> One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. What about evidence? Presumably the copyright 'deriver' isn't just going to honestly detail how

> One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. What about evidence? Presumably the copyright 'deriver' isn't just going to honestly detail how they stole the work. Surely an important part of the evidence is going to be what process was used to derive the work? If it can be established that an existing software package would produce an identical derivation surely that would be an important part of the evidence. Without understanding the processes of transformation (i.e. the spinning process) it may not be possible to accurately gauge the likelihood of the work having been derived versus a coincidence. This all seems to be firmly in the realm of quantities to me. > It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology. I think the 'technocratically warped world view' is based on the notion that the function of the legal system is ultimately to serve society - not the other way around. Given that technological change is the major driver of social change it will necessarily also drive changes in the legal system. Situations where ancient laws and ignorant judges determine cases represent failures of the legal system and the more it fails the less relevant and powerful it must become for society to flourish. Inevitably it will be the legal system that needs to 'warp' itself towards the technocratic one rather than the other way around. Of course what I'm talking about is a medium/long term trend. Anyone expecting this to happen in any individual legal case would be making a big mistake.