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".IE By complying with the exact requirements of the law, they are committing a sham.It's a policy argument, not a legal one.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.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 the law appears to prevents them from doing so. 
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".