both sides,ers from paul clement and david frederick came out and made the reposing statements. in that crowd, was barry diller. he wanted to listen in on what paul clement, the lead attorney for the broadcasters, what he have to say. i guess he didn't get enough information in the car -- in the court room. i asked very how we thought things went and he said, i think they went well. he didn't want to make any more statements but he listened in again on the broadcasters and then he walked off. a lot of people thought that very he was the most high-profile ceo at this hearing that he would perhaps split out the past door -- the back door but he couldn't help himself. quacks tell us to the players are. you have buried a letter, the broadcast is on one side and even the obama administration has come to their support. >> the department of justice came down on the support of the broadcasters. on the aereo side, lots of silicon valley players support it. they say it is important for the future of cloud computing. dish network has the technology very similar to aereo. they wrote a brief

so then i took what barry said, matt, and i went over to paul clement and i said look, barry diller was just listening in on what you were saying and he said things went well. and listen to paul's reaction [ >> obviously i've been to more than one argument where more than one person who heard the argument had a different impression how the argument went. i certainly think the justices were asking the right questions and we certainly think that we provided the court with a straightforward interpretation of the performance. >> of course, matt, both sides are going to say things went well and they're confident that they will win. we're not going to find out until later in june what exactly the supreme court decides, matt. >> all right. so betty, what happens next between now and then? >> well, we know what happened today first, matt. the justices, the nine justices were hard on both sides and they really zoned in on the issue, the key issues, for justice roberts, he was very hard on aereo and said look, this really seems like you're trying to skirt copyright laws by saying you're an innova

i want to start by playing you paul clement, the counsel for the networks. let me get your response on the other side. >> what's at stake in this case is really the nature of broadcast television as we know it because if a company like aereo can somehow provide content to lots of paying strangers without engaged in a public performance, i think the networks, at least some of them, will have to rethink the way that they provide content. >> so, amy, how would they have to rethink the way they provide content and why? >> i think paul clement is representing the broadcasters, and they're very concerned about losing those $4 billion of fee that is you were talking about. the idea that aereo has is they're taking what you can do already legally in your home, stick an antenna on your roof and have a dvr, and they're doing it over the internet. that's a new technology that has never been tried before. it's something that allows them to sort of skirt these copyright laws that allows them to not pay broadcasters, and what broadcasters are really worried about is not n

. >> reporter: but attorney paul clement, arguing on behalf of the major broadcast networks, including cbs, told the supreme court today that aereo is in clear violation of u.s. copyright laws and must pay for the use of programs the networks own. t there's nothing about the digital age that makes the copyright laws obsolete. >> reporter: some justices worried ruling against aereo could hamper the booming growth of the cloud. justice stephen breyer said he was nervous about what a possible decision against aereo is going to do to other technologies. other justices were skeptical of aereo's basic argument. chief justice john roberts told aereo's lawyer, there's no technological reason for you to have 10,000 dime-sized antenna, other than to get around the copyright laws. the court's decision is expected by the end of june. if aereo loses, it could be put out of business. if the networks lose, scott, they stand to lose billions of dollars. some networks have even said that, if they do lose, they will consider moving programming to cable or the internet. >> pelley: chip, thanks very much.

>> paul clement was the solicitor general, you usually do when more cases than you lose.ood track records. we are going to get a first-rate argument. >> who do you think of the justices will be asking the most questions? >> in most cases, every justice except clarence thomas asked questions. a couple justices wrote separate opinions in another case, stephen breyer and ruth bader ginsburg. they had different views on the copyright law. this is not a case we are expecting to be ideologically divisive. they are both democratic appointees that may be on opposite sides of the case. >> for aereo, what is the end goal? what does barry diller want? >> they want to disrupt the cable industry. >> because they want to be acquired? not interested in going public, he is focused on winning the case in building the business. continuing the legal and building the business strategy. >> you believe it is true, if they don't win, they are done? >> that is what they both set. they are done and will cross their fingers someone else will be able to come in and follow through with that mandate

