I've written this before, but in any discussion of copyright it proceeds fairly quickly to what contracts are.
Just because a copyright is presented, doesn't mean that is has to be agreed to. To illustrate this I use an example: I'm very familiar with a manufacturer that sent a contract to a distributor. The distributor disagreed with some parts of the contract and sent it back with these reasons. The manufacturer sent the contract to their legal department for revision. Meanwhile, the manufacturer's rep began to supply pricing to the distributor (figuring the contract would be taken care of) and the distributor started ordering. The legal department stalled, and revised the contract and sent it back to the distributor, who sent it back again with many of the same concerns, unsigned. The manufacturer's legal department stalled some more (they wanted the right to change prices retroactively if the distributor didn't sell enough). The legal department didn't respond again until over a month later. Meanwhile, the distributer had dropped 2 purchase orders that were fulfilled (on 30 day credit terms, no less). When the contract came again over a month later - it was ignored (it had the same part about retroactive pricing). Now, over a year later and many thousands of dollars of business, the contract sits unsigned. There actually is a contract, which is a "handshake" contract of common honesty with the rep, and the purchase order is the contract with the manufacturer. Everything is being done in an entirely just manner. Can the manufacturer come back and retroactively raise prices on the distributor if the distributor doesn't sell as much product as the manufacturer wanted them to sell?
Sorry for the long story, I really only mentioned the relevant details. The distributor was well aware of the manufacturer's contract, but they didn't agree with it (and honestly told the manufacturer about it). Just because one knows about a contract does not mean they agree with it. Just because I know what the copyright is does not mean I agree with it. If I don't agree with the contract, it is not unGodly. If the contractor will not do business with the contractee because they don't agree with their contract, so be it. If they do business with the contractee despite the disagreement - it is rightly the contractor's problem if the contractee doesn't honor it - the contractee is free of guilt. It isn't that there is no contract - it only means the two parties have decided to do business with contractee's terms using a "handshake" contract (or purchase order generated by the contractee again showing it is mutually agreed to according to the contractee's terms).
If you prefer to sell something on a "handshake" contract with strangers over which you have no accountability, then don't be surprised if the contract is not agreed to often. If your handshake contract relies on an intermediary party enforcing the "handshake" contract without compensation, then don't be surprised if the contract isn't honored - especially if the intermediary will not receive punishment for breaking the contract.
If a contractee decides he/she needs it in writing - the contractor should stand behind their demands and supply a one-to-one written contract. If the contractee then agrees with the contract, they can sign it.
If you want to make a blanket contract with every stranger that might do business with you - you are making a weak contract. It will quickly be tightened up if it is ever enforced.
Consider this (what is told next is assumed to be under a good government): a publisher finds their work being openly published by another man. He claims he received the work under no false pretenses without a contract restricting his right to distribute the work as he sees fit. He claims he told the clerk clearly, where he bought the work, that he didn't agree with the contract to restrict distribution and the clerk sold him the work anyway. He even claims he even went farther and asked the clerk to get the manager so he could ask the manager to get permission from the publisher to free him from the contract to restrict distribution. He says the clerk looked at him funny and rang up the sale. The police ask him where he got it and who the clerk was. The man points him out. The clerk says he doesn't know anything about it. They check the records and THAT clerk was logged into the register that made the sale. The clerk then says the transaction may have happened but he doesn't remember - hundreds of people get rung up and say all kinds of crazy things - his job is to get the money and bag the work - not to discuss every odd thing a customer might say.
You're the judge - who is responsible?
