If you agree to IP stipulations when you purchase a good, you are bound by them.
A trade is a contractual agreement that can contain enduring conditions and stipulations.
Sorry, but that’s bull. Contracts are not only about transfers of property, but about pretty much anything. There is, for example, nothing wrong with selling a dog and putting in the contract some restrictions, like, feed the dog well, don’t torture it etc. In fact I’d pretty much expect every dog-loving dog breeder to do that, if the current regulations of the state would not do that already, so now it’s not necessary but in the absence of those it would be.
I mean it almost goes without saying that a contract can mean a limitation on the use of a property - that’s the whole point about most of them except for simple sales.
Think about renting out a house - the owner is severely limited in the use of that house thereafter.
If I have a candy bar, I can attach any conditions I want. I can say “You have to eat this within 24 hours or it becomes mine again,” or “You have to give it back if you don’t mow my lawn today.” But that doesn’t mean I can force the other person to eat the candy bar or to mow my lawn if they decide not to do so.
As far as intellectual property is concerned, my position is that only the person who first breaches the contract of sale is liable for any damages—subsequent copiers are not liable at all, nor can they be forcibly prevented from copying.
Suppose X operates a restaurant, whose profits vary but generally average about $20,000 a month. Y vandalizes the restaurant, and it takes $100,000 and one month to restore it. Y is then liable for $120,000 worth of damages. X has not right to the “value” of the restaurant per se; if for some reason people stopped going to the restaurant, X would have no right to force them. However, Y the vandal is still liable for the extra $20,000 in this case because the loss of value originated from a criminal act.
Now suppose I write a story, which I keep to myself, and I intend to make some money off of it by releasing it once a certain amount of money is raised (Street Performer Protocol). Then, someone breaks in to my office and steals a copy of the story and leaks it onto the internet. As a result, my chance of making a profit is ruined, as a direct consequence of the thief’s criminal act. The thief therefore must compensate me not only for the loss of the physical copy of the story, but also for the loss of value caused by the theft. But because the information itself is not scarce property, third parties are still within their rights to continue distributing copies of the story.
If its self contradictory.
Contracts are not absolute. Its not only “slave contracts” that are invalid.
Even if you violate IP stipulations, you’ve broken the contract, voiding it; meaning the book goes back to the publisher. They can’t just take away your home. Its impossible for an enforceable contract to impose costs on an IP breaker above the potential gains from breaking it.
Suing for “lossed profits” or whatever isn’t included.
And what determines what is a sale and what is a lease? The terms of the agreement, not the word chosen by the drafter.
Well, that’s exactly what I said in the first post.
if someone has better title to the goods, they can enforce the reclamation of the stolen goods from you, and you can not stop them, but you can pursue the thief who defrauded you into selling you stolen goods as though they were legitimate.
if you buy a stolen car you have the risk that the proper owner or someone delegated by the proper owner will claim the property back, as is their right, if they do, you have no grounds to keep it. If you knowingly accepted a stolen car it is doubtful that you would have a claim against the thief who sold it to you, if you did not and where defrauded by the thief then you could pursue the thief.
does that help?