Culture vs. Copyright/Chapter 5

by Anatoly Volynets

CHAPTER 5

Discrepancies between Two Worlds

In 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.

Copyright 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 “To 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.”

My assumption is … 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).

Now, 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.

This 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.

Many 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 property is inalienable from the owner and his or her heirs. However, exclusive rights to “writings and discoveries” (belonging to the world of culture) may be granted under certain conditions for a limited time. What are these conditions? Exclusive rights have “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” The specific role of cultural phenomena is implied here: the progress of science and arts. This specific role relates to the nature of culture and radically differs from the nature and role of material property in human society.

The two worlds are different. The question is, how different are they? Or better yet, how are they different? Before talking to the first graders, I identified a few differences between the “things” belonging to these two worlds. The term “discrepancies” is not quite correct here because the world of culture cannot, must not, and does not coincide or overlap with the world of civilization, in principle. Therefore, discrepancies between them are not possible. On the other hand, exclusive rights to cultural phenomena amount to an attempt to treat “things of culture” the same way as ones of civilization. Thus, assumed “similarities” in reality are “discrepancies.”

Things: Material versus Cultural

Exchange

Cultural phenomena and material things can be shared, but there is a difference in how each does so: physical things change hands while cultural phenomena can be copied or just remembered by other people. That is, one does not lose an idea when it becomes known to others. One does not lose a movie when it is watched or copied by others. One does not lose a musical piece when it is listened to or recorded by others. In general: one does not lose a cultural phenomenon when one shares it with others.

Moreover, the exchange of material things and the sharing of ideas converge in the act of trade. Ideas which reflect the worth of physical things must be shared for these things to be traded. Any trading of physical things or services without the sharing of ideas is

either impossible, or meaningless, or harmful for one or both parties.

Usage

Usage of different things

Let 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 “used,” which means being shared, communicated, known. Cultural phenomena gain value with each usage.

By the way, ideas corresponding to a tool itself appreciate in many ways, while the tool depreciates from use.

Different uses of one thing

A 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—old 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.

Needs

When 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— or, better said, needs of the human soul—have 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 “usage or satisfaction.”

Moreover, cultural desires can cause physical sacrifices and vice versa. Physical needs can cause one to give up cultural ones. Cultural desire can require a person to control bodily desires, to limit, redirect, suppress, twist, or inspire them.

Two in One

Any human thing consists of a material thing and cultural phenomena inscribed in it. However the relationships between these two types in one thing can be different. First of all, it is necessary to distinguish between physical things that have their own value and pure media (books, musical records, movie tapes, etc.) that actually have no value of their own, but derive value entirely from cultural phenomena. There are two more types in between, as well. Thus we have four categories: consumer goods, tools, media, and artifacts. Let us define each of them in detail:

• Consumer goods are things that are consumed and disappear.

They lose form as their value is being utilized. The most typical representative of this group is food. People who buy and use consumables are consumers. A key point is that normally people do not “put their soul” into consumables; they do not feel a personal affiliation with or attachment to them.

• Tools are used in their current form, namely to produce (fix,

upgrade, destroy, preserve, etc.) other things. They gradually depreciate while being used and gradually turn into nothing, at least with respect to their initial function. People who buy and use tools correspond to the notion of customer. Since tools are normally used for a prolonged period of time, people can develop personal feelings toward them, but this phenomenon is not in direct relationship to the nature of the tools. They do not appeal to feelings by nature; they just must function.

• Media do not possess value as physical objects. Their value is

acquired exclusively through the inscription of cultural phenomena. They are intended solely for communication. Media gradually physically depreciate while being used, like tools do, but inscribed cultural phenomena appreciate. People who buy and “use” them are the audience.

• Artifacts are things which once were valuable for their physical

features, but now derive their value from unintended cultural use. These are unique old buildings, cars, tools, other relics, collectibles, etc. People who buy them or buy access to them are collectors, visitors, tourists.
There are two general points we have to stress. First, some of above described uses can be combined. Second, such combinations are related to people’s attitudes. For example, a family can live in a unique old mansion suitable more as a museum than for casual dwelling. Another example is when a profound work of art is considered simply “entertaining” and because of that attitude often is forgotten. In this case the work is turned into a consumer good and correspondingly the audience transforms itself into consumers.

