Not really. There's such a thing as the "spirit" of a law, and the technical details of a law.

The intention of the changes to the Copyright Act (which Shivetya has detailed better than I can[1]) was to stop basically what Aereo is doing, albeit back in the 1970s with cable companies. The legalese reflected the technology of the time. Aereo found a technical loophole that allowed them to continue to do it, but all the while they were violating the spirit of the law.

Which is, of course, legal. Until it isn't.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7944081

I don't think "technical loophole" is the best description. They were trying to make the case that they were providing a long antenna cord which is at least sorta reasonable (and something the cable companies could not claim).

Antennas are legal. Manipulating airwaves to be played on a TV is legal. Long antenna cables are legal. Putting an antenna on my neighbor's roof is legal. Paying my neighbor rent for such a thing is legal. Storing broadcast content is legal. Paying for devices to do such a thing is legal.

And breaking down a cable company in the same way works consistently too. Antennas are legal, long cables are legal, paying your neighbor to set things up is legal, sharing an antenna with your neighbor is not legal.

My vague understanding of the sprit of the law that allowed broadcasters use of the public airwaves was that it required for the individuals to be able to make use of the transmissions.

Aero by many is seen as a tool to make use of those transmission on public air waves therefore in the sprit of the law.

Now we know that it was not actually conforming to the law.