In a stunning decision, the court that has equated corporations to people has decided that the revenue stream of a few entrenched corporations is more important than the free market.
Aero, a company that rents antennas and video recording capabilities to individuals, has been under attack from the broadcast networks. Their service allows consumers to time shift, which is perfectly legal, and view TV shows on devices other than a TV. This to me is the critical point. Broadcast networks have been vigilant in insuring that their programs be viewed on a TV,or streaming where commercials cannot be skipped. Yes, Hulu exists, but shows are available at best the day after they are on TV, if they are available at all. Furthermore, even shows that are available may be only available for a certain amount of time.
I will admit that the networks own the shows and should have the opportunity, not the guarantee, to earn a profit from those shows. I do not see how Aero is infringing on that opportunity any more than a DVR does. The only thing that Aero does only streaming with non-mandatory commercials. It essentially makes online viewing the same as viewing a show on a TV.
So, from what I can tell, the SCOTUS has agreed that online viewing is different from viewing content broadcasted to a TV. That skipping commercials on a TV is OK, but not when the content is captured by an antenna and streamed to a device. This innovation is useful to many people, as it allows them to watch programs when a TV may not be available, but may reduce the revenue received by the networks. In other words, free market innovation that complies with the law is less important than revenue of existing corporations.
We have seen a lot of argument around the rights of content owners. Some people who wants strip all rights obviously go to far. On the other hand, decisions such as this which assume the creator has a right to profit goes too far. It is like requiring all cars to come with buggy whips so that buggy whip jobs will be saved. It makes some sense in the short term, but long term innovation suffers.
Yes, if the SCOTUS ruled for Aero it might have meant that broadcast TV might have died a bit faster. Or, it could have meant that broadcast TV might have had a way to survive a little longer. We don't know. What is clear is that innovation took a back seat to a business model that dates from the previous century.