It seems the core of this issue is the definition of "tangible". Why does the law profession choose to use such obtuse wording? There doesn't appear to be any way for normal people or even lawyers to identify if something is tangible in the way the law describes it.
I'm not 100% $ure, but I have my $u$picion$...
> pc86 will build a WP brochure site for linker3000 for $1,500.
But you need it by a certain date?
> add date clause
But I'm not taking a risk that you might not have the money
> add non-refundable deposit clause
But what if my house gets flooded or I lose electricity for a month?
> add Force Majeure class
But what if you give me a bunch of stolen images to use?
> add indemnity clause
> add IP clause
But what if I violate half a dozen labor laws while completing your work?
> add another indemnity clause
Repeat over and over again until you have a 15+ page single-spaced contract for a piddly $1,500 website.
Words mean things. In law, words typically mean very specific things. That's why "trespass" doesn't fit here, even though I think we can all agree you shouldn't be able to project messages onto someone else's property no matter what the message is or where you happen to be standing.
Anyway, having a bunch of many very specific terms is hardly specific to lawyers, that's not the problem. The problem with legalese, as I see it, is that it lacks higher-order types and lambdas... Erm... efficient means of generalization or specialization inline, without a need for two sentences to add one minor detail and the need for a full, multi-paragraph clause when adding a somewhat "standard" - without any modifications - piece of an arrangement.
Heck, even a simple inheritance would help (you get a GeneraIPClause and while writing an agreement you just write `OurIPClause is GeneralIPClause with { ...modifications... }`.
English isn't code. You don't get "higher-order types and lambdas" in English, come on now.
Tangible normally means "touchable" though who knows what the law makes of the word. I don't think one can touch light in any meaningful sense.
Legislators should draft a law that defines what 'it' is (e.g. not ambient light), what is excluded (art? abandoned buildings?), and how bad is it (jail, fine, etc).
This is a problem which Marshall McLuhan wrote about frequently, he described our situation as if we were navigating the present like someone driving down the road using only the rear view mirror.
>Hypnotized by their rear-view mirrors, philosophers and scientists alike tried to focus the figure of man in the old ground of nineteenth-century industrial mechanism and congestion. They failed to bridge from the old figure to the new. It is man who has become both figure and ground via the electrotechnical extension of his awareness. With the extension of his nervous system as a total information environment, man bridges art and nature.