congress already covered this with wired transmission.
congress isn't clueless congress is owned now days, corporations dictate their policy making. obama care is a perfect example: Section. 8.
"The Congress shall have Power To:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
no where is the power given for congress to force commercial transactions, only to regulate what already exists freely and willingly. corrupt officials were appointed to the supreme court and ruled improperly on Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption in Ohio. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
the government does not have the power to control what is property in the left hand and placed to the right hand.
Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
the law was written very narrowly with wording describing a cable company, however that wording could also be either more loosely defined with a 2 sentence simple solution. telecommunications companies escaped this by arguing they are not a transmission content provider as they can SEND AND RECEIVE, but given the internet is what it is today and the language of the original law it is the telecommunications providers that made the law so time defined by the technology of that era. the laws covering this should be repealed until they are idea defined wording so as to include new technology beyond cable transmission and just transmission period such as the NFL NBA MLB have it defined as transmission or sharing and what not in their copy right.
Smart man, that Mr. Madison. Basically, I am of the opinion that unless something involves stealing something physical from someone else, physically harming someone else without that person's permission, or forcing someone into a sexual situation against their will VERY little should be criminally illegal or even civilly illegal.
Let's face it... Our country is one with policies dictated by big corporations.
The big corps are in the back pockets of the politicians. Until Aereo or someone like them has more money or perks to give the politicians by becoming big themselves (more than big media currently does), the politicians will keep voting pro big media. This is how the status quo reigns and change is difficult. How do you compete when you're not already one of the big boys in an industry/field that already exists (ie delivering local channels to the masses)?
Even if Aereo figures out a way to make this right, the cable and satellite providers will figure out a way to eliminate this type of competition either through payments/lobbying politicians or by merely putting Aereo on the internet's new "slow lane".