Re: ....unless they can prove its not copyrighted
There is a different between property and IP, which is why it has the I at the front. IP is not property. IP is non-enviable, which means that if I 'steal' your IP, you still have it. So since IP cannot be stolen (without some form of memory-wiping drugs), it isn't property.
I see. Your definition is wrong, which explains why you're getting the wrong answer.
You can steal the wealth and worth out of the IP without depriving me of access to it. That, however, doesn't change what you've done.
Stealing the wealth of my ideas is the same, economically at the very least, in stealing the idea itself.
This is why we distinguish between the painting itself (which can be stolen) and the idea of the painting (which cannot).
And yet, we don't, which is why you can't sell knockoffs of the Mona Lisa.
It is ludicrous to suggest that IP should be owned in perpetuity. For example, you like chairs? How about paying the descendants of the first chair maker to sit down?
Not all IP is patents. Specifically in the example I gave, Mickey Mouse is copyright. Copyright and patents are two very different things. Both the mouse and the chair may be considered IP, but both do not enjoy the same protection.
I used the word create rather than invent to imply a which side of the difference I was referencing. Evidently I should have spelled it out.
But this demonstrates precisely why it makes no sense: the act of creativity is the same, so why should one be denied what the other enjoys?
Because a patent on something like a car is very different to copyright on Mickey Moouse. One blocks all other versions or derivatives of the car whereas the other one doesn't even block other cartoon mice. Have a think, there's a good chap.