Well, that 'fact' isn't very factual. The 'conservative' justices dissented from the majority opinion, but that doesn't mean that their rendering would have ma

Well, that 'fact' isn't very factual. The 'conservative' justices dissented from the majority opinion, but that doesn't mean that their rendering would have made Aerio's practices legal. In a nutshell, the dissent would have also ruled against Aerio, just for a different reason than the majority. This sentence from Scalia's dissent should put things in perspective: "I share the Court's evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks' copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed."