 Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo, a service that lets you stream broadcast television over the internet, violated copyright law. Broadcasters like ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX all argued that Aereo acted like a cable company only without paying for the content. Aereo's defense was that it's first and foremost a technology company that rinses out tiny, dime-sized antennas that pick up public, over-the-air channels. Each antenna is unique to the user, but instead of physically having it in your home, all the rabbit ears instead are stored together in a large warehouse. Now, the Supreme Court has never allowed video cameras in the courtroom, but thanks to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, we actually have footage of the proceedings. The following is actual audio recordings of the Supreme Court's Aereo case. Here's Aereo's lawyers making their case. When they sign up, their system is completely empty. There's no content being provided. There's equipment that's being provided. So the notion that they have in the reply brief over and over that we're somehow a content provider would mean that everybody who provides an antenna or a DVR is somehow a content provider. Now, the government says— But what if they give the subscriber a menu and says, you have these choices, and they're providing you these choices, and those choices are content? It's no different, Justice Ginsburg, that if I'm at home and I have an antenna or rabbit ears on my TV and I know what channels I can get— It's also no different from a user's perspective. It's exactly the same as if I'm watching cable, right? You just have a different content selection, and then you pick off that menu. Right. But the menu, Justice Kagan and Justice Ginsburg, is simply what is technologically available. There are broadcast signals that are available in a local area, and they are limited because that's what the broadcasters make available. And simply providing a user guide that says you can tune to this channel or you can tune to that channel if you want to pick up one program or another can't be the difference between a content provider and merely facilitating the use of your equipment. For nearly one hour, lawyers and judges tried to find the perfect non-technological metaphor to describe just how Aereo works, which ultimately led to this. I think it's the basic decision, the difference between a car dealer and a valet parking service. I mean, if you looked at it from 30,000 feet, you might think, hey, both of these things provide cars to the public. But if you looked at it more closely, you'd understand, well, if I show up at the car dealership without a car, I'm going to be able to get a car. If I show up at the valet parking service and I don't own a car, it's not going to end well for me. And so. What is the difference? I didn't mean to interrupt your. Well, I was just going to say, so I think there is a very real way in which you would say, you know, at the end of the day, the car dealer is providing cars to the public, the valet parking service is not. It's providing the parking service. Why isn't it, and I don't want to stretch it too, but why isn't it like a public garage? I mean, you know, if you can park your car in your own garage or you can park it in a public garage, you can go to RadioShack and buy an antenna and a DVR or you can rent those facilities somewhere else from Aereo. They've got an antenna. They'll let you use it when you need it. Mr. Chief Justice, that's not an implausible way to look at this. Problem is, all of these metaphors are inherently flawed. If anything, it's a clear sign that the judges and indeed the law itself hasn't caught up with the current state of technology. There's even an extended argument over the definition of copy, which sounds silly, but is important legal nuance. There's no reason it's a user specific copy, is it? You're writing 10,000 copies. It'd be much easier for you to just have to make one copy and everybody could get a copy. You don't need every viewer to have his own copy. But that is the key distinction between video on demand and the kinds of equipment and technology that Aereo provides. You can't watch my copy. I can't download it. You're saying your copy is different from my copy. Correct. Well, that's the reason we call them copies, because they're the same. All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with. You could also say that Aereo is actually complying with the law as is written today, albeit with thousands of tiny antennas. But the 6-3 decision decided to ignore Aereo's technological loophole. And that's kind of the problem. Even if Aereo winning was a long shot, these arguments highlight just how fast technology is moving and how slow the legal system can be to understand it. This won't be the last time technology is at the center of a trial. And next time, let's at least hope for some more updated analogies. Why isn't what used to be called a phonograph record store that sells phonograph records giving a public performance?
 Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Aereo, a service that lets you
 stream broadcast television over the internet, violated copyright law.
 Broadcasters like ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX all argued that Aereo acted like a cable company
 only without paying for the content.
 Aereo's defense was that it's first and foremost a technology company that rinses out tiny,
 dime-sized antennas that pick up public, over-the-air channels.
