Shortly after the Aereo’s Supreme Court case, the company filled for bankruptcy, as explained in this article. Currently, Aereo still keeps its website alive with a single page advertising Tivo’s product as the one that “keeps Aereo’s dream alive.”
There are several articles (for example this one) arguing that the Court ruling injected uncertainty in the copyright regulation and demotivated the startups interested in changing the current TV model.
I believe that is indeed bad when new business cannot predict how courts or regulators will rule their activity. However, I have a hard time considering that was Aereo’s case. As Justice Scalia pointed out, Aereo seemed more to be looking for “loophole” in the regulation, rather than developing a new product. It is great when new technology provides easier and cheaper products to meet consumers expectations. However, it does not seem to be fair when such innovations come as the way of “free riders” of pre-existing products. Like in the Napster case, here Aereo seem to be commercializing a product at the expense of the ones who really incur in the costs of its production. My opinion is that government should support new technologies that can be disruptive without damaging other company’s rights, as Spotify and Netflix, for example, seems to do.