It's in the details.
"Aereo sells a service that allows subscribers to watch television programmes, many of which are copyrighted, virtually as they are being broadcast."
I don't think they understand the meaning of broadcast. If I have an antenna and a small digital video capture device for private viewing, that's okay. I put it over at my mate's place because it gets better reception, that's okay. I pay a company to put it in a warehouse, that's not okay?
When 'they' send out the signal, that is broadcast it, and someone happens to receive it and store it for later viewing they should have no say over when or on what equipment is used. Aereo was not rebroadcasting any copyrighted material, they're delivering it to a single subscriber. One antenna, one DVR, one viewer.
Am I mistaken in that thinking? The court seems either ignorant of technology or unduly influenced by big * (media/pharma/business).
It's only Monday and I'm ready for a pint.