Copy right is the legal authority to own an original idea created by one’s self. Proprietary is the act of having ownership of an idea or object and putting a price on it, in order for others to use it. I understand both sides as to why both of these are necessary, but at the same time some scenarios are taken to the extreme which makes it unfair sometimes. As Professor O’Malley mentioned in class, (something along the lines of) “we would’t have certain works/literature if scholars back then had known about copy right.” I find this statement to be very true and this is why I find proprietary to be a little unfair.
Yes, it makes sense to credit those who came up with the concept/product because the person(s) probably worked hard and very long to perfect the idea. On the other hand, if the creator put too much on restriction on using that idea then it is, in a way, limiting others to expanding their knowledge and brain to other ideas other than their own. Most great works are derived from another, so I don’t believe in limitations of use as long as there are proper credentials given to the original owner especially patents that allow sole authority for a period of time. If anything, it should be flattering that your idea was so good and inspiring that other would want to use or expand on what you’ve started. Overall, I think sharing works is a great way to expand culture and if there are set rules to unjustly claim ownership then it is in a sense selfish if it isn’t shared.