Broadcasters argued that Aereo made it harder for broadcasters to negotiate "retransmission fees" with cable companies and made their advertising less valuable.

Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer agreed, writing in the decision " "The statute makes clear that the fact that Aereo’s subscribers may receive the same programs at different times and locations is of no consequence. Aereo transmits a performance of petitioners’ works 'to the public.'"

In his dissent, Scalia argues that the real problem is not public performance but live performance. He says that Aereo might be able to remain open if it "time-shifts" its broadcasts, meaning it doesn't show them live. It's unclear whether the rest of the court agrees with him.

amazing how SCOTUS constantly supports big business interests. even the supposed liberals.

From what I've read, we sports fans should be thankful for the current bundled system. While it's true many of us have no desire to ever watch about 75% of the channels we "pay for," we benefit more by having everyone pay for the sports stations (which are the most expensive stations) that they have no interest in. In other words, I'll gladly pay $0.22 per month for BET if little old ladies continue to pay $4.50 for ESPN.

I wonder if this decision will put a crimp in Apple's plan to come up with some kind of a la carte TV programming system.

From what I've read, we sports fans should be thankful for the current bundled system. While it's true many of us have no desire to ever watch about 75% of the channels we "pay for," we benefit more by having everyone pay for the sports stations (which are the most expensive stations) that they have no interest in. In other words, I'll gladly pay $0.22 per month for BET if little old ladies continue to pay $4.50 for ESPN.

Yes, we should all be thankful that we are inflating a massive bubble for all the sporting leagues, which will ultimately pop.