If one wanted to muddy the waters even more, it is still currently illegal to rip CDs, even just for personal use. Although it is likely to change in the near future through the Digital Economy Act, this is a clear case of the law being completely out-of-step with common practice. What percentage of us consider that law to have been out-dated for a long time, and have 'broken the law'?
My own law breaking:
Ripping CDs (knowing that the current law is an ass)
Speeding (only marginally, knowing what the police-announced allowances are)
Lack of pedal reflectors (the law's an ass: if it's dark, I'm fully lighted)
Very occasional RLJ, on lights where there is no-one else around (and they are stupid lights that either don't register me, or turn against me late at night when there's no-one coming)
The law always needs interpeting, either by the police (did the person commit an offence?), by the CPS (is there a case to answer?) or by a judge (and possibly jury). In all the above instances of my 'law breaking', my judgement is that, somewhere along the line of interpreting the law, common sense would prevail, and I would not be penalised. That does not make the activity legal, but it reflects that there is an institutionalised way of blurring the the boundaries: whilst there appear to be clear legal boundaries, the whole legal process allows either tolerances or, in some cases, the complete disregarding of something that. legally, is clear-cut.
Without wishing to open a can of worms, for a strong example of how a clear-cut law and an extremely complex moral argument collides, one need look no further than the subject of 'mercy killing', such as when a partner assists in the death of a loved-one suffering from dreadful terminal illness: though the uninterpreted law doesn't recognise the term and doesn't allow for any such actions (as far as I understand it), the courts have repeatedly passed sentences which on the one hand uphold 'the law', but effectively exculpate the 'perpetrator'.
