[quietcomments]

Colour is used as a metaphor for the relationships lawyers want to create and the structuralist view that how you create logic matters as much or more than the content of the logic. Mushed together into one concept.

Then the author teases out the tangled truth. Logic and binary code can't support inherent relationships. Ones and zeros don't come with a 'colour'.

The ethical problems in the article conflates a symbolic representation generated by computer monitors from code, with the code itself being the problem. Like blaming the wind for carrying a dirty limerick into your ear.

Unfortunately the best way to deal with symbols is to burn them down. Detect and delete dirty pictures. You could make the Colour of generating unethical symbols illegal. Detect and prosecute after the fact like we do with most crimes. But not the binary code itself being illegal, just the symbolic representation of CP.

Also, DRM failing in the article's examples, is a feature not a bug. It gives a temporary structure to digital rights and doesn't constrain code re-use (like a software patent would) or try to lock down ownership of logic.