Fair enough. Given the unpopulatiry of legal realism these days (especially among nonlawyers!) I think it's probably safe to assume that you just disagree about

Fair enough. Given the unpopulatiry of legal realism these days (especially among nonlawyers!) I think it's probably safe to assume that you just disagree about the clarity of the case. But maybe not -- I suppose jwise can speak for him/herself. I take slight issue with your characterization of Aereo's legal position, though (mostly having to do with your #2). The issue (as I understand it) was whether Aereo was infringing on the copyrights of the owners of broadcast TV content. Aereo was arguing neither that they were or were not like a cable company, because it could not possibly have helped them. If they were a cable company, they were SOL because they hadn't been paying the compulsory licensing fee by which cable companies get the license to broadcast content. If they weren't, this still would leave them in search of an explanation of why they weren't infringing on broadcasters' copyright. Their strategy, therefore, was to argue that they were simply, in essence, renting a broadcast antenna to allow home viewers to time/place shift broadcast TV. The analogy to cable operators came into it because the Supreme Court concluded, on the basis of the treatment of cable companies under the Telecommunications Act, that congress intended for any such service -- regardless of what technological contrivance they might use -- to require a license. Under this approach to the case, I think the outcome is a bit clearer against Aereo. This is not to say that I think the issue is at all an easy one.