People who work as programmers tend to know a lot more about copyright law than your average Joe with a law degree.
What the flip? No they don't.
And a person with a legitimate law degree is not at all an "average Joe".
I would expect the average lawyer to be able to conduct a case (assuming they do the whole trial law bit anyway), tell me about tort law, file the relevant documents, write contracts, make sure said contracts are filed, do depositions, and all that goes with that.
If I lined up 50 people that passed the bar in the last 5 years and 50 programmers of similar experience levels (never mind any kind of veterans, though we could do that too -- while people do switch fields in law from time to time it is rather rare) I would bet everything I own that the programmers would be better able to tell me about the investigative techniques people might use, the trap stuff I mentioned above, notable cases of people and companies being sued for copyright infringement and what caused it, probably the different types of IP and cases there, what copyright entails for them, how it is usually handled within businesses, how it is handled within their field, possibly have a more than cursory familiarity with software licensing, possibly be able to be dragged up to some form of expert witness, tell me about the DMCA, tell me about the librarian and their increasing list of DMCA exemptions.
Everything there is their life and livelihood -- they are the ones that get called to implement and ensure compliance (and in good companies maybe even have a say at the purchasing level) with software they buy in, and if they sell software or what is effectively access to the software it is copyright that underpins the lot. Anyone that came up in that world likely has met it for years where I would take a similar bet to the one above that most lawyers are only going to say "I want to do this, how much is it going to cost me to be able to do it?", mainly as that is what every non computer person doing the whole business thing asks.
If one of said lawyers is a dedicated copyright, trademark or patent (such that it is for computer programs -- Japan and US being about the only places that have software patents, everywhere else considers them an utter abomination and affront to all that patents are supposed to be about) then outside of maybe trivia (and even that is not assured) they would likely mop the floor with most of the computer peeps but if they are a family law, employment law or tax law then they would know such things are assets and to be priced accordingly but struggle to do anything like explain the
four factors.
What the computer peeps would be able to do in lawyer world is also a fun one that is hotly debated (see any number of jokes about representing yourself, much less representing yourself as a mere mortal). That said where computers wiped out the bottom rungs of many jobs they also appear to be coming for the lawyers -- how many lawyers want to do discovery/disclosure without ctrl and F, at the same time you get the delivery of source code you think your competitors stole (or more likely to the independent third party analysis firm) do you think they could not make sense of a "this fragment is clearly lifted from your code because of this error if you run it" type report?, and similarly if a company popped up offering prebaked contracts that you have a box to fill in relevant parties how much would that really account for (as a hint have you had a personalised EULA or preorder lately? Unless you are paying me 6 figures for my software you are probably not getting one either).
