{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/wikisource_Culture_vs_Copyright_Chapter_5/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/wikisource_Culture_vs_Copyright_Chapter_5","id":"wikisource_Culture_vs_Copyright_Chapter_5","license":"Public Domain / CC-BY-SA (see source)","rights_basis":"wikisource_site_inclusion_policy","source":"wikisource","source_url":"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Culture_vs._Copyright/Chapter_5","summary":null,"tags":["Subpages"],"text":"CHAPTER 5\n\nDiscrepancies between Two Worlds\n\nIn our previous conversation we tried to clarify where the place for culture beyond arts is. We have found it everywhere. As soon as creativity and dialog take place, this place becomes one of culture. But what remains? Where does human life beyond culture belong, that is, beyond creativity and dialog? I believe that is civilization. Obviously, culture and civilization play different roles in our lives. Let us take one example.\n\nCopyright and patent related laws in the United States are all based on the 8th item of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that one of the powers of Congress is \u201cTo promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\u201d\n\nMy assumption is \u2026 actually, why play games? It is not an assumption. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of exclusive rights does not correspond to the nature of the subject. Exclusive rights cannot be imposed on cultural phenomena (writings, discoveries and so forth).\n\nNow, we have an assumption too. Exclusive rights cannot provide for the promotion of the progress of science. Exclusive rights are the wrong means for the declared goal, period. They cannot work; they do not work. They cause huge problems due to the conflict between these wrong means and the subject (culture) they apply to.\n\nThis is a crucial and decisive point. The worlds of culture and civilization are different. They develop under different laws, although they relate to and depend on one another.\n\nMany people realize that the difference exists. This is also reflected in understanding of certain human rights in the Western World. Ownership of real property (belonging to the world of civilization), for example, is considered a basic right and owned\nproperty is inalienable from the owner and his or her heirs. However,\nexclusive rights to \u201cwritings and discoveries\u201d (belonging to the world of\nculture) may be granted under certain conditions for a limited time.\nWhat are these conditions? Exclusive rights have \u201cto promote the\nprogress of science and useful arts.\u201d The specific role of cultural\nphenomena is implied here: the progress of science and arts. This\nspecific role relates to the nature of culture and radically differs from\nthe nature and role of material property in human society.\n\nThe two worlds are different. The question is, how different\nare they? Or better yet, how are they different? Before talking to\nthe first graders, I identified a few differences between the \u201cthings\u201d\nbelonging to these two worlds. The term \u201cdiscrepancies\u201d is not quite\ncorrect here because the world of culture cannot, must not, and does\nnot coincide or overlap with the world of civilization, in principle.\nTherefore, discrepancies between them are not possible. On the other\nhand, exclusive rights to cultural phenomena amount to an attempt to\ntreat \u201cthings of culture\u201d the same way as ones of civilization. Thus,\nassumed \u201csimilarities\u201d in reality are \u201cdiscrepancies.\u201d\n\nThings: Material versus Cultural\n\nExchange\n\nCultural phenomena and material things can be shared, but there\nis a difference in how each does so: physical things change hands\nwhile cultural phenomena can be copied or just remembered by\nother people. That is, one does not lose an idea when it becomes\nknown to others. One does not lose a movie when it is watched or\ncopied by others. One does not lose a musical piece when it is\nlistened to or recorded by others. In general: one does not lose a\ncultural phenomenon when one shares it with others.\n\nMoreover, the exchange of material things and the sharing of\nideas converge in the act of trade. Ideas which reflect the worth of\nphysical things must be shared for these things to be traded. Any\ntrading of physical things or services without the sharing of ideas is\n\neither impossible, or meaningless, or harmful for one or both parties. Usage\n\nUsage of different things\n\nLet us take tools, as an example. They gradually lose their physical capability while being used and thus lose their value. On the contrary, cultural phenomena derive their value directly from being \u201cused,\u201d which means being shared, communicated, known. Cultural phenomena gain value with each usage.\n\nBy the way, ideas corresponding to a tool itself appreciate in many ways, while the tool depreciates from use.\n\nDifferent uses of one thing\n\nA material thing can be used both physically and culturally. An artifact, say a unique building, depreciates because of physical use, but becomes more valuable when it gets included in communication between people and becomes known for its uniqueness. Another example\u2014old cars or any other collectible. It is interesting that cultural use, while bringing value to an artifact, may imply or directly require the deprivation of physical use.\n\nNeeds\n\nWhen your body feels a physical need, it signals you. After the body is satisfied, you normally do not feel the need for a certain period of time. These basic needs are ingrained in your body by nature and do not differ much from the needs of animals. When it comes to a cultural phenomenon, the more you communicate with it, the more you need it and vice versa: the less culturally developed a person is, the less he or she needs access to culture. Nothing signals to a person the need to read a book, to listen to music, or to watch a painting, if this person has not been brought up with and taught to understand and like music, books, paintings. These specifically human needs\u2014 or, better said, needs of the human soul\u2014have to be intentionally developed. Satisfaction from a cultural phenomenon is of a specific nature. It is close to the satisfaction from normal communication between people. The latter develops if it is fulfilling. Generally, we can state that the need for culture increases with \u201cusage or\nsatisfaction.