Appeals court upholds legality of Aereo’s “tiny antennas” scheme
The dissent on this bothers me as a lawyer.
It basically says the whole thing is a sham to use a perceived "loophole in the law".<p>IE By complying with the exact requirements of the law, they are committing a sham.<p>It's a policy argument, not a legal one.<p>A sham is doing something like "i'll sell my brother my house for $1". That's a sham. You are doing something to try to trivially comply with contracts law (which requires adequate consideration), but the $1 you are giving is really trying to cover up the fact that it's really a gift.<p>But that's not the argument the dissent makes, the argument it makes is "i don't like this behavior, so i will villify it" and act like it's a sham.  The law imposes plenty of technical barriers to doing things.
I could make an amazing wireless system if i could use whatever transmitter power i liked, but the law prevents me.
The fact that they could use one large antenna is exactly right, but it changes nothing, because <i>the law appears to prevents them from doing so</i>. 
Following the technical requirements of FCC law is not a sham, it's "what the law requires you do".
Following the technical requirements of copyright law is not a sham, it's "what the law requires you do".