Discuss Ch15Part7 here

In my opinion there is a practical inability of law to control code that should be considered here. Few judges or lawyers understand code. Judges think they can say "make it so" and suddenly (e.g.) filters can do a great job filtering content. Lawyers who want to win make all kinds of inaccurate representations about code, and thanks to the "trade secrecy" of source code they can usually get away with this (cf the Blue Mountain Cards v. Microsoft case , http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-513090.html?legacy=zdnn).

This is slightly tangential, but the whole fuss about intelligent design recently is an interesting example of an attempt to twist common perceptions of an issue on which there is broad scientific consensus.  "Right-thinking" advocacy groups want to make correct representations about the nature of code; the comment above implies that it has been possible for lawyers to snow the judges on this issue.  The recording industry has had success representing copyright violation as theft in a similar fashion.  While that issue is well-covered, it might be interesting to compare the progression of intelligent design in the media and the courts to that of copyright violation (for example, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents) in terms of the understanding displayed.  -Avi