So I am honestly looking for holes in my reasoning, I want to be persuaded if I am wrong. Does anyone see anything wrong with my conclusions? I am concerned with rights/justice. I am convinced that property rights are economically costly. If my question is redundant can you please point me in the direction of a book or article. Thank you.
Premise 1 :
You can write a contract for anything (like Emma Watson could not cut her hair while filming harry potter) regardless of whether or not it can be delivered and regardless if it is even in physical form.
Delivered- You write a contract for a mortgage without having the funds available without being absolutely certain that you will be able to deliver on your contract. A person writes a contract for goods to be manufactured or delivered without being absolutely certain that they can or will be delivered.
Physical form- (information)You should be able to write a contract that says that an actor cannot reveal plot details or a manager cannot divulge strategic information to competitors. Also, you should be able to write contracts for billboards and internet ads and things.
(noninformation) you should be able to sign a contract preventing an actor from getting a tattoo, or cutting their hair or not doing other movie roles. You should be able to write a contract preventing a worker from using a competitors product. A college should be able to write a contract preventing a person on scholarship from activities that would hurt the colleges reputation.
Premise 2:
A person could write a contract for a music file or movie when it is purchased that says that they cannot give it to anyone else or they can’t give it to more than X number of people. I guess this would be enforceable similar to the way it is in the United States. By sending people to jail if the manufacturer can prove that the files were shared in defiance of contract. like by coding the files, or by tracking the ip addresses of the people. The government could subpoena pirating websites and internet service providers and proxies for the information.
Conclusion:
it should be right for companies like Warner brothers or Disney to ask their users to sign a contract that says that their files cannot be shared. This would be a system of property rights.
Anything wrong?
I never signed any contract. If an actor did leak info, his career is over.
A non-disclosure agreement is not incompatible with the denial of intellectual property rights, as it is not intellectual property. However, an NDA is not binding on third persons.
For the record, I am posing this as a hypothetical. IF companies made customers sign contracts, would that allow companies to have IP.
Rickey James Moore: What if the person who shared the information was the only person who would be prosecuted? Also, why can a person not have an NDA for mp3's or video files?
Yes. If they were enforcable, that would be protecting their claim to the copies of the idea, but not the idea itself. So its not an actual case for IP. The simplist way to put it is what if someone has an idea, and another person also has it independently. If the first has rights against the second, its IP.
What if the person who shared the information was the only person who would be prosecuted? Also, why can a person not have an NDA for mp3's or video files?
Even the great enemy of IP, Stephan Kinsella, recognizes this. The question is whether it is practically enforceable. Imagine a world where people have computer chips in their ears that unscramble music, so one can not even hear songs one has not paid for. Well, if such is profitable, I have no objection to this.
Would the government/PDA be just in using physical force against anyone who breached these NDA's for mp3's if it could be proven?
Why must a second inventor be protected? Shoulden't he have researched the market beforehand?
What about in the case of reproductions like plays, or cover songs, or anything that could be performed by just viewing the content? Would the NDA still work?
No, because using force is not an appropriate response for a breach of contract; only for violence.
Because people can do any damn thing they please with their property that does not interfere with the physical integrity of other people's property.
Not unless you managed to make it only viewable by people who agree to the NDA. Let's assume you sell a song on iTunes under the agreement that person A will not copy or distribute it. Yet person A plays it and person B has a tape recorder and captures it. Person B is not party to the agreement and can do as he wishes with his recording of the song.
You cannot use force to settle a contract? What prevents the person running away with the money or goods that the contract prevents?
If the design of an item is made publicly available, why can't we presume that the second inventor who wishes to sell the product of his ideas copied the idea from the first inventor?
I don't mean to be ad hoc, but couldn't the NDA prohibit the signer from alowing another party to make both digital and nondigital copies?
You cannot use force to settle a contract?
No. This is standard proportionality. Being an oathbreaker does not make one an outlaw or a standing threat. You can go onto their property to recover yours, but you can not use violence against their person.
What prevents the person running away with the money or goods that the contract prevents?
Reputation and credit, mostly.
So what? If he did not specifically agree, he is not subject to the contract. Only a meeting of the mines establishes contract.
Then the person who signed it is responsible, no action is possible against the third party.
Your comments have been exremely helpful.
I think I might be getting a technicality wrong: can a state/pda reaquire the property and use force if the property is not surrendered? Can it not collect retribution?
Could the NDA contract be applied to patents as well?
Why are FBI warnings and copyright symbols not implicit NDA contracts? Would they be implict contracts if they said "by watching this film you are agreeing..."
They can use necessary invasion of property, but they can't use violence against person. Of course if he starts shooting at them while they're recovering your property they can defend themselves.
NDA can apply to any information, trade secrets and so forth. But it can't work on third parties.
Why are FBI warnings and copyright symbols not implicit NDA contracts?
No, they are threats.
Would they be implict contracts if they said "by watching this film you are agreeing..."
No, because a contract requires a meeting of the minds. They know no one pays attention to it and they have no evidence anyone assented to it. Same with those contracts when you install Microsoft software.
thank you for your help
The problem with intellectual property is that it does not exist. Only things that exist can be property. A contract is not property.