Yes, but that doesn't change the setup. They had a separate antenna and a separate server making separate copies of the shows for each user.

But, even after the Supreme Court said they were operating more like a cable company https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/supreme-court-pu... they were not allowed to actually operate like a cable company. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/in-win-for-broad...

Sounds like they had bad lawyers (or bad judges). Shouldn't be simultaneously possible to be a cable company and not.

But as IA isn't to my knowledge doing controlled digital lending with broadcast television, is there any plausible argument they would be found to be a cable company?

IA is doing a whole lot of digital lending other than television and that’s part of what this lawsuit is about iirc.

I’m not sure what you’re asking - they lost because the “we just host personal antennas for subscribers, it’s 1:1 between antennas and subscribers with no Y therefore it’s not rebroadcasting” was found to not be a viable argument, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Like this is a weird “that’s not true, weren’t they actually…” that recites all the same reasons I just said they were found to be infringing?