Re: ....unless they can prove its not copyrighted
so I can properly weep for those poor, poor Creators and seventh sons of their sevenths sons deprived of their rightfully inherited luxury jets, jumbo yachts and private islands.
Err what ?
You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that all creators are wealthy. Some are indeed wealthy, and that wealth may or may not have been inherited. But MOST creators certainly are not.
I know a few creators who, simply by lacking that "got discovered by the masses" lucky step, need a day job to pay the bills. Some were indeed fortunate in "hitting the bullseye" and became wealthy - but they started out very much not wealthy. Take J K Rowling for example, when she started writing Harry Potter you could not in any way call her wealthy - and in fact she was living on state benefits at the time. Not to mention, the first twelve publishers the manuscript was offered to turned it down - I bet all of those regret that ! So yes, J K Rowling is now "quite wealthy" and can in fact afford to give away a lot of money. But ponder this, if copyright had not protected her work, then everyone could have just ripped it off and she'd probably still be on benefits - that's the purpose of copyright, to give creators protection for their works, so they have an opportunity to profit from them, and hence an incentive to create them in the first place.
We can argue about whether "death + 70 years" as it stands in the UK for written works is right - but I think it's hard for anyone but the most hardcore freetards to argue that copyright is wrong in principle.
And of course, many people put just as much effort in, but don't get that lucky break. My mother spent years writing, and people have told her how much they've enjoyed reading her books. But it's just as well she didn't need any income from them, since she's made "b***er all".