The above were my first thoughts, which were not as clear as I would have liked them to be. Anyway, I brought them to my students. I had not even tried to be very elaborate, because I expected nothing but an avalanche of thoughts and essential clarification of the subject in the end. Well, it turned out otherwise this time. A lot of new questions were what I got. Moreover, the subject had slipped away and provoked us to turn to economics, ethics, etc. You can see and judge for yourself.

When I finished my short speech in the class, I was faced with five puzzled looks. It did not take long to get the first question.

Books, People, Meals

Alpha: Why is it that “cultural satisfaction” increases desire? When you watch a movie, you get satisfied and return home or go to a restaurant or just walk and talk.
Beta: I agree, you do not watch and watch and watch.
Kappa: Some people do.
Beta: Yeah, some do. I would not call them people of culture. What do you think? Teacher: Confused.
Gamma: Why? I understand that if you had never watched movies, you wouldn’t know whether you needed them or not. You probably wouldn’t realize this even after watching a few movies. However, if you don’t eat for a while, your body starts to bother you, and it does so until you feed it.
Delta: By the way, as you get more hungry, you become less selective.
Alpha: So?
Delta: Let’s see.
Alpha: What? You don’t know why you said that?
Delta: . . . True.
Kappa: What difference does it make? It makes sense. If you like a certain type of music, say classical, you will not listen to something entirely different, say rap, even if you have not had access to any music for a long time. We are differently selective with meals than with music, right?
Beta This is kind of obvious. Music or books or paintings—they are all like people. The more you communicate with them, the more selective you become. You value some and are disgusted by others . . .
Alpha: Isn’t it the same about meals?
Beta: Do you value one more and more or hate another more and more?
Kappa: I would say the opposite. You may like eating something for a while and suddenly get sick of it.
Alpha: Don’t you change your preferences in the arts?
Kappa: Hmm.
Delta: Interesting. . . . Listen, food companies take new products to the market pretty often, while entertainment companies use the same stereotypes as long as possible.
Gamma: Do you mean movies? But they do not show you one movie for a long time, right?
Delta: One movie? No. But you recognize the same stereotypes in different movies.
Kappa: And this is boring. Boring entertainment, ha ha ha.
Alpha: Someone said a while ago that you can read the same book over and over again. Isn’t that boring? Gamma: Sure, if the book is boring. But you would not read it again.
Alpha: And if it is not?
Gamma: Then, yes, I can read it over and over again.
Alpha: I wouldn’t.
Kappa: I would.
Alpha: Baloney!
Beta: Why is it baloney? Because you do not understand it?
Alpha: Because you’ve made it up. People do not do this!
Teacher: Some people definitely do. I do.
Kappa: People read the Bible over and over again.
Alpha: Some people do because they are obligated. It is their religion.
Teacher: Are you sure it does not make any sense beyond obligation?
Gamma: It always does. It’s like meeting old friends.
Alpha: Ah, like in a stupid TV series!
Kappa: Well, I suspect not all of your friends are brilliant, but you may still like them. Don’t you think?
Beta: Can you like a boring person? . . .
Gamma: Say, parents are boring. . . . Someone can have boring parents. But they can still be parental, kind, lovely folks.
Alpha: I bet their children don’t visit them very often.
Kappa: You’re probably right, but that’s not normal.
Alpha: Why?
Kappa: You can’t measure people like things: “This one’s useful. That one’s not!”
Alpha: Who was talking about usefulness?
Beta: You’re talking about boredom. It is close.
Alpha: Really?
Gamma: You can love a boring person or a dishonest one or a criminal or someone helpless or stupid or a plain jerk or whatever negative character trait you can only imagine. I read all kind of stories like this.
Alpha: Ah, it is fiction! I got it.
Delta: Do you think that if something’s fiction, it has nothing to do with reality?
Alpha: It probably has something to do with reality, but you never know how. Anyway, you cannot base a serious judgement on fiction. What do you think? Delta: All right. Let’s look at it from another angle. Are all of your loved ones perfect people?
Kappa: It is not a matter of perfection at all. You don’t choose friends on these grounds. I mean, whoever you choose to make friends with is perfect for you, this is it. . . . Although I don’t know what that means, really . . .
Beta: It is the same for books, music, movies.
Alpha: Meals, houses, cars, tools, parks, lakes, mountains, forests, barber shops, shopping malls.
Teacher: That is an impressive list.
Delta: But those things are different.
Alpha: What do you mean?
Delta: Remember, I said this before. It’s just that the idea slipped my mind. If you are hungry and cannot get your favorite meal, you will eat anything else. Now, if you need a ride and your favorite car is not available, you drive another one. If your favorite park is closed, you can go to another one. But if your friend is sick, even unconscious, you will not go visit someone else. You go visit your friend. If you cannot find your favorite book when you want it, you will not sit and read whatever is just hanging about. If you want to watch a certain movie, and it is not possible for some reason, you will hardly agree to watch another one. You will wait until you can watch the one you wanted. Say, if you like comedies, you will not watch a thriller under any circumstances. I said, it’s different. It is obviously different. You would understand if . . .
Kappa: Hey, hey, let’s not go there.
Delta: All right, let us not.

