I think the node should have been left like it was. It is
not our job to determine the legality of posts such as this,
and, in this case, the question is definitely a murky one.
Are we supposed to read every obfuscated code, make sure it
does what it claims, and then check whether it breaks any
laws, local or international? In this case, most people are
aware that this type of code is probably illegal, but my
mindset is to leave it up until contacted by somebody. If
the musical powers that be want to take the time to write
a letter to PerlMonks asking that the code be removed,
then they can do so. I'd rather keep being a
janitor and a librarian, and stay
away from the business of content monitoring. I understand
this particular case is very tricky, but do we really
"know" that the code is illegal, or have we just heard it
is from the media? If we post it, and take it down at
first request, then nobody can take issue.
Moreover, the original poster was (as I undertand it)
asking how it worked, not blantantly thumbing her nose
at the music establishment and encouraging copying of
potentially illegal code. As far as liability, it's
pretty clear that this is a computer language site,
and not a warez site.
In summary, I'd rather /msg vroom about questionable
content and let him handle as he sees fit. I don't fell
it is the editor's job to handle content, period.
