There seems to be discord between how the Supreme Court ruled on Aereo and the copyright office's opinion of them. Even though the Surpreme Court ruled against

There seems to be discord between how the Supreme Court ruled on Aereo and the copyright office's opinion of them. Even though the Surpreme Court ruled against Aereo's arguments, in doing so, they explicitly likened them to a cable company: "But given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here." [1, p. 3] To me, either they should be treated the same as the cable companies and have the same right to a compulsory license, or they should be treated as a cloud provider of antenna access and not have to pay for that license. But I guess the good news for them is that the Copyright Office, while disagreeing, has left it up to the court to make a decision. Otherwise, Aereo would really be caught in a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The implications again are far-reaching. The last time, the multi-billion dollar retransmission fee regime was imperiled by the possibility that the pay-TV companies might adopt Aereo's techniques. This time, it's the ability of companies to innovate in the space where TV and Internet intersect, and I think it's a place where real innovation is long overdue. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-461_l537.pdf