The Recipe Case

Kappa: We all got carried away and distracted from the initial question. The important thing is that when you share your meal, a part of it is gone. You can even leave hungry. However, if you share the recipe for that meal, you lose nothing. . . . Actually, yes, the recipe becomes more known, and thus, it becomes more valuable. You are gaining something. Alpha: One can say so.
Kappa: One can say so, and one will be right. And this is important for our conversation because this is how a meal and its recipe drastically differ in nature. The meal gets consumed and disappears. The recipe gains value every time it is shared. It gains even more value every time someone cooks and eats that meal.
Alpha: OK, why would they say that it is stealing?
Beta: Who says? About what?
Alpha: Say, you developed a unique recipe and don’t want to share it and someone learns it and makes use of it. That’s stealing.
Beta: I wonder why? I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that sharing a recipe adds value to it. Should adding value be called stealing under any circumstances?
Alpha: Suppose I built a business upon it! Then you come and learn the recipe somehow and start a similar business. You will get the money that I was supposed to get. Isn’t that stealing?
Delta: Oh yes. Beta opens another restaurant to use your recipe and makes you more known. He actually advertises for you, but you put no penny in this. Why don’t we consider this stealing?
Alpha: Don’t my efforts provide advertising for him in this case?
Gamma: Yes, but it is not quite the same. He has to reveal whom he learned it from. You will always be the person who introduced the recipe. This pays. . . . You can always charge more than others in the same business.
Alpha: Ah, and he will charge less and steal my customers!
Beta: Are you listening? It is not me who charges less, it is you who charges more!
Alpha: Does anyone see the difference here?
Beta: Of course, there is no logical difference! There is no need to argue about labels and metaphors either! Just follow the money! If I make your recipe well known while I produce something based on it, I help you out! I make you more well known as the originator of that wonderful product and advertise you and your business! You get more customers who are willing to pay more! And you call this stealing?
Alpha: But you get money also! Isn’t that mine?
Beta: I do business, but the money is yours? Alpha: Of course! The idea was mine; thus, money derived from this idea belongs to me!
Gamma: You can share it. A portion of it will be paid out as royalties, and the remainder belongs to the business.
Alpha: That’s what I meant.
Beta: How about the revenue received by Alpha from my work? He clearly gets it. Shouldn’t he share?
Delta: How on earth can we measure all these mutual dependencies?
Gamma: Listen, listen! I have another question!
Alpha: Hold it! I need to argue what Beta said!
Teacher: Go ahead.
Gamma: Who?
Alpha: All right, you go.
Gamma: Thanks … but I lost it.
Alpha: Are you sure?
Gamma: I am, go ahead.

