If it does, then it isn't actually orphaned.
Sorry, but no.
Can a work have an unknown author, be infringed upon and then litigation ensue?
It can be orphaned if the author can't be found.
It appears you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
So you keep repeating, and it still has nothing to do with what I said. Wow.
And I told you I'm not going to find each individual set of orphaned works that you want.
It's not gonna happen.
I gave you a link to a library of orphaned works that may have many of the factors you want.
Like wow.
That's not "adverse possession." Crikey, even your Wikipedia article should have told you that.
Lost, mislaid and abandoned property is not adverse possession.
I am aware of that.
I identified two different ways one can acquire physical property without having to consult with the owner, which you said, "
Umm, it doesn't apply to most any other kind of property, either. Not even all real property."
You were wrong and you're trying to deflect.
Wow.
Another thing you keep repeating for reasons which are far from clear, other than for some reason you think it some bearing on what I said. This is your own strawman red herring, dude.
Well it does, because the law is in contradiction and puts a higher burden on those seeking to use orphaned IP.
It serves a purpose to point out contradictions in comparable law.
Here's a hint -- just because you've repeated this so many times you don't even remember what you were responding to, it doesn't mean that I'm confused. I still know that this is your own bizarre tangent that doesn't address any point I made.
It's a tangent related to law, in which the terms of one are not the same as the terms of another, I want to correct the law.
You say I want to, "get free stuff."
I guess I'm pointing out that my interest is more than getting "free stuff."
You have no idea what I even said anymore. You aren't even responding to any of my actual points; you're just going on about the things you've decided you want to go on about.
I do.
You were wrong, in relation to this quote, "
Umm, it doesn't apply to most any other kind of property, either. Not even all real property."
Which I didn't ask for. Good grief; you quoted me; can you not read simple plain words? You also went back to the post it was in; can you not see anything like, I dunno, context? I didn't ask the question out of the blue.
And I already told you that I'm not going to find all these individual things you asked for.
Can you not read simple plain words?
I gave you a link to a library full of orphan works, that are orphaned for various reasons, some of which I'm sure satisfy your needs for proof.
I asked you what my position on IP is. This doesn't answer that question.
Should be obvious -- you don't even know.
I don't.
Please tell me.