Professor Post, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy about the brief he helped write in the Aereo case:

copyright law does not exist for the benefit of authors; it uses the benefit granted to authors because that is a means to increase the creation and the availability of creative works to the public.

It’s important to note that this is not the Professor’s opinion, it is derived from the Constitution and the ways in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution (particularly Article I, § 8, clause 8).

The issue in this case is whether it is violative of copyright law for a company, Aereo, to essentially rent small digital television antennae to its customers that enable those customers to stream broadcast channels over the internet. Professor Post and his co-authors on the brief argue that it is not:

the court’s role in construing the statute is not to produce maximum authorial reward, but maximum public benefit. Where that means (as it often does) that it is the copyright owners who must persuade Congress to address the matter and adjust the balance so that it tips more in their favor, they are entitled and well-equipped to do that, as they have done so often in the past.

Read the amicus brief here.