Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/27

 CHAPTER 2

Inquiry on the Nature of Art Should We Obey the Laws of Nature? A short note before we start. This chapter lays out the philosophical groundwork for the ideas expressed in the book. If you feel it is too heavy, it can be skipped and read later just as well.

Sometimes I use the terms culture and art interchangeably. This is because the arts are the most typical representation of culture; therefore I use art to explore culture itself; and vice versa, whatever we can say about culture in general, naturally applies to the arts.

Now, on with our subject. The concept of copyright (the right to make copies) and related laws, practices, and institutions are different elements of a certain attempt to govern culture. This attempt has been going on long—for about three hundred years. My question is thus: Has it been a success? Or let us put it another way: Has culture been properly governed? The issue is extremely contentious and distressing nowadays, and the right answer is vital. But how can we judge? I insist that the only proper answer is one that is based on culture itself. What do I mean?

The ancient Romans said, Natura parendo vincitur, that is, “Obeying nature, one wins.” In other words, we get the best fruits of nature if we obey its laws. And nothing but harm comes from trying to impose our wishes on nature, to act against its laws. Sounds reasonable, does it not?

I want to ask then, what about culture? Should we try to obey culture’s intrinsic laws? That is to say, should we follow the nature of culture, while attempting to govern it? Or can we take laws derived from other areas and apply them to culture? Witnessing what is going on today, any reasonable person would doubt this, willingly or unwillingly.

Now, let us have a close look at this subject.