Royalties versus Attribution

Alpha: 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’t owe you anything whatsoever, but you owe me!
Gamma: Who was talking about a law?
Alpha: Law is reality, isn’t it? What are we talking about if not reality?
Teacher: This is a new turn in our conversation. We haven’t discussed existing laws yet. We are discussing relations and discrepancies between the worlds of culture and civilization.
Alpha: Where do laws belong?
Teacher: 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.
Alpha: You never said that.
Teacher: Of course, I didn’t. Law was not the subject at the time. We can discuss it later if we find it suitable.

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? Beta: Yes, it does. But this will not take money from my business.
Alpha: Really? It will take some customers from you. Is this not the same?
Teacher: I see a difference between the two methods. In the case of royalties, we have to set up and enforce some artificial measurements to take money from Beta’s business. This becomes specifically questionable. If Beta gets no profits, his business may die, and Alpha will get no royalties at all.
Alpha: In that case, I got rid of a competitor, and that is good.
Kappa: For you probably. Not for the public.
Delta: I doubt whether is always beneficial for Alpha.
Alpha: And why is that?
Teacher: May I finish?
Alpha, Delta, Kappa: Sorry.
Teacher: So, in the case of attribution, when Beta just honestly reveals whom he learned the recipe from, he does not necessarily lose. He can even gain.
Alpha: And how is that? Sorry.
Teacher: That’s OK. When Beta tells who taught him the recipe, he appeals to people’s feelings. Some of his customers would certainly be curious to go to Alpha’s place, and some would admire the tribute as such. Both businesses achieve more solid relations with their patrons and public in general.
Kappa: By the way, Alpha can also tell who learned from him.
Alpha: Aha, sure.
Delta: Why not? This certainly adds credibility to your business.
Gamma: Two times, by the way. Firstly, it implies that the recipe is worthy because it gets followers. Secondly, if you’re not afraid of a competitor, you make your customers feel your business is strong.
Kappa: I like this! A shared recipe benefits everybody, even when attribution is given!
Beta: Because attribution is given! Not “even when” but “because”!
This is how things differ in culture and civilization! If Alpha wants my money, we both lose! When we share ideas, we both win! This is how it works! This is how they are different! I never expected it to turn out this way! This is terrific!
Gamma: Wow! I’ve never seen Beta so excited! Teacher: Me neither.
Kappa: It is good that he didn’t jump on the desk like someone else.
Teacher: Gamma, what about your question? Do you remember it?
Gamma: Uh-huh. When you cook an exotic meal, a lot of different ideas, inventions, and techniques are used, right?
Teacher: Definitely.
Gamma: What about all those?
Alpha: What about them?
Gamma: What about them? Think for a second. If you want royalties from Beta, thousands of other people may ask for royalties from you! Don’t you think?
Delta: So everybody will be sitting down and calculating royalties day and night and nothing else?
Gamma: And that makes no sense at all!
Beta: And then one day they’ll forget about royalties, stand up, and just go back to their business.
Kappa: I have a declaration to make: People have to share ideas in order for civilization to exist!
Alpha: Impressive. I have one proposition and one question.
Teacher: Go ahead.
