Most consumers don't care. If you get caught ripping off someone else's work, then you go out of business and open up the next day under a different name. Some buyers will take the part of the infringer because that was what they bought into in the first place and they don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance of admitting they were ripped off. If you go to the legal sections of the Hollywood trade papers, you find there are always a couple of ongoing disputes over the original authorship of hit movies. Even where the authors may have strong cases, the general public has little interest in them and fans of the director or actors will often denounce the plaintiffs as scam artists.
For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law.
For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law.
Isn't this direct evidence against the claim that "copyright protects individuals against big corporations"? If it weren't for copyright, Warner Brothers would collapse and we'd be back to holding each other accountable on a personal level.
No, and that's not a claim I've ever made in the first place. Copyright gives you a remedy against infringement, but you can still encounter procedural legal problems.
What prevents lot of cheats popping up and accusing each other as a preemptive move?
Also, it's pretty easy to identify who's the original author. Simply, the person who posted it first is very likely the original author. Especially so if the author has a portfolio of works that identify the author.
For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law.