\u201d\n\nMoreover, cultural desires can cause physical sacrifices and vice\nversa. Physical needs can cause one to give up cultural ones. Cultural\ndesire can require a person to control bodily desires, to limit, redirect,\nsuppress, twist, or inspire them.\n\nTwo in One\n\nAny human thing consists of a material thing and cultural phenomena\ninscribed in it. However the relationships between these two types in one\nthing can be different. First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between\nphysical things that have their own value and pure media (books, musical\nrecords, movie tapes, etc.) that actually have no value of their own, but\nderive value entirely from cultural phenomena. There are two more types in\nbetween, as well. Thus we have four categories: consumer goods, tools,\nmedia, and artifacts. Let us define each of them in detail:\n\nConsumer goods are things that are consumed and disappear.\n\nThey lose form as their value is being utilized. The most typical\nrepresentative of this group is food. People who buy and use\nconsumables are consumers. A key point is that normally\npeople do not \u201cput their soul\u201d into consumables; they do not\nfeel a personal affiliation with or attachment to them.\n\nTools are used in their current form, namely to produce (fix,\n\nupgrade, destroy, preserve, etc.) other things. They gradually\ndepreciate while being used and gradually turn into nothing, at\nleast with respect to their initial function. People who buy and\nuse tools correspond to the notion of customer. Since tools are\nnormally used for a prolonged period of time, people can\ndevelop personal feelings toward them, but this phenomenon is\nnot in direct relationship to the nature of the tools. They do not\nappeal to feelings by nature; they just must function.\n\nMedia do not possess value as physical objects. Their value is\n\nacquired exclusively through the inscription of cultural\nphenomena. They are intended solely for communication. Media gradually physically depreciate while being used, like\ntools do, but inscribed cultural phenomena appreciate. People\nwho buy and \u201cuse\u201d them are the audience.\n\nArtifacts are things which once were valuable for their physical\n\nfeatures, but now derive their value from unintended cultural\nuse. These are unique old buildings, cars, tools, other relics,\ncollectibles, etc. People who buy them or buy access to them\nare collectors, visitors, tourists.\n\nThere are two general points we have to stress. First, some of\nabove described uses can be combined. Second, such combinations\nare related to people\u2019s attitudes. For example, a family can live in\na unique old mansion suitable more as a museum than for casual\ndwelling. Another example is when a profound work of art is\nconsidered simply \u201centertaining\u201d and because of that attitude often\nis forgotten. In this case the work is turned into a consumer good and\ncorrespondingly the audience transforms itself into consumers.\n\nThe above were my first thoughts, which were not as clear as I\nwould have liked them to be. Anyway, I brought them to my\nstudents. I had not even tried to be very elaborate, because I expected\nnothing but an avalanche of thoughts and essential clarification of\nthe subject in the end. Well, it turned out otherwise this time. A lot\nof new questions were what I got. Moreover, the subject had slipped\naway and provoked us to turn to economics, ethics, etc. You can see\nand judge for yourself.\n\nWhen I finished my short speech in the class, I was faced with\nfive puzzled looks. It did not take long to get the first question.\n\nBooks, People, Meals\n\nAlpha: Why is it that \u201ccultural satisfaction\u201d increases desire? When\nyou watch a movie, you get satisfied and return home or go to a\nrestaurant or just walk and talk.\n\nBeta: I agree, you do not watch and watch and watch.\n\nKappa: Some people do.\n\nBeta: Yeah, some do. I would not call them people of culture. What do\nyou think? Teacher: Confused.\n\nGamma: Why? I understand that if you had never watched movies, you\nwouldn\u2019t know whether you needed them or not. You\nprobably wouldn\u2019t realize this even after watching a few\nmovies. However, if you don\u2019t eat for a while, your body starts\nto bother you, and it does so until you feed it.\n\nDelta: By the way, as you get more hungry, you become less selective.\n\nAlpha: So?\n\nDelta: Let\u2019s see.\n\nAlpha: What? You don\u2019t know why you said that?\n\nDelta: . . . True.\n\nKappa: What difference does it make? It makes sense. If you like a\ncertain type of music, say classical, you will not listen to\nsomething entirely different, say rap, even if you have not had\naccess to any music for a long time. We are differently selective\nwith meals than with music, right?\n\nBeta This is kind of obvious. Music or books or paintings\u2014they\nare all like people. The more you communicate with them, the\nmore selective you become. You value some and are disgusted by\nothers . . .\n\nAlpha: Isn\u2019t it the same about meals?\n\nBeta: Do you value one more and more or hate another more and more?\n\nKappa: I would say the opposite. You may like eating something for a\nwhile and suddenly get sick of it.\n\nAlpha: Don\u2019t you change your preferences in the arts?\n\nKappa: Hmm.\n\nDelta: Interesting. . . . Listen, food companies take new products to the\nmarket pretty often, while entertainment companies use the same\nstereotypes as long as possible.