Aereo Update: Supreme Court Rules for Broadcasters!

The Supreme Court has decided the Aereo case! And the answer is (dramatic drum roll): The Supremes, in a 6-3 vote, have reversed the Second Circuit’s decision – which means that the broadcasters have won this round.

You can read the two opinions (those would be Justice Breyer's majority and Justice Scalia's dissent) here. We are hunkering down here in the CommLawBlog bunker to take a careful look at the opinions, which run to 35 pages in toto; we’ll be posting our analysis once we’ve had a chance to digest it. (In the meantime, feel free to read the inevitable accounts in the Main Stream Media, but don’t take them as gospel. Wait for us to chime in.)

For all of you who were, in anticipation of the decision, engaging in intra-office competitions (in the nature of “pools”, but purely recreational and not amounting in any way to “gambling”), here are some aspects of the decision that may be of interest:

The majority opinion was written by Justice Breyer.

The nine justices split 6-3, with a total of two separate opinions (including the majority). The line-up was, in the majority (i.e., for the broadcasters): Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan; and dissenting (i.e., for Aereo), were Scalia, Thomas, Alito.

And finally, by our count the word “cloud” appears a total of four times in both opinions.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
Comments (1) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Steevo - June 26, 2014 11:33 AM

No one represented the interests of the public, who have a *right* to watch broadcast TV.

That the supremes did not go for my argument that as long as you let viewers watch free TV as it was broadcast no money should rightly change hand.

The line was crossed should have been that when they inserted their own commercials they were then using the free TV signal for their own business purposes.

As long as they didn't do that, they were working for me. Bringing my free TV to me so I don't have to put up an antenna.

No one argued this in the supreme court. I should have filed an amicus.

I regret that I did not. I only needed to convince two justices. I should have been there.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.

Remember personal info?