Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia. Getty Images In a major decision regarding copyright law, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday against Aereo, a streaming service, and in favor of TV broadcasters.

In its 6-3 decision, the court reversed a lower-court decision that had ruled in favor of Aereo, which lets you stream live network TV on the internet.

The Supreme Court justices found that Aereo had violated copyrights owned by TV broadcasters, marketers, and distributors whose programs the company streamed.

"This ruling appears sweeping and definitive, determining that Aereo is illegal," the lawyer, Tom Goldstein, wrote on SCOTUSblog.

The case will have implications for the way content is delivered online.

Aereo's technology uses special high-definition antennas, about the size of a thumbnail, to pull in broadcast TV from the airwaves. The signal is transferred over the internet to your device. Aereo argued that it was legal because its service was no different from a company that rents HD antennas and DVR equipment to customers.

As Goldstein wrote on SCOTUSblog, "The essence of the Aereo ruling is that Aereo is equivalent to a cable company, not merely an equipment provider."

Copyright law generally requires you to seek permission before broadcasting a "public performance." Aereo said that it was legal and did not need to pay broadcasters as cable companies do because it streams programs through individual antennas into people's homes and is therefore a "private performance." The court's majority did not buy that argument. From its decision:

Viewed in terms of Congress’ regulatory objectives, these behind-the-scenes technological differences do not distinguish Aereo’s system from cable systems, which do perform publicly. Congress would as much have intended to protect a copyright holder from the unlicensed activities of Aereo as from those of cable companies.

Addressing concerns that ruling against Aereo could stifle technology, the court ruled that it didn't believe its decision would "discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies."

The liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Antonin Scalia filed the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Scalia wrote that Aereo shouldn't be held liable for copyright infringement because users are the ones who select the programs they want to watch. Aereo is essentially a "copy shop," Scalia argued, a degree of involvement that isn't sufficient to make it liable for copyright infringement.

Aereo is different from other video-on-demand services that pay licensing fees, Scalia said. From the dissent:

Unlike video-on-demand services, Aereo does not provide a prearranged assortment of movies and television shows. Rather, it assigns each subscriber an antenna that — like a library card — can be used to obtain whatever broadcasts are freely available. Some of those broadcasts are copyrighted; others are in the public domain. The key point is that subscribers call all the shots: Aereo’s automated system does not relay any program, copyrighted or not, until a subscriber selects the program and tells Aereo to relay it.

Here's Aereo's full statement on the decision:

Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry. It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, ‘to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.’ (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?

Consumer access to free-to-air broadcast television is an essential part of our country’s fabric. Using an antenna to access free-to-air broadcast television is still meaningful for more than 60 million Americans across the United States. And when new technology enables consumers to use a smarter, easier to use antenna, consumers and the marketplace win. Free-to-air broadcast television should not be available only to those who can afford to pay for the cable or satellite bundle.

Justice Scalia’s dissent gets its right. He calls out the majority’s opinion as ‘built on the shakiest of foundations.’ (Dissent, page 7) Justice Scalia goes on to say that ‘The Court vows that its ruling will not affect cloud-storage providers and cable television systems, see ante, at 16-17, but it cannot deliver on that promise given the imprecision of its results-driven rule.’ (Dissent, page 11)”

We are disappointed in the outcome, but our work is not done. We will continue to fight for our consumers and fight to create innovative technologies that have a meaningful and positive impact on our world.