\n\nGamma: Do you mean movies? But they do not show you one movie\nfor a long time, right?\n\nDelta: One movie? No. But you recognize the same stereotypes in\ndifferent movies.\n\nKappa: And this is boring. Boring entertainment, ha ha ha.\n\nAlpha: Someone said a while ago that you can read the same book over\nand over again. Isn\u2019t that boring? Gamma: Sure, if the book is boring. But you would not read it again.\n\nAlpha: And if it is not?\n\nGamma: Then, yes, I can read it over and over again.\n\nAlpha: I wouldn\u2019t.\n\nKappa: I would.\n\nAlpha: Baloney!\n\nBeta: Why is it baloney? Because you do not understand it?\n\nAlpha: Because you\u2019ve made it up. People do not do this!\n\nTeacher: Some people definitely do. I do.\n\nKappa: People read the Bible over and over again.\n\nAlpha: Some people do because they are obligated. It is their religion.\n\nTeacher: Are you sure it does not make any sense beyond obligation?\n\nGamma: It always does. It\u2019s like meeting old friends.\n\nAlpha: Ah, like in a stupid TV series!\n\nKappa: Well, I suspect not all of your friends are brilliant, but you may\nstill like them. Don\u2019t you think?\n\nBeta: Can you like a boring person? . . .\n\nGamma: Say, parents are boring. . . . Someone can have boring parents.\nBut they can still be parental, kind, lovely folks.\n\nAlpha: I bet their children don\u2019t visit them very often.\n\nKappa: You\u2019re probably right, but that\u2019s not normal.\n\nAlpha: Why?\n\nKappa: You can\u2019t measure people like things: \u201cThis one\u2019s useful. That\none\u2019s not!\u201d\n\nAlpha: Who was talking about usefulness?\n\nBeta: You\u2019re talking about boredom. It is close.\n\nAlpha: Really?\n\nGamma: You can love a boring person or a dishonest one or a criminal\nor someone helpless or stupid or a plain jerk or whatever negative\ncharacter trait you can only imagine. I read all kind of stories like this.\n\nAlpha: Ah, it is fiction! I got it.\n\nDelta: Do you think that if something\u2019s fiction, it has nothing to do\nwith reality?\n\nAlpha: It probably has something to do with reality, but you never\nknow how. Anyway, you cannot base a serious judgement on\nfiction. What do you think? Delta: All right. Let\u2019s look at it from another angle. Are all of your\nloved ones perfect people?\n\nKappa: It is not a matter of perfection at all. You don\u2019t choose friends\non these grounds. I mean, whoever you choose to make friends\nwith is perfect for you, this is it. . . . Although I don\u2019t know\nwhat that means, really . . .\n\nBeta: It is the same for books, music, movies.\n\nAlpha: Meals, houses, cars, tools, parks, lakes, mountains, forests,\nbarber shops, shopping malls.\n\nTeacher: That is an impressive list.\n\nDelta: But those things are different.\n\nAlpha: What do you mean?\n\nDelta: Remember, I said this before. It\u2019s just that the idea slipped my\nmind. If you are hungry and cannot get your favorite meal, you\nwill eat anything else. Now, if you need a ride and your favorite\ncar is not available, you drive another one. If your favorite park is\nclosed, you can go to another one. But if your friend is sick, even\nunconscious, you will not go visit someone else. You go visit your\nfriend. If you cannot find your favorite book when you want it, you\nwill not sit and read whatever is just hanging about. If you want to\nwatch a certain movie, and it is not possible for some reason, you\nwill hardly agree to watch another one. You will wait until you can\nwatch the one you wanted. Say, if you like comedies, you will not\nwatch a thriller under any circumstances. I said, it\u2019s different. It is\nobviously different. You would understand if . . .\n\nKappa: Hey, hey, let\u2019s not go there.\n\nDelta: All right, let us not.\n\nThe Recipe Case\n\nKappa: We all got carried away and distracted from the initial question.\nThe important thing is that when you share your meal, a part of\nit is gone. You can even leave hungry. However, if you share\nthe recipe for that meal, you lose nothing. . . . Actually, yes,\nthe recipe becomes more known, and thus, it becomes more\nvaluable. You are gaining something. Alpha: One can say so.\n\nKappa: One can say so, and one will be right. And this is important\nfor our conversation because this is how a meal and its recipe\ndrastically differ in nature. The meal gets consumed and\ndisappears. The recipe gains value every time it is shared. It gains\neven more value every time someone cooks and eats that meal.\n\nAlpha: OK, why would they say that it is stealing?\n\nBeta: Who says? About what?\n\nAlpha: Say, you developed a unique recipe and don\u2019t want to share it\nand someone learns it and makes use of it. That\u2019s stealing.\n\nBeta: I wonder why? I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that\nsharing a recipe adds value to it. Should adding value be called\nstealing under any circumstances?\n\nAlpha: Suppose I built a business upon it! Then you come and learn\nthe recipe somehow and start a similar business. You will get the\nmoney that I was supposed to get. Isn\u2019t that stealing?\n\nDelta: Oh yes. Beta opens another restaurant to use your recipe and\nmakes you more known. He actually advertises for you, but you\nput no penny in this. Why don\u2019t we consider this stealing?\n\nAlpha: Don\u2019t my efforts provide advertising for him in this case?\n\nGamma: Yes, but it is not quite the same. He has to reveal whom he\nlearned it from. You will always be the person who introduced the\nrecipe. This pays. . . . You can always charge more than others in\nthe same business.\n\nAlpha: Ah, and he will charge less and steal my customers!\n\nBeta: Are you listening? It is not me who charges less, it is you who\ncharges more!\n\nAlpha: Does anyone see the difference here?\n\nBeta: Of course, there is no logical difference! There is no need to\nargue about labels and metaphors either! Just follow the money!