Alpha: Thank you. The question goes first. Suppose I opt for attribution. What about those thousands of ideas now? Do I have to sit down and write down all ideas I’ve used, then conduct research to determine their authors, and then attach tons of paper with references to every single menu, plate, napkin, and so forth? Now here is my proposition: Beta does not have to pay royalties for his whole life, only for a limited time. How about that?
Kappa: In the beginning or later?
Gamma: How much later?
Alpha: Who knows, what happens later?
Kappa: OK, Alpha, so you want royalties at the precise time that times are hard for Beta, right?
Alpha: But for a limited time! A business is always difficult in the beginning, anyway!
Kappa: Then let it be even more difficult, right?
Alpha: Why should I care? Teacher: We agreed on some criteria, remember?
Delta: I remember, and I remember that essentially we reached a conclusion. Free sharing of ideas plus honest attribution boosts businesses, competition and thus benefits everybody!
Gamma: Yes, and why would we look for anything else?
Beta: Well, Alpha can argue that profits are the reward for a businessman’s efforts and benefit the public in the end, but how then is creativity rewarded?
Gamma: By attribution, how else? You created it. People, who use it, honestly say so. Everybody knows you and your role in the invention and recognizes your impact.
Delta: People call or write to you, invite you to give lectures.
Alpha: Me?
Kappa: Aha, Alpha, you! Do you like that more?
Alpha: What’s more? More than what?
Teacher: There were two options.
Alpha: I told you, I’d like both. Everyone would, I’m sure.
Gamma: Well, OK, then we won’t ask you. We’ll turn to the criteria of public good instead.
Alpha: All right, you haven’t answered my question, remember? In the meantime, I have something else to tell you all. Gamma rightly said that it is very natural for me (and I believe it is so for everyone) to wish for both royalties and attribution. Therefore, if you don’t give me all I want, I wouldn’t like it! Then if I come up with yet another recipe, I won’t reveal it to anyone!
Kappa: And what is the point? What will you get?
Alpha: I’ll have my monopoly over it—that’s what I’ll get. I’ll not have competition—that’s what I’ll get. My business will grow—that’s what I’ll get. And that’s it and nothing else! What do you think?
Delta: You will have to put money in marketing.
Alpha: So?
Delta: So? If you don’t have big bucks for that, forget about growing.
Alpha: Really? And what is my other option?
Delta: Another option? I am going to to suggest something terribly new. Reveal your recipe in exchange for attribution.
Alpha: Ah, that is news. And?
Beta: And what? Haven’t we discussed it all? Kappa: Yeah, Alpha, haven’t we?
Alpha: You probably did. I probably wasn’t here.
Teacher: Alpha, you were here.
Alpha: All right, I am stupid. Can anyone repeat it for me just one more time?
Kappa: Alpha, you are not stupid.
Alpha: I’m not?
Kappa: Nope.
Teacher I agree with Kappa.
Alpha: So?
Beta: So, you yourself repeat what we concluded earlier.
Alpha: You concluded?
Beta: Yes, we did—Kappa, Gamma, Delta, our teacher, I, and with your participation. And if you disagree with the conclusions, explain why.
Gamma: Yes, Alpha, please. You can do it.
Alpha: I can . . . if I want.
Teacher: Why wouldn’t you want it?
Gamma: Yeah, Alpha, why? We are not enemies; we just have different ideas.
Alpha: Exactly. We do have different ideas.
Gamma: Well, I believe they all deserve some respect.
Alpha: And I was disrespectful, wasn’t I?
Beta: I would say so. You don’t even want to repeat others’ ideas. How would you call this kind of attitude?
Teacher: It is interesting, really.
Alpha: It seems like tricks and games to me.
Teacher: Why?
Alpha: OK, does anyone want to reiterate what I’d said?
Beta: I don’t really want to, but I will if you insist.
Teacher: Yes, Beta, please do. Let it be our first summary today. Do you mind, Alpha?

