While not related from a legal standpoint, the use of iPhones and intermediate devices reminds me of a supreme Court case that I wrote a brief about. The crux of it was a steaming service that operated large arrays of micro antenna to pick up over the air content and offer it as streaming services to customers. They uniquely associated individual customers with streams from individual antenna so they could argue that they were not copying the material but merely transmitting it.
I forget the details, but ultimately I believe they lost. It was an interesting case.
And SCOTUS did so by introducing a rule it never explained and which has no support in prior law (they’re only supposed to rule on ambiguity in law, not to create new rules, that’s up to congress instead)
Thanks for the article, it was a fun read. I’ll have to go back and re-read the majority opinion because I do remember some interesting analysis on it even if I disagree with the outcome.
While not related from a legal standpoint, the use of iPhones and intermediate devices reminds me of a supreme Court case that I wrote a brief about. The crux of it was a steaming service that operated large arrays of micro antenna to pick up over the air content and offer it as streaming services to customers. They uniquely associated individual customers with streams from individual antenna so they could argue that they were not copying the material but merely transmitting it.
I forget the details, but ultimately I believe they lost. It was an interesting case.
And SCOTUS did so by introducing a rule it never explained and which has no support in prior law (they’re only supposed to rule on ambiguity in law, not to create new rules, that’s up to congress instead)
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18073200/aereo
Thanks for the article, it was a fun read. I’ll have to go back and re-read the majority opinion because I do remember some interesting analysis on it even if I disagree with the outcome.