Right now there a lot of vague things that need to shake down since the legal system is behind the curve. For one the individual antenna per person. That is silly but it's the way the law is often interpreted. Many people could tap into an antenna however so in a way the law needs to reflect modern technology changes. If I owned a building and allowed all my tenants to tap into my giant antenna no one could say a word.
Mostly from what I've seen (but I'm no expert) the courts allow restreaming as long as the content isn't changed. Fair use doctrine is usually applied if there is a way the person could have gotten the channels directly. Paying someone is ok, that someone putting in advertisements or modifying the signal (DVR counts as modifying) isn't ok. This company has learned from others mistakes and is doing things very carefully. Strat, I think they've got this one nailed down. If the courts throw this one out it's a major step back for the legal system. Free to air needs to be FREE. If they start limiting how someone can get it then the system is damaged.
I hope it makes them reconsider Hulu because with Hulu they have control, without it they don't. I'm not sure how that will work however.
edit, let me add that another issue has been "where does the viewing take place?" The other companies tried to send the video long distance. Since the courts have said viewing takes place where the TV is that was considered illegal. In this case viewing takes place where the signal could be seen anyway so that probably won't be an issue.
Nun sacciu, nun vidi, nun ceru e si ceru durmiv.
I know nothing, I see nothing, I wasn't there,
and if I was there, I was asleep.