Alpha: (shrugs)

Summaries

How Royalties Are Supposed to Work

Beta: 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?
Alpha: (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’t have to collect zillions of references.
Teacher: Very good, Alpha. We have all of your ideas summarized now, and it is your turn. Please summarize Beta’s ideas.
Alpha: I had to fix what Beta said about my ideas, anyway. I believe he can summarize his ideas better than me.
Teacher: 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’s ideas, we would pay more attention to what everyone says.
Alpha: I remember everything everyone said. I just do not feel like I want to repeat what Beta said.
Teacher: OK, anyone?
Beta: I can try.
Gamma: I can.
Teacher: Let us go with Gamma.

How Attribution Is Supposed to Work

Gamma: 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 of the invention and publicity of the inventor. At the same time, all businesses have equal access to the invention and thus have equal opportunity to compete. . . . Did I get it right?

Against Attribution

Teacher: I think so. Now I believe we can summarize the arguments against both positions and continue from there.
Kappa: To continue where?
Teacher: Ah! The best question! We must return to our main issue!
Beta: A summary is necessary anyway.
Teacher: OK. Anyone?
Alpha: My objections to Beta’s ideas stand.
Teacher: Please, Alpha.
Alpha: First, as a creator, I would not like to wait and see how other people make money from my creative work and then pat me on the back in gratitude, because that reference of yours is nothing more than a pat on the back. It costs them nothing, while they earn money and I don’t. I would not divulge any other invention in that case. Second, nobody can provide all the zillions of references anyway. So, some royalties paid for limited time would be a fair working solution to all our problems. Thank you.

Against Royalties

Teacher: Thank you, Alpha. Any argument against royalties?
Alpha: Summary of argument.
Teacher: Right; we want a summary of what was argued against royalties so far.
Kappa: May I?
Teacher: You bet.
Kappa: First, if there are two businesses based on the same idea, they compete using normal business means, such as marketing, productivity, and so forth. Now if we, for some reason, take money from one and give it to the other, the second would have an 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.
Alpha: So? It may go about something else. Why would they take something from me for free? Why don’t they take my equipment, as well?
Delta: 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.
Alpha: But I lose money! How many times must I remind you of this?
Gamma: I don’t 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 “a pat on the back!” You have changed your opinion ten times today and have never considered all of the arguments!
Alpha: I never acknowledged that your references increase my earnings, and I never will.
Kappa: By the way, I never finished my summary.
All: (Look puzzled.)
Kappa: Alpha’s limited time and amount of royalties cannot be determined by market forces and should be set up artificially, based on … who knows what.
Alpha: I haven’t heard this argument before … except for the part about royalties.
Beta: Does this really affect the logic behind it?
Alpha: We agreed to do a summary and return to the original issue.
Teacher: All right.

