I think he's talking about his moral beliefs, not his legal rights.

Either way, my point is it's an oddly popular belief that's so inconsistent with reality it can't serve as a basis for any coherent argument about adblocking.

Sure it can, the law is neither immutable nor sacred. Just because large corporate interests managed to create backwards laws doesn't mean we can't ignore them or talk about what the law ought to be.

The people who make this argument aren't inconsistent, they also likely believe that decrypting satellite, breaking DRM, or generally hacking or cracking shouldn't be illegal but dealt with through proper security or private contract.

Slightly off topic but I should point out by the way -- I haven't stated my gender so I would strongly suggest the use of a gender-neutral language in referring to HN comment authors. Original poster (OP), parent, grandparent (GP) are common gender-neutral pronouns in forums.

(I do happen to be male, but I just noticed, and just wanted to make a suggestion for the future.)

(If you went through the trouble of looking up who I am via googling me or such, and then wrote the comment, then please ignore this and thank you for your attention to detail.)