If Aereo is distributing the content to more people, aren't they getting more viewers? What is the problem here?
Broadcasters, if they could, would never transmit over the air and keep their $1 month/subscriber.
It's about control and antiquated business methods. This too shall pass.
This is not an example of "technological innovation" challenging "antiquated business methods." It's a company using a Rube Goldberg contraption to try and exploit a loophole of copyright, to profit from someone else's product without paying for it.
So we are in the peculiar situation that broadcasters have to simultaneously restrict access to their content to make money from it, while satisfying FCC regulation that forces them to make it available such as to serve the public interest. That's a Rube Goldberg contraption of a business model if I've ever seen one: it requires the government to continue its practice of giving broadcasters a practically free distribution channel, while relying on lobbyism and legal threats to make the government forget about the public mandate.
So between congress establishing this bargain (where the only obvious medium for broadcasting was over-the-air) and today, where there are many ways to transmit TV, it suddenly became important over which medium I receive their content under the license granted to me by the bargain the broadcasters entered into.
This seems like an odd situation we find ourselves in, because when the FCC started giving out licenses for spectrum nobody gave any thought to other mediums; there simply were no others.
I say we end this charade, broadcasters stop transmitting over the public airwaves, we repurpose their spectrum for something useful and everybody keeps watching their favourite show on cable, as they are already doing.
(I think the answer is advertisements, but I'm open to other possibilities.)
Or is that just "the price of doing innovation" or "market forces" at work?
Once networks ditch the spectrum that is given to them by the government, then they can start complaining about people using antennae to pick up their signals. Until then, I am unsympathetic.
How far away from my TV am I allowed to place my VCR/DVR?
What should be the distance limit?
Can I stream my in-home DVR to my TV over WiFi or CAT5?
How far away can my DVR be when I stream it?
I'm guessing it's legal for me to have a DVR in my living-room and stream content acquired from over-the-air broadcasts from it to my garage over a network or wireless.
If so, what changes when my DVR is colocated?
This all seems like a "color of bits" issue.
The question here seems to be, how far from the receiving antenna can your TV be?
Cable companies, by contrast, currently tap the main feeds at one point, rebroadcast the content to their subscribers, and pay retransmission fees to the broadcasters.
(Aereo also operate a DVR service, but the big fight is over the retransmission fees they're not paying)
It's been like this since the Beta started but I'm guessing once the court rulings are over they would lift the IP restrictions.
It's an end cycle game like aggressive stage 4 cancer treatment for the elderly, you blow all your money on a strategy that might buy 5 years of hell.