The point of my original post, which I think the one youre responding to aligns with, is that we shouldn't have to "wait for the courts to figure it out." Illegal things should be illegal as a matter of the written law, not dicta from jurists. To do that we need legislators that will write narrow laws not influenced by the industry they are regulating, not tied to a poison pill budget proposal, etc...

Nobody is stopping nuance. But small enough gray areas don't excuse going hog-wild and courts seem to think this gray area is not very big.

Weird how your response to me asking you if there was an argument with actual merit is to decry my inability to engage in nuance in a legal discussion (ps I'm an attorney)... Also, it's worth pointing out that it seems like you completely made up the vast majority of your previous post. I guess that's just "nuance?"

>I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

Actually we do. If a court finds your activity was illegal, you get the according punishment. The court doesn't say "oh gee golly, you're guilty but we'll let you off for this one because who could see it coming!"

>The courts are figuring it out.

The courts figured it out. It does not matter in Utah state court, what the 3rd circuit thinks. It is not binding precedent in Utah state courts.