The solemn title of this post reflects one aspect of the discussions around copyrights, patents and other inventions of the kind. I don’t remember whether I wrote on this or not. Regardless, the last drop was the wonderful review I have received from Kirkus Reviews which ends: “…A detailed, if somewhat idealistic, exploration of art, culture and copyright in the marketplace.” Yes, I love that review for several reasons, including that it made me to finally articulate, at least briefly, an important point.
That my understanding of the matters is idealistic I heard many times. That always implies unrealistic, unimplementable, impractical and so forth.
The question is, what we call realistic, implementable, practical? That kind of knowledge we do not have at all? For, in respect of IP normal alternative, we do not have it. How is that realistic?
Now, what does an ideal do in terms of practicality? The answer is very simple and, I believe, totally reasonable: an ideal shows us where to go. Period. And what happens if we don’t have an ideal? The answer comes out easily: in that case we do not know where to go. Another period.
Having an ideal we can think about possible iterations. And this is a practical approach. BTW, remember? — “There is nothing more practical than a good theory.” (Kurt Lewin)