\nIf I make your recipe well known while I produce something\nbased on it, I help you out! I make you more well known as the\noriginator of that wonderful product and advertise you and your\nbusiness! You get more customers who are willing to pay more!\nAnd you call this stealing?\n\nAlpha: But you get money also! Isn\u2019t that mine?\n\nBeta: I do business, but the money is yours? Alpha: Of course! The idea was mine; thus, money derived from this idea belongs to me!\n\nGamma: You can share it. A portion of it will be paid out as royalties, and the remainder belongs to the business.\n\nAlpha: That\u2019s what I meant.\n\nBeta: How about the revenue received by Alpha from my work? He clearly gets it. Shouldn\u2019t he share?\n\nDelta: How on earth can we measure all these mutual dependencies?\n\nGamma: Listen, listen! I have another question!\n\nAlpha: Hold it! I need to argue what Beta said!\n\nTeacher: Go ahead.\n\nGamma: Who?\n\nAlpha: All right, you go.\n\nGamma: Thanks \u2026 but I lost it.\n\nAlpha: Are you sure?\n\nGamma: I am, go ahead.\n\nRoyalties versus Attribution\n\nAlpha: All right. There is no law that says if you take my recipe, you have to say where you got it from! You will not advertise for me, and I don\u2019t owe you anything whatsoever, but you owe me!\n\nGamma: Who was talking about a law?\n\nAlpha: Law is reality, isn\u2019t it? What are we talking about if not reality?\n\nTeacher: This is a new turn in our conversation. We haven\u2019t discussed existing laws yet. We are discussing relations and discrepancies between the worlds of culture and civilization.\n\nAlpha: Where do laws belong?\n\nTeacher: Wherever they belong, they change anyway. I would say that we want to figure out what the law should be like. How can future laws ideally address the specifics of and relationship between culture and civilization? I think we have to comprehend these realities before we start talking about law.\n\nAlpha: You never said that.\n\nTeacher: Of course, I didn\u2019t. Law was not the subject at the time. We can discuss it later if we find it suitable.\n\nAlpha: OK, how can we resolve the last question if we do not turn to law?\n\nBeta: I like the idea that we have to figure out what a law is supposed\nto be. It must serve . . .\n\nAlpha: Serve what? Or who? You or me?\n\nKappa: Or the customers or the audience or the general public or the\ncountry . . . I don\u2019t know who else. Mankind?\n\nDelta: Law should serve the people and the country. We have to look\nat the issue from that stand-point.\n\nTeacher: May I narrow this down a bit? Our question can be this: When\ndoes a law serve Alpha and Beta and our country best? When\nBeta is required to pay royalties for the use of Alpha\u2019s recipe? Or\nwhen Beta is required to give Alpha proper attribution?\n\nAlpha: Why not both?\n\nKappa: True, why not?\n\nDelta: Well, someone may ask why you want both.\n\nBeta: I agree. We have to put forward a rationale.\n\nGamma: We already did. The rationale is society\u2019s well-being, including\nAlpha\u2019s and Beta\u2019s. If everyone is better off under a law, that means\nthe law is a just one.\n\nAlpha: How can we judge that?\n\nDelta: We cannot if we do not try.\n\nBeta: Look, if I have to pay royalties, my business will be compromised\nand my competitiveness will be decreased. I can do everything as\nwell as Alpha does. I can make meals as fresh and delicious. I can\nkeep the place clean. I can put as much money in marketing, and I\nwill still be in a weaker position in terms of business. I will have to\nreduce my earnings while Alpha will get additional money from\nmy efforts.\n\nAlpha: Which is perfectly fair because you built your business on my\nrecipe!\n\nDelta: The business was built with Beta\u2019s effort.\n\nGamma: Well, it is natural that Alpha wants Beta to share his money,\nbut what about our criteria? What is right for people? It is obvious\nthat if two of your businesses compete in equal conditions, then all\nof your customers win. . . . By the way, I remember my question.\n\nAlpha: Remember what Beta offered? He wanted to promote my\nbusiness for free! Does this not put me in a better situation? Beta: Yes, it does. But this will not take money from my business.\n\nAlpha: Really? It will take some customers from you. Is this not the\nsame?\n\nTeacher: I see a difference between the two methods. In the case\nof royalties, we have to set up and enforce some artificial\nmeasurements to take money from Beta\u2019s business. This becomes\nspecifically questionable. If Beta gets no profits, his business may\ndie, and Alpha will get no royalties at all.\n\nAlpha: In that case, I got rid of a competitor, and that is good.\n\nKappa: For you probably. Not for the public.\n\nDelta: I doubt whether is always beneficial for Alpha.\n\nAlpha: And why is that?\n\nTeacher: May I finish?\n\nAlpha, Delta, Kappa: Sorry.\n\nTeacher: So, in the case of attribution, when Beta just honestly reveals\nwhom he learned the recipe from, he does not necessarily lose. He\ncan even gain.\n\nAlpha: And how is that? Sorry.\n\nTeacher: That\u2019s OK. When Beta tells who taught him the recipe, he\nappeals to people\u2019s feelings. Some of his customers would\ncertainly be curious to go to Alpha\u2019s place, and some would\nadmire the tribute as such. Both businesses achieve more solid\nrelations with their patrons and public in general.\n\nKappa: By the way, Alpha can also tell who learned from him.\n\nAlpha: Aha, sure.\n\nDelta: Why not? This certainly adds credibility to your business.\n\nGamma: Two times, by the way. Firstly, it implies that the recipe is\nworthy because it gets followers. Secondly, if you\u2019re not afraid of a\ncompetitor, you make your customers feel your business is strong.\n\nKappa: I like this! A shared recipe benefits everybody, even when\nattribution is given!\n\nBeta: Because attribution is given! Not \u201ceven when\u201d but \u201cbecause\u201d!