3 ms·
It wasn't a loophole, it was the law. Aereo were following Copyright law and previous case law as exactly as possible. The Supreme Court changed that law in t
by dublinben 12y ago
It wasn't a loophole, it was the law. Aereo were following Copyright law and previous case law as exactly as possible. The Supreme Court changed that law in their ruling, because they felt it went against the 'spirit' of the law.
- paulgb 12y agoIsn't doing something that is legal but goes against the spirit of the law by definition exploiting a loophole? Edit: now that I think about it, there is room for a distinction between areas where case law hasn't ventured and exploitable holes in areas that case law has explored. But I'm interested in hearing if there's a more formal definition.