually go to a newer model. I know this seems like I'm beating this Board's ultimate "dead horse"; however I feel it's a legit question on the legal difference (if any) between a PVR and "hackware".