\n\nThis is how things differ in culture and civilization! If Alpha wants\nmy money, we both lose! When we share ideas, we both win!\nThis is how it works! This is how they are different! I never\nexpected it to turn out this way! This is terrific!\n\nGamma: Wow! I\u2019ve never seen Beta so excited! Teacher: Me neither.\n\nKappa: It is good that he didn\u2019t jump on the desk like someone\nelse.\n\nTeacher: Gamma, what about your question? Do you remember it?\n\nGamma: Uh-huh. When you cook an exotic meal, a lot of different ideas,\ninventions, and techniques are used, right?\n\nTeacher: Definitely.\n\nGamma: What about all those?\n\nAlpha: What about them?\n\nGamma: What about them? Think for a second. If you want royalties\nfrom Beta, thousands of other people may ask for royalties from\nyou! Don\u2019t you think?\n\nDelta: So everybody will be sitting down and calculating royalties day\nand night and nothing else?\n\nGamma: And that makes no sense at all!\n\nBeta: And then one day they\u2019ll forget about royalties, stand up, and just\ngo back to their business.\n\nKappa: I have a declaration to make: People have to share ideas in\norder for civilization to exist!\n\nAlpha: Impressive. I have one proposition and one question.\n\nTeacher: Go ahead.\n\nAlpha: Thank you. The question goes first. Suppose I opt for attribution.\nWhat about those thousands of ideas now? Do I have to sit\ndown and write down all ideas I\u2019ve used, then conduct research\nto determine their authors, and then attach tons of paper with\nreferences to every single menu, plate, napkin, and so forth?\nNow here is my proposition: Beta does not have to pay royalties\nfor his whole life, only for a limited time. How about that?\n\nKappa: In the beginning or later?\n\nGamma: How much later?\n\nAlpha: Who knows, what happens later?\n\nKappa: OK, Alpha, so you want royalties at the precise time that times\nare hard for Beta, right?\n\nAlpha: But for a limited time! A business is always difficult in\nthe beginning, anyway!\n\nKappa: Then let it be even more difficult, right?\n\nAlpha: Why should I care? Teacher: We agreed on some criteria, remember?\n\nDelta: I remember, and I remember that essentially we reached a\nconclusion. Free sharing of ideas plus honest attribution boosts\nbusinesses, competition and thus benefits everybody!\n\nGamma: Yes, and why would we look for anything else?\n\nBeta: Well, Alpha can argue that profits are the reward for a\nbusinessman\u2019s efforts and benefit the public in the end, but\nhow then is creativity rewarded?\n\nGamma: By attribution, how else? You created it. People, who use\nit, honestly say so. Everybody knows you and your role in the\ninvention and recognizes your impact.\n\nDelta: People call or write to you, invite you to give lectures.\n\nAlpha: Me?\n\nKappa: Aha, Alpha, you! Do you like that more?\n\nAlpha: What\u2019s more? More than what?\n\nTeacher: There were two options.\n\nAlpha: I told you, I\u2019d like both. Everyone would, I\u2019m sure.\n\nGamma: Well, OK, then we won\u2019t ask you. We\u2019ll turn to the criteria of\npublic good instead.\n\nAlpha: All right, you haven\u2019t answered my question, remember? In the\nmeantime, I have something else to tell you all. Gamma rightly\nsaid that it is very natural for me (and I believe it is so for\neveryone) to wish for both royalties and attribution. Therefore, if\nyou don\u2019t give me all I want, I wouldn\u2019t like it! Then if I come up\nwith yet another recipe, I won\u2019t reveal it to anyone!\n\nKappa: And what is the point? What will you get?\n\nAlpha: I\u2019ll have my monopoly over it\u2014that\u2019s what I\u2019ll get. I\u2019ll not have\ncompetition\u2014that\u2019s what I\u2019ll get. My business will grow\u2014that\u2019s\nwhat I\u2019ll get. And that\u2019s it and nothing else! What do you think?\n\nDelta: You will have to put money in marketing.\n\nAlpha: So?\n\nDelta: So? If you don\u2019t have big bucks for that, forget about growing.\n\nAlpha: Really? And what is my other option?\n\nDelta: Another option? I am going to to suggest something terribly\nnew. Reveal your recipe in exchange for attribution.\n\nAlpha: Ah, that is news. And?\n\nBeta: And what? Haven\u2019t we discussed it all? Kappa: Yeah, Alpha, haven\u2019t we?\n\nAlpha: You probably did. I probably wasn\u2019t here.\n\nTeacher: Alpha, you were here.\n\nAlpha: All right, I am stupid. Can anyone repeat it for me just\none more time?\n\nKappa: Alpha, you are not stupid.\n\nAlpha: I\u2019m not?\n\nKappa: Nope.\n\nTeacher I agree with Kappa.\n\nAlpha: So?\n\nBeta: So, you yourself repeat what we concluded earlier.\n\nAlpha: You concluded?\n\nBeta: Yes, we did\u2014Kappa, Gamma, Delta, our teacher, I, and with your\nparticipation. And if you disagree with the conclusions, explain\nwhy.\n\nGamma: Yes, Alpha, please. You can do it.\n\nAlpha: I can . . . if I want.\n\nTeacher: Why wouldn\u2019t you want it?\n\nGamma: Yeah, Alpha, why? We are not enemies; we just have different\nideas.\n\nAlpha: Exactly. We do have different ideas.\n\nGamma: Well, I believe they all deserve some respect.\n\nAlpha: And I was disrespectful, wasn\u2019t I?\n\nBeta: I would say so. You don\u2019t even want to repeat others\u2019 ideas. How\nwould you call this kind of attitude?\n\nTeacher: It is interesting, really.\n\nAlpha: It seems like tricks and games to me.\n\nTeacher: Why?\n\nAlpha: OK, does anyone want to reiterate what I\u2019d said?\n\nBeta: I don\u2019t really want to, but I will if you insist.\n\nTeacher: Yes, Beta, please do. Let it be our first summary today. Do\nyou mind, Alpha?\n\nAlpha: (shrugs)\nSummaries\n\nHow Royalties Are Supposed to Work\n\nBeta: OK. Some inventors would like to be attributed and get royalties from every business using their inventions. This seems to be fair and rewards creative work. Thus, it becomes more attractive for people to invent and present their inventions to the public. Have I said everything, Alpha?