A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. (via Wikipedia: Scientific Law)

One example is that "Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit." As another, the laws of classical mechanics break down on the Plank scale. This doesn't mean that classical mechanics is false; it simply means that the law is not applicable under some states. Laws do not explain why something happens and usually break under extreme extrapolation, such as this experiment.

Relativistic effects break classical mechanics, but only because of previous imperfect understanding. It all boils down to available evidence, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary a law is considered 'solid', less perfect but still practically usable even if there is a better one.

When computing how long it will take an elevator to crash in to the basement of a building you won't need relativistic effects accounted for. You probably don't have time for that anyway ;)

Granted, this is a subtlety that scientists grasp easily, and laymen do not, so this article probably gave the wrong idea to many people who read it.

That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty: "It is very much more likely that so and so is true than that it is not true;" or "such and such is almost certain but there is still a little bit of doubt;" or – at the other extreme – "well, we really don't know." Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth." - Richard P. Feynman