The United States Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 against Aereo, saying that Aereo's scheme to lease out thousands of tiny antennas doesn't differentiate it from a cable company, and therefore Aereo violates copyright law. "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."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @07:33PM
I heard it mentioned the other day that this is the first example of a Supreme Court where not one of its members has ever run for elective office and that is what they have made such a shambles of campaign financing.
I'm going to guess that not one of them has ever used a traditional transmitter.
I wonder if any of them uses a cell phone.
It would surprise me if one of them could even accurately describe any part of a cell phone communication.
I doubt that any one of them has the slightest understanding of anything technological.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:47PM
> I wonder if any of them uses a cell phone.
I'm sure Kagan uses one. My mom's 20 years older than her and she's got a cell phone, its her main phone even.
Knowing much about how they work is another thing, but that's true for practically all demographics of cell phone users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:31AM
OTOH, I'm pretty sure your Mom doesn't make decisions that affect hundreds of millions of people.
-- gewg_