nope, aereo didn't have a Y in the wire, still found to be infringing.
of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they are easily taken away by a plaintiff with money. if you don't have the money to defend the right, you don't have the right (and in fact stand a good chance of getting the right taken away for everyone else too).
Sounds like they had bad lawyers (or bad judges). Shouldn't be simultaneously possible to be a cable company and not.
But as IA isn't to my knowledge doing controlled digital lending with broadcast television, is there any plausible argument they would be found to be a cable company?
I’m not sure what you’re asking - they lost because the “we just host personal antennas for subscribers, it’s 1:1 between antennas and subscribers with no Y therefore it’s not rebroadcasting” was found to not be a viable argument, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Like this is a weird “that’s not true, weren’t they actually…” that recites all the same reasons I just said they were found to be infringing?
of course this gets to the core of the problem: rights on paper are one thing, but they are easily taken away by a plaintiff with money. if you don't have the money to defend the right, you don't have the right (and in fact stand a good chance of getting the right taken away for everyone else too).