First of all, generally speaking, one cannot enter into a contract for something that is against the law. Or rather, any such contract that had such a clause would be void on it's face. (or at least the offending clause...it might be separable).

So the "heist" would have to be conducted in such a way that it didn't break the law. i.e. a burglary would be an inappropriate way to "repossess" the recording, as it would be an illegal act on its face. HOWEVER...even if they did do a B&E and steal the recording, and this invalidated the contract...they could retain possession, but would have to give back the original price paid, because they themselves voided the contract.

Interesting idea. Problem is, there's an element of recursion in the reasoning.

First of all, generally speaking, one cannot enter into a contract for something that is against the law. Or rather, any such contract that had such a clause would be void on its face (or at least the offending clause...it might be separable).

So the "heist" would have to be conducted in such a way that it didn't break the law. I.e., a burglary would be an inappropriate way to "repossess" the recording, as it would be an illegal act on its face. HOWEVER, even if they did do a B&E and steal the recording, and this invalidated the contract, they could retain possession, but would have to give back the original price paid, because they themselves voided the contract.

Interesting idea. Problem is, there's an element of recursion in the reasoning.