In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical

In your opinion, anyway.

Mine and that of many others, including at least one communications attorney
and engineer.

and arguably illegal at the time.

a legal argument in academic concept only. Since the FCC
never tested the legality, the legal issue is moot.

That's like saying that if someone drives 85 mph in a 65 mph zone and is not
prosecuted for it, that the violation is an academic concept only.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

Ditto my last.

Do you think it was ethical to obtain information the way Bash did?

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Not at all.

It would be the equivalent of a techer using the SAME
test questions over and over again and in recognition of same, a
frat house eventually compiles a list of those questions based on the
memory of those frats that had taken the tests before.
Nothing
about what bash did is equivalent to sneaking into the teacher's
office.

What's the difference? If the teacher left the door and his/her desk unlocked,
and there was an unmonitored copy machine in the office, would it be ethical
for a student to sneak in, find the test, make a copy and put everything back
as it was? Why or why not?

But let's use your analogy and see where it leads.

Suppose the university had an "honor system" policy that specifically
prohibited divulging what was on a test. Would it be ethical for a frat to
compile question lists?

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that
would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with
FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the study guides.

In the end it made no difference.

It makes a difference in that ARRL followed the rules and Bash did not.
Bash obtained his materials by other methods,

And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the
means being legal or not.

Just as some drivers go way over the limit and yet never get a speeding ticket.

and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.

I know hams who did care.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

How about this, then:

There was a time (several decades long) when ham license exams were given by
mail if the ham-to-be met certain criteria. The written exams were sent to the
volunteer examiner (no capitals) in a sealed envelope with a lot of
instructions explaining how the materials were to be handled. Included in those
instructions were warnings not to divulge the contents of the test.

Would it have been unethical to make a copy of the test? Why or why not?

73 de Jim, N2EY