Imagine you are a consumer of something that may or may not be someone's IP, a designer, programmer, etc...
You see something like this:
What do?
If you have the resources, you lawyer up.
If you don't, you pretty much disregard it.
For all practical purposes...
How would this work in a Free State?
You see something like this:
What do?
If you have the resources, you lawyer up.
If you don't, you pretty much disregard it.
For all practical purposes...
How would this work in a Free State?
I didn't understand the contract, and I guess that was your point. Generally speaking it is a huge problem with massive EULAs that no-one reads, yet everyone accepts and trusts are not draconian. It is so much more practical to have implicit contracts that are approved by the law makers on behalf of a significant majority of the population. Implicit contracts are practical since most people find them reasonable (otherwise they would not have been voted to be law by a significant majority). Those who want to deviate from the implicit contract must either write an entire EULA or write the *deviations* from the implicit contract.
This aligns the self-interest of all parties. If a software company wants to sell software to MANY people it is very smart to use the implicit contract voted for by the MANY. If a software company wants to sell to a minority then that minority will not mind the EULA since they belong to the minority who may not like the implicit contract. If however a software company wants to sell to the MANY but also don't want to abide by their wishes and follow the implicit contract, they will be at a severe disadvantage because they will have to harass people with a cumbersome EULA.
However, there is a very high treshold for something to become an implicit contract by law, and private contract firms could easily get a "nice to have" implicit contract law overturned by showing that there exists a private, peaceful alternative. This could be similar to a "people who liked X also liked Y"-service. I.e. "people who found contract X reasonable also found contract Y reasonable." With such technology available you could easily migrate from implicit contract laws to explicit contracts mediated by a private firm of your choice.
Implicit contracts of the "nice to have"-kind should in general be avoided, and only reserved for implicit contracts where there is serious risk of violations involved. E.g. implicit contract laws against killing without consent will never be lifted. It will always be assumed that people don't want to die unless explicitly stated in very certain terms.