WASHINGTON DC – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that online TV service Aereo, backed by media mogul Barry Diller, violates copyright law by using tiny antennas to provide subscribers with broadcast network content via the Internet.

On a 6-3 vote, the court handed a victory to the four major TV broadcasters and cast Aereo’s immediate future into doubt, NBC News reported.

Aereo CEO and founder Chet Kanojia said in a statement that the decision was “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,” Kanojia said. “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.”

Networks involved in the case praised the ruling. The National Association of Broadcasters commended the Supreme Court for upholding “the concept of copyright protection that is enshrined in the Constitution.”

“Aereo characterized our lawsuit as an attack on innovation; that claim is demonstrably false,” NAB President and CEO Gordon Smith said in a statement. “Today’s decision sends an unmistakable message that businesses built on the theft of copyrighted material will not be tolerated.”

In an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street,” former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Reed Hundt, said that the Supreme Court “made the right call” and that the decision was “a really, really big win for broadcasters.”

“Aereo has very little chance surviving in the business and Barry Diller got his hands caught in the regulatory cookie jar,” he said. “You can’t use technological tricks to bypass [cable network] rules and regulations. I think that’s a very reasonable decision.”

But not everyone is counting them out.

“The interesting thing is I believe Aereo is somehow going to say, we’ve got this service, we’re going to offer this service, but you’re going to have to house your antenna ? separate from (Aereo),” said David Fannon, EVP of Popcornflix, in an interview with FierceOnlineVideo last week. He suggested that Aereo could offer the antenna or DVR as separate items or services and in a way that is in line with the 2008 Cablevision decision, “?and then things will be OK.”

“The people running Aereo are not dumb. This to me seems like a simple solution to this problem. But they didn’t. They must have a reason why they didn’t (choose this solution),” he added.

Wittenstein was skeptical that Aereo can or will pivot its business model to other options, like getting direct permission from broadcast or non-broadcast entities to stream their content.

“I don’t think it’s a practical option for Aereo. What Aereo wants to carry is broadcast programming. ? I don’t think there’s a clear licensing path today to do that,” he said.

“Aereo was a gambit to be disruptive. There was a potential upside if they won, that they didn’t manage to realize,” Wittenstein added.

Cablevision, which inadvertently had a dog in this fight with Aereo referring to its landmark 2008 case, expressed a measure of relief that the Court concentrated on the issue of copyright.

“We are gratified that the Court’s decision adopted a sensible middle ground, holding that unlicensed retransmission services like Aereo violate the copyright law, while protecting consumer-friendly, cloud-based technologies, such as RS-DVR,” the cable provider said in a statement to media. “The real winner today is the consumer who will continue to benefit from future innovation.”

It is more likely than not that Aereo will shutter, unable to keep operating in its current form permanently.

Previously, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an injunction to stop Aereo, and now that the Supreme Court reversed that decision, the claim will go back to the lower court after about 30 days.The Second Circuit then will decide to order the parties to file supplemental briefs or proceed based on what both sides have already told the court, according to Marc Hearron, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer specializing in appeals at the firm Morrison & Foerster.