So at what point does it become illegal? First you have an antenna on your roof. You paid for it. The person who sold the antenna - which facilitates your watching copyrighted content - profits from said content. Per mr. Orlowski, the antenna salesman should pay royalties... But obviously that isn't the case.
Now say you rent the antenna. Well, if you rent the house, you are - so clearly renting an antenna is ok.
Now suppose you pay your neighbor to put your rented antenna on his house because he gets better reception. Is your neighbor infring? If you rented his whole house instead it wouldn't be infringing, obviously, but clearly your rental of the property has no effect on the end result for the content producers. So I would assume it's ok for your neighbor to let people put antennas on his house.
Now suppose your neighbor is 10 miles away. You need a really long cable but otherwise it's the same. Is the long cable somehow causingtthe neighbor to cost the producers money where a short one didn't? That doesn't make much sense.
So now suppose using a cable isn't practical, so the neighbor takes your signal and sends it via the internet instead. Is this change materially different? Does the retransmission of compressed ATSC digital data via TCP/IP damage the content producers when transmitting the same digital data via a cable with different termination is fine? That also makes no sense.
And if the neighbor has ten people with their antennas on his house sending them signals - how can that affect the content providers either? The end users don't know or care that the other users exist. The fact that there's more than one is incidental.
In the end, these guys are the neighbor in the last scenario. They're essentially providing nothing more than a very good antenna to each of their customers. How in the hell does this infringe copyright? How good does an antenna have to be before it starts to cost content providers money?
If you want to argue - as Mr. Orlowski clearly does - that providing a better antenna is 'profiting from copyrighted work', then why not accuse the people who make better decoder chips and the people who make HDMI cables, who all profit just as directly by enabling transmission of the same content?
Answer that question and I'll listen. But just yelling vaguely and angrily about fairness isn't going to convince me.