Okay. Now put yourself in the position of Microsoft, using this scheme for Windows. We'll pretend real copyright doesn't exist, and we've got your hair-brained

Okay. Now put yourself in the position of Microsoft, using this scheme for Windows. We'll pretend real copyright doesn't exist, and we've got your hair-brained scheme. This is how it plays out: 1) You have a $1T product. 2) My wife leaks it, or a burglar does. I am a typical consumer, with say, a $20k net worth. You have two choices: 1) Sue me, recover $20k, and be down $1T (minus $20k, plus litigation fees), and get the press of ruining the life of some innocent random person 2) Not sue me. Be down $1T (including the $20k) . And yes, the author of a program can put whatever conditions they want into the license: "By using this program, you agree to transfer $1M into my bank account in bit coin, to give me your first-born baby, to swear fealty to me, and to give me your wife it servitude." A court can then read those conditions, have a good laugh, and not enforce them. There are very clear limits on what a court will enforce in licenses (and contracts), and owning the output of a program, and barring exceptional circumstance, courts will not enforce them: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eb52567a-2104-4034-8daf-bf6c5cb9cd45 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=eb52567a-2104... This is why programmers should learn basic law, not treat is as computer code, and consult lawyers when issues come up. Read by a lawyer, a license or contract with an unenforceable clause is as good as having no such clause.