[The Final Dakar]

Just breaking.

Supreme Court puts Aereo out of business | Ars Technica

In a 6-3 opinion (PDF) written by Justice Steven Breyer, Aereo was found to violate copyright law. According to the opinion, the company is the equivalent of a cable company, which must pay licensing fees when broadcasting over-the-air content. "Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly," reads the opinion (PDF).

The dissent was written by Scalia.

I'll be curious to read their reasoning as to why it's a cable company.

[ort888]

I have mixed feelings. The real problem is that the entire broadcast tv industry is a byzantine mess of restrictive and confusing licensing deals and outdated government regulation.

Aereo was a hacky way of breaking the system and it was pretty apparent to everyone that what they were doing was just a goofy workaround for some dumb outdated rules.

That's why I don't find this that upsetting. Aereo wasn't really the solution to this problem. It was a workaround. The whole structure of the industry needs to be torn down and built back up in a way that makes sense in this new digital era. Traditional broadcast TV is going to seem laughable in 5-10 years.

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, I'm not upset, but I think it doesn't fit any real category.

[The Final Dakar]

I think my main issue is it reminds me of a slingbox which is legal.

[P]

The reasoning seems to be some sort of framers intent reading, that the act in question was intended to cover things like this, and would have if the technology had been there yet.

Apparently we're not the only people interested in the reasoning - the SCOTUS server is alternating between not responding and a 500 error.

[The Final Dakar]

Aereo: So, we’re a cable company, right? US Copyright Office: Um, no | Ars Technica

They can't win. By design, of course.

[Shaddim]

Corrupt as hell and only getting worse.