Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/89

Alpha: OK, how can we resolve the last question if we do not turn to law?
Beta: I like the idea that we have to figure out what a law is supposed to be. It must serve . . .
Alpha: Serve what? Or who? You or me?
Kappa: Or the customers or the audience or the general public or the country . . . I don’t know who else. Mankind?
Delta: Law should serve the people and the country. We have to look at the issue from that stand-point.
Teacher: May I narrow this down a bit? Our question can be this: When does a law serve Alpha and Beta and our country best? When Beta is required to pay royalties for the use of Alpha’s recipe? Or when Beta is required to give Alpha proper attribution?
Alpha: Why not both?
Kappa: True, why not?
Delta: Well, someone may ask why you want both.
Beta: I agree. We have to put forward a rationale.
Gamma: We already did. The rationale is society’s well-being, including Alpha’s and Beta’s. If everyone is better off under a law, that means the law is a just one.
Alpha: How can we judge that?
Delta: We cannot if we do not try.
Beta: Look, if I have to pay royalties, my business will be compromised and my competitiveness will be decreased. I can do everything as well as Alpha does. I can make meals as fresh and delicious. I can keep the place clean. I can put as much money in marketing, and I will still be in a weaker position in terms of business. I will have to reduce my earnings while Alpha will get additional money from my efforts.
Alpha: Which is perfectly fair because you built your business on my recipe!
Delta: The business was built with Beta’s effort.
Gamma: Well, it is natural that Alpha wants Beta to share his money, but what about our criteria? What is right for people? It is obvious that if two of your businesses compete in equal conditions, then all of your customers win. . . . By the way, I remember my question.
Alpha: Remember what Beta offered? He wanted to promote my business for free! Does this not put me in a better situation?