Starting Over

Gamma: OK, if we return to our topic, I’d like to recall one thing which impressed me.
Teacher: Great!
Gamma: 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 use or reference increases the value of a creative work and the publicity of its author.
Kappa: By the way, royalties don’t!
Delta: Too bad.
Alpha: Hey, stay focused.
Gamma: I think we are. One of our initial observations was that cultural phenomena increase in value while being used. I believe that relates somehow to what I was saying.
Alpha: How can we determine this increase in value? I agree that references might cause an increase in value. But competition causes a decrease in value. These two ideas are just ideas. They are not proven facts. At any rate, we cannot take that increase as a given.
Kappa: All right, now at least we have a problem statement!
Delta: Wait, wait. I hardly see a problem here. Competition is always seen by businessmen as something harmful! Still, it is considered a positive phenomenon for the entire society!
Kappa: Actually, yes . . . and if we turn to our very subject, this is even more so, ... I think.
Delta: Why?
Kappa: Because knowledge is more valuable the more it is known! Isn’t that obvious? . . . I mean, valuable for society.
Teacher: What do you think, Alpha?
Alpha: I think that someone saw a problem two minutes ago and now doesn’t. Someone changes opinions pretty quickly!
Teacher: Still, what do you think about the idea that knowledge is more valuable for society the more it is known?
Alpha: I have to think before I can say what I think.
Delta: Exactly.
Alpha: Exactly. Applies to everyone.
Teacher: This is a very important point, of course, although a conversation itself can work pretty well.
Alpha: So, what’s your advice? Just to keep talking without thinking?
Teacher: Hmm, a tough question . . . I would say that I have to do two things in a conversation like ours. First, I have to unconditionally accept new ideas, and that means putting thinking aside. Second, I have to juxtapose different ideas in order to see how they relate to each other and how they relate to reality. This juxtaposition requires a thought or actually is a thought.
Kappa: Wow, that resonates! It is a pity we cannot continue along these lines.
Delta: Yeah, we have gone astray.
Kappa: I don’t know why, but an entirely new discrepancy just occurred to me!
All: (Look puzzled)
Kappa: Look . . . but it is a truly strange one, . . . I am not quite sure.
Gamma: Well?
Kappa: All right. Say you got a car, right?
Alpha: Right!
Kappa: All right. . . . The car works if all of its parts work, and all of them are connected properly . . .
Alpha: That’s new!
Kappa: Now take one part out and the whole thing does not work anymore!
Teacher: Interesting. . . . Assuming that’s true.
Kappa: All right, let’s take another example. . . . Sorry, I am trying to get a hold of my idea . . .
Delta: Go ahead, catch it!
Kappa: Thanks. . . . Let’s take a meal.
Alpha: I’m ready.
Kappa: You can have a small portion, and it is still edible. And the more you have, the more satisfied you are, right? Until you are full.
Beta: Well?
Kappa: Now if you read a fragment of a story or listen to a fragment of music, it may tell you a lot about the entire work. A fragment can be as meaningful as the entire piece.
Alpha: But you would like to read the entire story!
Delta: That is right, and the more you read, the more you want to reach the end!
Alpha: The same with meals! What’s the difference?
Beta: It is not the same. You read a book to the end, no matter how big the book is. It depends on the book, not on you . . . but normally you eat as much as you need, no matter how much is left.
Kappa: My bad! I was thinking about tools, not meals. . . . The car was the right example. A car part is nothing without the car while a piece of the story is always something. It speaks to you . . .
Teacher: That is right. Looks like there’s another discrepancy looming around the corner. . . It is not quite clear yet what it is. We probably need to see how meals or other consumables reflect this idea, if they do.
Beta: We stopped at the point that you could judge a meal even if you had just a small piece . . . and it seems the same with music or books.
Kappa: But every piece of the meal is the same! And every piece of the story is different!
Beta: Yeah, but wait, let me finish. There is another similarity here. If you got a dish, a small piece of it, and it is tasty, you may want more of it, so you eat until you’re satisfied. It seems to be the same with music, doesn’t it?
Gamma: No, that’s different. You may want it, but the music or the novel will never bring you satisfaction the same way that food does. Music may make you hungry for more; it’s the same with a book. . . . We actually discussed this already. . . . And again, it feels like this feature of a cultural phenomena relates to our personal affiliation with it.
Teacher: I’m lost. It feels like there’s an issue related to car parts, the parts of a meal, and the parts of a piece of art, but I’m not clear what it is.
Beta: Yeah. We can summarize it this way: a part has a different relationship to the whole in art or consumables or tools.
Teacher: Aha! Still, I’m not clear about all of this.
Beta: Yeah, . . . anyway, it seems to be important. . . . Part of a story can be just as important as the entire story. . . . It is like that with a person. You can like or dislike a person at first impression, and you can like or dislike this person’s behavior as well.
Teacher: It looks like it’s the same with an idea. It is the same in a short formula as it is in thousands of pages of explanations. Have you finished, Beta?
Beta: Not quite . . . I’m thinking. When it comes to a complex thing in the physical world, it’s difficult to judge the entire thing by its part. You may only guess. . . . And the part normally does not work by itself and thus has no real value. The entire thing without a just one part can also be of no value.
Alpha: What if you miss part of a blueprint?
Beta: A blueprint does say something to you, any part of it. It has value; it always does. If you have just part of it, you can recreate it.
Alpha: You can restore a car too.
Beta: Yes, but a broken car has no value unless you use the car itself as a blueprint! You can retrieve some information from it! It’s another discrepancy!
Teacher: Can you flesh it out for us?
Beta: Well, . . . a broken thing having no physical value may still bear useful information . . .
Alpha: This was actually said already. Physical things derive their value from inscribed cultural phenomena.
Gamma: Yeah, that is right, but some physical objects can be used directly because of their physical features. Cultural phenomena in such cases help in the use of the objects’ physical abilities. In the case of a broken tool, it is the opposite: the tool itself serves as media first, as a bearer of information, then, in turn, it can be used to restore the tool to its physical abilities. . . . A broken tool cannot be used in its presumed function at all.
Delta: By the way, food does not necessarily get value from cultural use. It is mostly opposite: it is used because of its direct physical value.
Gamma: Ha ha ha, I would say cultural traits can very well make it less usable!
Teacher: Interesting. Does such a decrease happen to consumables only?
Beta: I think it relates . . . if this is about consumables. . . . They are supposed to be used up, so . . .
Gamma: Actually, that was said already. Culture may creates value in physical objects but can also destroy that value.
Kappa: I have another idea, . . . I don’t know whether it has anything to do with our topic or not.
Teacher: What is it?
Kappa: People can change something’s value by using something else.
Alpha: What do you mean?
Kappa: You use a complicated process to turn fresh tomatoes into canned ones.
Alpha: Ah, that’s new. It also was said already in the ve-e-ery beginning. Kappa: Oh, yes, I remember now.

