[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Reading another person's broadcast when they have taken steps to prevent it is just a dirty, scummy thing to do. It marks a person as having an infantile sense of ethics.

Wrong. Believing you have a right to own the public airwaves and jail people who play with radio reception is a disgusting crime against humanity. Slobbering after and defending such dirtbag criminals is the pinhead thing to do. It marks a moron serf who has been programmed to believe anything he is told. I suppose you would have thought King George's stamp act was cool. After all, it was the law, you know.

[js1138]

You pretend that playing with radio reception is just an intellectual hobby. If it is, I would bet you are in no danger. But to the extent that such playing results in products marketed to steal private broadcast signals, it is a criminal conspiracy.

My understanding of the case presented on this thread is that actual designs were copied and sold. If this is what the case is about, then it's common theft.

As for the Stamp Act, if the Americans had been represented in Parliament, then yes, I would say it was lawful.

One of the key tests of any law is whether it offends common sensibilities. Common people may be annoyed by having to pay for TV content, but I haven't seen any mass protest movement. The reason is that ordinary people can see that the content would disappear if everyone could bypass payment. Ethics is not difficult. Even children can do it.