For the record, it wasn't me who downvoted.

Re: the group effort of invention, I don't see the relevance. One can invent as 'work for hire' in the same way that workers in a pottery factory don't become owners of the pots. The second part, that Rearden Steel was an improvement of 'regular' steel, is not a valid comparison either. 'Steel' is a broad word for purified iron, the methods for doing so being diverse. Rearden Steel was (I'm not sure this was stated explicitly, but can imo be reasonably be derived from the circumstance that were described) a specific alloy, made with a specific production process. That is much more specific than 'steel', and here it turns into a discussion on how specific an invention needs to be for it to be able to be 'intellectual property'. I don't think we're at the stage yet where it makes sense to discuss that - my problem is with the crowd who wants to abolish IP all together, or at least have laws that make any enforcement of it impossible or make the cost/benefit tradeoff of enforcement greater than 1.

I now regret using 'natural rights' without qualifying it because I used it in a broad sense, not specifically in the Aristotelian or any other more 'defined' natural rights definition - just as catch-all term for 'axiomatic rights'. (at least for the purposed of my post - I myself still subscribe to an Objectivist foundation of 'natural rights'). Either way, I don't think it's material to the post; nonetheless I can't help myself but saying that I don't see why when a right was first recognized as a natural right reflects on it actually being a 'natural right'. Before the Enlightenment, there was little to no need for IP rights - it wasn't needed in canonical law because canonical law restricted content so the form of that never turned into an issue; and in common law there were marginally few situations where it was an issue.

Finally, Disney never took a verbatim copy of a work and sold it to cinemas; that's not a valid argument for not having IP rights at all. This line of reasoning is imo straw man reasoning. Yes, creators are influenced, in some cases more than others, by existing works or social contexts. That doesn't make the concept of IP invalid. It's merely an (obvious) observation that leads to the conclusion that there need to be boundaries to when something is 'intellectual property'. As I wrote in a post above, I don't care much for that discussion, as it's way beyond the fundamental issue here. I guess our positions aren't that far from each others'; no, IP rights aren't exactly the same as tangible property rights, but there are large amounts of overlap, especially in the philosophical justifications for it (e.g. large parts of Locke's theories on property can (and imo should) be applied to IP rights). Enforcement of IP rights is lacking, as evidenced by the large amounts of pirated content available online. Legal measures without due process may not be the right solution, but previous measures (e.g. the DMCA, which was vilified as much as SOPA back in the 90's! I guess there aren't that many people left who remember those 'discussions') have proven to be ineffective. Website operators shouldn't bear all the responsibility of enforcing IP rights, but they need to make a real effort, especially in cases where their business stands to profit from infringement (Megaupload, but potentially others, too).