Yet, it's possible to obfuscate and confuse with only simple words, even unintentionally. We're waiting on a Supreme Court ruling that could have significant i

Yet, it's possible to obfuscate and confuse with only simple words, even unintentionally. We're waiting on a Supreme Court ruling that could have significant impact on first-sale that hinges on two plausible interpretations of the phrase "made lawfully under this title."[1] "First sale" itself is made up of two simple understandable words, but could mean be any one of the sales that occur in the creation of a work. The words themselves contain nothing that indicate whether it refers to the first sale of a book to a publisher, a publisher to a store, a store to a person or a person to another person. "Assault" is a common word in every day usage, but in law it means something very specific, it doesn't even require physical contact. Even if someone succeeds in writing a law that makes perfect sense to laypeople, it's possible that the apparent meaning will change or be lost in the future. For an example of this, wade just ankle-deep into discussions of the meaning of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Phrases like "sine qua non"[2] are pretty inaccessible, in that you might need to look them up. However, being from a dead language, they may be less likely to morph in meaning over time. [1] http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/05/08/some-baffling-copyright-law... [2] Found in a Supreme Court opinion on copyright - Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Svc. Co., Inc. - 499 U.S. 340 (1991) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/340/case.html