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.