\n\nAlpha: (shrugs) There is one more point. You cannot attribute every single idea you use. This is why I proposed to do it for a limited time, say ten years. After ten years of public use, an idea would become common knowledge and attribution would no longer be necessary. Then business use of the idea would not require attribution anymore, and you wouldn\u2019t have to collect zillions of references.\n\nTeacher: Very good, Alpha. We have all of your ideas summarized now, and it is your turn. Please summarize Beta\u2019s ideas.\n\nAlpha: I had to fix what Beta said about my ideas, anyway. I believe he can summarize his ideas better than me.\n\nTeacher: I cannot insist although I am sure this exercise would be very helpful for our deliberations. If we all know that at the end of the day we will have to summarize each other\u2019s ideas, we would pay more attention to what everyone says.\n\nAlpha: I remember everything everyone said. I just do not feel like I want to repeat what Beta said.\n\nTeacher: OK, anyone?\n\nBeta: I can try.\n\nGamma: I can.\n\nTeacher: Let us go with Gamma.\n\nHow Attribution Is Supposed to Work\n\nGamma: If an inventor shares his ideas freely, and anyone who uses them gives the inventor proper attribution, then he gets free publicity from all those people, and becomes famous and rich. He becomes even more credible if he refers others back to those who use his invention. The many uses and attributions increase the value\nof the invention and publicity of the inventor. At the same time, all\nbusinesses have equal access to the invention and thus have equal\nopportunity to compete. . . . Did I get it right?\n\nAgainst Attribution\n\nTeacher: I think so. Now I believe we can summarize the arguments\nagainst both positions and continue from there.\n\nKappa: To continue where?\n\nTeacher: Ah! The best question! We must return to our main issue!\n\nBeta: A summary is necessary anyway.\n\nTeacher: OK. Anyone?\n\nAlpha: My objections to Beta\u2019s ideas stand.\n\nTeacher: Please, Alpha.\n\nAlpha: First, as a creator, I would not like to wait and see how other\npeople make money from my creative work and then pat me on\nthe back in gratitude, because that reference of yours is nothing\nmore than a pat on the back. It costs them nothing, while they\nearn money and I don\u2019t. I would not divulge any other invention in\nthat case. Second, nobody can provide all the zillions of references\nanyway. So, some royalties paid for limited time would be a fair\nworking solution to all our problems. Thank you.\n\nAgainst Royalties\n\nTeacher: Thank you, Alpha. Any argument against royalties?\n\nAlpha: Summary of argument.\n\nTeacher: Right; we want a summary of what was argued against\nroyalties so far.\n\nKappa: May I?\n\nTeacher: You bet.\n\nKappa: First, if there are two businesses based on the same idea,\nthey compete using normal business means, such as marketing,\nproductivity, and so forth. Now if we, for some reason, take\nmoney from one and give it to the other, the second would have\nan advantage. Competition would be hampered, and so forth. I even believe that a business that would have to pay royalties on top of all other expenses may not open at all.\n\nAlpha: So? It may go about something else. Why would they take something from me for free? Why don\u2019t they take my equipment, as well?\n\nDelta: When someone takes your equipment, you lose it. When someone learns your idea, you still retain it. You lose nothing. There is a big difference here.\n\nAlpha: But I lose money! How many times must I remind you of this?\n\nGamma: I don\u2019t see how you lose money so far. You get additional money for sure because of references. You said this yourself at one point and then you changed your mind and called it \u201ca pat on the back!\u201d You have changed your opinion ten times today and have never considered all of the arguments!\n\nAlpha: I never acknowledged that your references increase my earnings, and I never will.\n\nKappa: By the way, I never finished my summary.\n\nAll: (Look puzzled.)\n\nKappa: Alpha\u2019s limited time and amount of royalties cannot be determined by market forces and should be set up artificially, based on \u2026 who knows what.\n\nAlpha: I haven\u2019t heard this argument before \u2026 except for the part about royalties.\n\nBeta: Does this really affect the logic behind it?\n\nAlpha: We agreed to do a summary and return to the original issue.\n\nTeacher: All right.\n\nStarting Over\n\nGamma: OK, if we return to our topic, I\u2019d like to recall one thing which impressed me.\n\nTeacher: Great!\n\nGamma: Just one tiny thing. We feel personal affiliation with people and works of art, and, therefore, we are not willing to easily substitute them with other people or other works. We do this more easily with other things. Beta: And I would like to reiterate what stands out for me. Each single\nuse or reference increases the value of a creative work and the\npublicity of its author.\n\nKappa: By the way, royalties don\u2019t!\n\nDelta: Too bad.\n\nAlpha: Hey, stay focused.\n\nGamma: I think we are. One of our initial observations was that\ncultural phenomena increase in value while being used. I believe\nthat relates somehow to what I was saying.\n\nAlpha: How can we determine this increase in value? I agree that\nreferences might cause an increase in value. But competition\ncauses a decrease in value. These two ideas are just ideas. They\nare not proven facts. At any rate, we cannot take that increase as a\ngiven.\n\nKappa: All right, now at least we have a problem statement!\n\nDelta: Wait, wait. I hardly see a problem here. Competition is always\nseen by businessmen as something harmful! Still, it is considered\na positive phenomenon for the entire society!\n\nKappa: Actually, yes . . . and if we turn to our very subject, this is even\nmore so, ... I think.\n\nDelta: Why?\n\nKappa: Because knowledge is more valuable the more it is known! Isn\u2019t\nthat obvious? . . . I mean, valuable for society.