made on the other side of the case suggests as long as the content is provided -- the attorney, paul clement the networks as he argues the case of copyrighted judgment against area in front of the supreme court. the supreme court is likely to rule in several months. stay tuned for all the developments. we will bring them to you. annualurn to the 13th film festival in. in. they are kicking up a lot of buzz. withanie ruhle set down shane rosenthal. she cofounded the film festival with robert deniro in 2002. to bei feel so fortunate able to continue the film festival. i do not even think we would have movies, let alone being sitting here 12 years later. the festival evolved into good stories for some of the most diverse audiences in the world, right here in new york city. -- you it is not just got panels. sxsw? >> it is a great comparison. we will have our own identity. it is a bar mitzvah year. we will turn into something special. look, about 12to years ago, our reality was vastly different in how it -- and how we communicate was different. spotify, instagram, you're not talking about tweeting

and david frederick -- >> paul clement, arguing counsel for the networks today. i just want to say obviously we were very glad to get before the courts today the cases here on the surface tension -- on the surreptitious to seek review of the surface -- the second circuit decision. we found the second circuit decision was wrong and a real threat to the nature of the broadcast industry. we are very happy to be in court today. we're obviously very pleased with the way the court considered the arguments. they understood the technology, the stakes in this case. obviously they were focused principally on the interpretation of the statute. we convey to them are relatively straightforward position, which is that a service can not provide live tv over the internet to thousands of paying strangers without engaging in a public performance. it is as simple as that and the statue per fred -- the statute protects the public performance rights. eo's technology and service violates this public performance rights. >> [indiscernible] think we perceive a weakness there. i think we

paul clement and david frederick came out and made their closing statements to the press. in that crowd, emily, was a man who backs aereo. i asked barry, how do you think things went in the courtroom? he said, you know what? i think things went well. he listened in on the broadcasters and walked off. a lot of people thought that there he would perhaps just slid out the side door. he just couldn't help himself, emily. >> tell us who the players are. yet the broadcasters on one side and the obama administration have come to their support. >> the department of justice came down in support of the broadcasters. on the aereo side lots of silicon valley. dish networks. they wrote a brief in support of the company saying this is basically what we have, which is we allow people to get broadcast content in whatever way they want. they can record it. it is essentially new technology doing the same old thing that a vcr used to do, emily. >> you sat down for an exclusive interview ahead of today's arguments. what if the vcr never existed? what did he have to say about today in particul

we'll here from paul clement, an attorney for abc and other networks and david frederick who is representing aereo. >> we thought the decision was profoundly wrong and a real theat to the name of broadcasting industry as we know it. so we are very happy to be in today. we are pleased with the way the court considered the arguments they understood. theynk the technology understood. the stakes in this case very well. focused onhey were the interpretation of statute and we conveyed to them a relatively straight forward position which is that a service tv over thede live internet to thousands strangers in a publicging performance. it really is as simple as that statute protects the public performance rights at aereo's service public vile last those performance rights. i don't think we perceive a weakness there. i think we presented this case statutory interpretation for the court. that's the way i think the court will process this case. obviously concerned about the consequencees both for the broadcast industry and for technologies, but i think they also understand that there differencetal betwe

clement, -- paul clement. i just want to say we are very glad to get before the court filedon the case that we trying to seek review of the second circuit's decision because we thought the second circuit's decision was profoundly wrong and was a real threat to the nature of the broadcast industry. we are very happy to be in court today. we are very pleased with the way the court considered the arguments. they understood the technology. they understood the stakes. obviously, they were focused on the interpretation of the statute and we convey to them are relatively straightforward position which is that a service can not provide live tv over the internet to thousands of paying strangers without engaging in a public performance. it is really as simple as that and the statute protects the public performance rights and the technology and service of aereo violates that. what is the number was -- number one weakness you would see in the reaction? >> i don't think we perceive the weakness. as aesented this case quest