 Each antenna is unique to the user, but instead of physically having it in your home, all
 the rabbit ears instead are stored together in a large warehouse.
 Now, the Supreme Court has never allowed video cameras in the courtroom, but thanks to Last
 Week Tonight with John Oliver, we actually have footage of the proceedings.
 The following is actual audio recordings of the Supreme Court's Aereo case.
 Here's Aereo's lawyers making their case.
 When they sign up, their system is completely empty.
 There's no content being provided.
 There's equipment that's being provided.
 So the notion that they have in the reply brief over and over that we're somehow a content
 provider would mean that everybody who provides an antenna or a DVR is somehow a content
 provider.
 Now, the government says—
 But what if they give the subscriber a menu and says, you have these choices, and they're
 providing you these choices, and those choices are content?
 It's no different, Justice Ginsburg, that if I'm at home and I have an antenna or rabbit
 ears on my TV and I know what channels I can get—
 It's also no different from a user's perspective.
 It's exactly the same as if I'm watching cable, right?
 You just have a different content selection, and then you pick off that menu.
 Right.
 But the menu, Justice Kagan and Justice Ginsburg, is simply what is technologically
 available.
 There are broadcast signals that are available in a local area, and they are limited because
 that's what the broadcasters make available.
 And simply providing a user guide that says you can tune to this channel or you can tune
 to that channel if you want to pick up one program or another can't be the difference
 between a content provider and merely facilitating the use of your equipment.
 For nearly one hour, lawyers and judges tried to find the perfect non-technological metaphor
 to describe just how Aereo works, which ultimately led to this.
 I think it's the basic decision, the difference between a car dealer and a valet parking service.
 I mean, if you looked at it from 30,000 feet, you might think, hey, both of these things
 provide cars to the public.
 But if you looked at it more closely, you'd understand, well, if I show up at the car
 dealership without a car, I'm going to be able to get a car.
 If I show up at the valet parking service and I don't own a car, it's not going to
 end well for me.
 And so.
 What is the difference?
 I didn't mean to interrupt your.
 Well, I was just going to say, so I think there is a very real way in which you would
 say, you know, at the end of the day, the car dealer is providing cars to the public,
 the valet parking service is not.
 It's providing the parking service.
 Why isn't it, and I don't want to stretch it too, but why isn't it like a public
 garage?
 I mean, you know, if you can park your car in your own garage or you can park it in a
 public garage, you can go to RadioShack and buy an antenna and a DVR or you can rent those
 facilities somewhere else from Aereo.
 They've got an antenna.
 They'll let you use it when you need it.
 Mr. Chief Justice, that's not an implausible way to look at this.
 Problem is, all of these metaphors are inherently flawed.
 If anything, it's a clear sign that the judges and indeed the law itself hasn't caught up
 with the current state of technology.
 There's even an extended argument over the definition of copy, which sounds silly, but
 is important legal nuance.
 There's no reason it's a user specific copy, is it?
 You're writing 10,000 copies.
 It'd be much easier for you to just have to make one copy and everybody could get a copy.
 You don't need every viewer to have his own copy.
 But that is the key distinction between video on demand and the kinds of equipment and technology
 that Aereo provides.
 You can't watch my copy.
 I can't download it.
 You're saying your copy is different from my copy.
 Correct.
 Well, that's the reason we call them copies, because they're the same.
 All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily
 bad, I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions
 that you don't want to comply with.
 You could also say that Aereo is actually complying with the law as is written today,
 albeit with thousands of tiny antennas.
 But the 6-3 decision decided to ignore Aereo's technological loophole.
 And that's kind of the problem.
 Even if Aereo winning was a long shot, these arguments highlight just how fast technology
 is moving and how slow the legal system can be to understand it.
 This won't be the last time technology is at the center of a trial.
 And next time, let's at least hope for some more updated analogies.
 Why isn't what used to be called a phonograph record store that sells phonograph records
 giving a public performance?