Your claim was that in our current systems 'law' fails to be 'law' because one cannot be sure (with some margin) not to be breaking any law without contacting s

Your claim was that in our current systems 'law' fails to be 'law' because one cannot be sure (with some margin) not to be breaking any law without contacting specialized advise. (the 'without specialized advise is irrelevant btw, because even with such advise one cannot be sure). The only situation that can be under discussion is at the margins. If you meant that nobody can ever be sure, then we're arguing different points - but in that case your argument is so trivial that I don't see why you'd bring it up in the first place. My point is that 'law' is not a set of 100% clear rules that can mechanically be applied to any situation, after which the 'just' result will come out (to frame this within more common academic terms, I oppose Montesquieu's 'bouche de la loi' theory of law finding). There will always be cases where a 'reasonable' interpretation of the word of the law needs to be used. For people at the margins of the known rules (Megaupload), this means they cannot be sure how far they can go before they break the law. Nor, which is related but not the same, how far they can go before being prosecuted. This is not a symptom that law is failing. I'm not sure what your point is with other societies; if you think there are any that have completely closed systems, please name it, otherwise I will assume that we agree that there haven't been any. The "ignorance of the law" comment is irrelevant, which is why I ignored it. It's a procedural principle, it has little to do with this discussion. It just means that you can't use ignorance about the law as an excuse to not be convicted. It doesn't mean that everybody needs to know everything about the law. Finally, if you're suggesting that the RFC process is anything similar to law, you're basically making my point of you not understanding the profound nature of law for me. RFC's describe a very narrow, technical, deterministic aspect or format of internet-related concepts and formats. RFC compliance is voluntary and there are little to no consequences when people don't follow them or implement them wrong. The process is opaque, considers only the interests of those motivated and intelligent enough to participate and the results still are full of ambiguities and wrong choices. This is like saying 'oh the infrastructure for Google search can't be that hard, after all I can host a Wordpress blog on the Pentium 3 in my basement'. Even if, for the casual observer, the two look the same from the outside, their nature is fundamentally different.