\n\nTeacher: What do you think, Alpha?\n\nAlpha: I think that someone saw a problem two minutes ago and now\ndoesn\u2019t. Someone changes opinions pretty quickly!\n\nTeacher: Still, what do you think about the idea that knowledge is\nmore valuable for society the more it is known?\n\nAlpha: I have to think before I can say what I think.\n\nDelta: Exactly.\n\nAlpha: Exactly. Applies to everyone.\n\nTeacher: This is a very important point, of course, although a\nconversation itself can work pretty well.\n\nAlpha: So, what\u2019s your advice? Just to keep talking without thinking?\n\nTeacher: Hmm, a tough question . . . I would say that I have to do two\nthings in a conversation like ours. First, I have to unconditionally\naccept new ideas, and that means putting thinking aside. Second, I have to juxtapose different ideas in order to see how they relate\nto each other and how they relate to reality. This juxtaposition\nrequires a thought or actually is a thought.\n\nKappa: Wow, that resonates! It is a pity we cannot continue along these\nlines.\n\nDelta: Yeah, we have gone astray.\n\nKappa: I don\u2019t know why, but an entirely new discrepancy just occurred\nto me!\n\nAll: (Look puzzled)\n\nKappa: Look . . . but it is a truly strange one, . . . I am not quite sure.\n\nGamma: Well?\n\nKappa: All right. Say you got a car, right?\n\nAlpha: Right!\n\nKappa: All right. . . . The car works if all of its parts work, and all of\nthem are connected properly . . .\n\nAlpha: That\u2019s new!\n\nKappa: Now take one part out and the whole thing does not work\nanymore!\n\nTeacher: Interesting. . . . Assuming that\u2019s true.\n\nKappa: All right, let\u2019s take another example. . . . Sorry, I am trying to get a hold of my idea . . .\n\nDelta: Go ahead, catch it!\n\nKappa: Thanks. . . . Let\u2019s take a meal.\n\nAlpha: I\u2019m ready.\n\nKappa: You can have a small portion, and it is still edible. And the\nmore you have, the more satisfied you are, right? Until you are full.\n\nBeta: Well?\n\nKappa: Now if you read a fragment of a story or listen to a fragment of\nmusic, it may tell you a lot about the entire work. A fragment can\nbe as meaningful as the entire piece.\n\nAlpha: But you would like to read the entire story!\n\nDelta: That is right, and the more you read, the more you want to reach\nthe end!\n\nAlpha: The same with meals! What\u2019s the difference?\n\nBeta: It is not the same. You read a book to the end, no matter how big\nthe book is. It depends on the book, not on you . . . but normally\nyou eat as much as you need, no matter how much is left.\nKappa: My bad! I was thinking about tools, not meals. . . . The car was\nthe right example. A car part is nothing without the car while a\npiece of the story is always something. It speaks to you . . .\n\nTeacher: That is right. Looks like there\u2019s another discrepancy looming\naround the corner. . . It is not quite clear yet what it is. We\nprobably need to see how meals or other consumables reflect this\nidea, if they do.\n\nBeta: We stopped at the point that you could judge a meal even if you\nhad just a small piece . . . and it seems the same with music or books.\n\nKappa: But every piece of the meal is the same! And every piece of the\nstory is different!\n\nBeta: Yeah, but wait, let me finish. There is another similarity here.\nIf you got a dish, a small piece of it, and it is tasty, you may want\nmore of it, so you eat until you\u2019re satisfied. It seems to be the same\nwith music, doesn\u2019t it?\n\nGamma: No, that\u2019s different. You may want it, but the music or the\nnovel will never bring you satisfaction the same way that food\ndoes. Music may make you hungry for more; it\u2019s the same with a\nbook. . . . We actually discussed this already. . . . And again, it feels\nlike this feature of a cultural phenomena relates to our personal\naffiliation with it.\n\nTeacher: I\u2019m lost. It feels like there\u2019s an issue related to car parts, the\nparts of a meal, and the parts of a piece of art, but I\u2019m not clear\nwhat it is.\n\nBeta: Yeah. We can summarize it this way: a part has a different\nrelationship to the whole in art or consumables or tools.\n\nTeacher: Aha! Still, I\u2019m not clear about all of this.\n\nBeta: Yeah, . . . anyway, it seems to be important. . . . Part of a story\ncan be just as important as the entire story. . . . It is like that with a\nperson. You can like or dislike a person at first impression, and\nyou can like or dislike this person\u2019s behavior as well.\n\nTeacher: It looks like it\u2019s the same with an idea. It is the same in a short formula as it is in thousands of pages of explanations. Have you\nfinished, Beta?\n\nBeta: Not quite . . . I\u2019m thinking. When it comes to a complex thing in\nthe physical world, it\u2019s difficult to judge the entire thing by its part.\nYou may only guess. . . . And the part normally does not work by itself and thus has no real value. The entire thing without a just\none part can also be of no value.\n\nAlpha: What if you miss part of a blueprint?\n\nBeta: A blueprint does say something to you, any part of it. It has value;\nit always does. If you have just part of it, you can recreate it.\n\nAlpha: You can restore a car too.\n\nBeta: Yes, but a broken car has no value unless you use the car itself as a\nblueprint! You can retrieve some information from it! It\u2019s another\ndiscrepancy!\n\nTeacher: Can you flesh it out for us?\n\nBeta: Well, . . . a broken thing having no physical value may still bear\nuseful information . . .\n\nAlpha: This was actually said already. Physical things derive their value\nfrom inscribed cultural phenomena.\n\nGamma: Yeah, that is right, but some physical objects can be used\ndirectly because of their physical features. Cultural phenomena in\nsuch cases help in the use of the objects\u2019 physical abilities. In the\ncase of a broken tool, it is the opposite: the tool itself serves as\nmedia first, as a bearer of information, then, in turn, it can be used\nto restore the tool to its physical abilities. . . . A broken tool cannot\nbe used in its presumed function at all.