There Is Another Discrepancy!

Beta: Hurray! I got it!
Gamma: Hey, Beta, are you OK?
Beta: I’m telling you, I got it!
Gamma: What?
Beta: You thank me first! You and Kappa! No, Kappa first!
Kappa: Thank you, Beta. Now tell us what you got.
Beta: All right. Kappa, this is for you. Part of a work of art is always equal to or greater than the entire work! In the physical world, however, a part is always less than its whole!
Teacher: Well, we saw that a “part” of a cultural phenomenon can be of the same value as its whole. Yes, now after we have talked about it, this becomes quite clear. But how could it be greater?
Beta: It could, when an artwork is not quite perfect. This happens all the time. You watch a movie and it is “OK” while some scenes or characters or even large fragments of it are perfect. Those “parts” are greater than the entire thing then. That’s it, that simple!
Kappa: Wow.
Gamma: How about me? Should I still thank you?
Beta: Go ahead.
Gamma: Thank you, Beta, so, so, so much!
Beta: You, Gamma, are very, very, very welcome!
Alpha: Come on, guys! Aren’t you tired yet?
Beta: Yeah, kind of. OK. It is about your thing, Gamma. Although it is still not that clear. I believe that we are on the brink of something important about cultural phenomena. It is all about human communication. A book speaks to you; a song speaks to you; the simplest sketch speaks to you. A part of a piece of art speaks to you as much as the entire work, right?
Alpha: This is Kappa’s thing.
Beta: 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 rather add another one but not substitute, right?
Gamma: Yeah, sounds good. While I might agree, it is not that clear to me yet.

The Last Summary

Teacher: I have never felt so exhausted. A lot of thinking and talking, a lot of ideas, a lot of confusion.
Gamma: I feel compassion for lawmakers.
Delta: Please, don’t. It never seems like they are very troubled by these issues.
Kappa: It is our society, then, for whom we must have compassion.
Beta: You took the words right out of my mouth.
Teacher: All right, let it be our last summary today.

A Few Afterthoughts

These thoughts came to mind while I was listening to the students. I did not want to interrupt them so made notes.

To Alpha

Cultural needs do not go away when satisfied but instead inspire thinking, discussion (you said “walk and talk”), critique, remembering, recalling, repeating, quoting, following, etc. Sometimes you like a book so much that you start reading it again as soon as you finish it. You can read the entire thing or certain parts, trying to remember selected passages, trying to relate it to yourself. . . . None of that applies to physical objects in general or consumer goods in particular. You may like a meal and eat it once in a while, but that’s it.

To Kappa

If someone is watching TV continuously, he or she never or rarely sees the same movie or show. The programs must keep changing and oftentimes are forgotten. We are hardly dealing with an audience in this case. I would say that people who “watch and watch” whatever comes on do not communicate with but simply consume video-production. They act more like consumers, not like an audience.

To Kappa, Again

Yes, 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.

To Gamma

You 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—people, cultural phenomena, and physical things.

To My Reader

As 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.