\n\nDelta: By the way, food does not necessarily get value from cultural\nuse. It is mostly opposite: it is used because of its direct physical\nvalue.\n\nGamma: Ha ha ha, I would say cultural traits can very well make it less\nusable!\n\nTeacher: Interesting. Does such a decrease happen to consumables\nonly?\n\nBeta: I think it relates . . . if this is about consumables. . . . They are\nsupposed to be used up, so . . .\n\nGamma: Actually, that was said already. Culture may creates value in\nphysical objects but can also destroy that value.\n\nKappa: I have another idea, . . . I don\u2019t know whether it has anything to\ndo with our topic or not.\n\nTeacher: What is it?\n\nKappa: People can change something\u2019s value by using something else.\n\nAlpha: What do you mean?\nKappa: You use a complicated process to turn fresh tomatoes into\ncanned ones.\n\nAlpha: Ah, that\u2019s new. It also was said already in the ve-e-ery beginning.\nKappa: Oh, yes, I remember now.\n\nThere Is Another Discrepancy!\n\nBeta: Hurray! I got it!\n\nGamma: Hey, Beta, are you OK?\n\nBeta: I\u2019m telling you, I got it!\n\nGamma: What?\n\nBeta: You thank me first! You and Kappa! No, Kappa first!\n\nKappa: Thank you, Beta. Now tell us what you got.\n\nBeta: All right. Kappa, this is for you. Part of a work of art is always\nequal to or greater than the entire work! In the physical world,\nhowever, a part is always less than its whole!\n\nTeacher: Well, we saw that a \u201cpart\u201d of a cultural phenomenon can be of\nthe same value as its whole. Yes, now after we have talked about it,\nthis becomes quite clear. But how could it be greater?\n\nBeta: It could, when an artwork is not quite perfect. This happens all\nthe time. You watch a movie and it is \u201cOK\u201d while some scenes or\ncharacters or even large fragments of it are perfect. Those \u201cparts\u201d\nare greater than the entire thing then. That\u2019s it, that simple!\n\nKappa: Wow.\n\nGamma: How about me? Should I still thank you?\n\nBeta: Go ahead.\n\nGamma: Thank you, Beta, so, so, so much!\n\nBeta: You, Gamma, are very, very, very welcome!\n\nAlpha: Come on, guys! Aren\u2019t you tired yet?\n\nBeta: Yeah, kind of. OK. It is about your thing, Gamma. Although it is\nstill not that clear. I believe that we are on the brink of something\nimportant about cultural phenomena. It is all about human\ncommunication. A book speaks to you; a song speaks to you; the\nsimplest sketch speaks to you. A part of a piece of art speaks to you\nas much as the entire work, right?\n\nAlpha: This is Kappa\u2019s thing.\n\nBeta: Right, but that is also the exact reason why we are not easily willing to substitute one piece of art for another one. We would\nrather add another one but not substitute, right?\n\nGamma: Yeah, sounds good. While I might agree, it is not that clear\nto me yet.\n\nThe Last Summary\n\nTeacher: I have never felt so exhausted. A lot of thinking and talking, a\nlot of ideas, a lot of confusion.\n\nGamma: I feel compassion for lawmakers.\n\nDelta: Please, don\u2019t. It never seems like they are very troubled by these\nissues.\n\nKappa: It is our society, then, for whom we must have compassion.\n\nBeta: You took the words right out of my mouth.\n\nTeacher: All right, let it be our last summary today.\n\nA Few Afterthoughts\n\nThese thoughts came to mind while I was listening to the students. I\ndid not want to interrupt them so made notes.\n\nTo Alpha\n\nCultural needs do not go away when satisfied but instead inspire\nthinking, discussion (you said \u201cwalk and talk\u201d), critique, remembering,\nrecalling, repeating, quoting, following, etc. Sometimes you like a\nbook so much that you start reading it again as soon as you finish it.\nYou can read the entire thing or certain parts, trying to remember\nselected passages, trying to relate it to yourself. . . . None of that\napplies to physical objects in general or consumer goods in particular.\nYou may like a meal and eat it once in a while, but that\u2019s it.\n\nTo Kappa\n\nIf someone is watching TV continuously, he or she never or rarely\nsees the same movie or show. The programs must keep changing and\noftentimes are forgotten. We are hardly dealing with an audience in this case. I would say that people who \u201cwatch and watch\u201d whatever comes on do not communicate with but simply consume video-production. They act more like consumers, not like an audience.\n\nTo Kappa, Again\n\nYes, if you are hungry, it does not matter what you eat; if you are cold, it does not matter how you get warm; if you have not slept for a long time, you can fall asleep anywhere, anytime. You would probably read anything if you were deprived of reading for a long time. But if you have not been brought up as a reader, such a deprivation would not bother you.\n\nTo Gamma\n\nYou say you will not read a boring book. This is something of an obvious assertion. Still, a few ideas emerge from this. A book can be boring for one person and interesting for another. A person can be boring but loved. Now, how does this translate into the world of physical things? Can we use a non-useful thing? The answer is obvious although it is quite likely that a skilled person can use what an unskilled person cannot. This is probably the point at which three worlds differ\u2014people, cultural phenomena, and physical things.\n\nTo My Reader\n\nAs I said, this discussion among students revealed more questions than answers. However, as usual, it spurred a lot of thinking and caused me to think along a completely different path. How do those things work in reality? How can they work under different circumstances? I turned to online discussions, but adults were not that stimulating as my students.","title":"Culture vs. Copyright/Chapter 5","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":8099}