Here are a few pictures which fit size requirements. Others are to be edited 
First Guests 1
First Guests 2
6:45 pm, the presentation is about to start
Even a photographer couldn’t distract my audience. They are looking at the speaker!
Frankly, I don’t remember people smiling. The conversation was pretty loaded with questions, thinking…
Some talking afterwards, as usual
How does an author get compensated if there is no copyright in the picture? What happens to publishers under such circumstances? What happens to an author having a “protective attitude” (a psychological aspect of creativity)?.. So, my very first presentation of “Culture vs. Copyright” in a Los Altos’ store “Know knew books” has happened! Well, I could prepare myself better… The excuse − haven’t done public speaking for quite a while. But I will improve, promise! And despite that, and despite my son’s criticism (which is natural, isn’t it?) attendees were sincerely happy. Pictures and video are coming!
This time I want to quote myself:
“Alpha: What baloney! How can they have a competition if the work is the same for everybody?
Beta: How? How do they always compete? Some put lots of ads on TV—that’s how they compete. Some sell their copies cheaper—that’s how they compete. Some make their books in hardcover—that’s how! Everybody understands that!” Culture vs. Copyright, p. 2.
First graders discuss a situation when a work is free to use by the general public without restrictions. Is there anything, just anything that Beta in that passage gets wrong? Is it not obvious that he describes a normal marketplace? That is, marketplace (where books are sold) becomes normal when rights to make copies are out of picture. Let me stop here. Think of this, take your time, get used to this really simple understanding of the issue provided by first graders.
The letter from Barnes & Noble Small Press Department, dated May 13, 2014, reads: “In order to make your title, Culture vs. Copyright, available to any of our customers . . . we want to stock your title in our distribution network . . .”
Well, it is a large company => a lot of paperwork OTOH, if God is willing to help, the time spent on the paperwork will pay back well. I very much hope.
Yes, IP (Intellectual Property) is nothing else but a problem. A huge one. A catastrophe. I believe it is proven in “Culture vs. Copyright.”
What is THE solution? If IP is nothing else but a problem then the solution is obvious. IP must be abolished.
My question is “How?” My answer is: by an Amendment to the United States Constitution to neutralize the Close 8 of Section 8 of Article I: “The Congress shall have Power (…) 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;”
Oh yes, I understand perfectly well what will surely be the reaction of just any US citizen to the medication I prescribe. An amendment to constitution, while had happened in the past 27 times and have not happened 6 times, always seems undoable. I do not argue with this. I am the first whose imagination is suppressed by only stating the necessity of yet another amendment.
So what? If this is the ideal solution then we need to hold on it. Doable or undoable, it must be understood that it is a must. And then we can talk about steps to be directed to that undoable goal. Nobody knows when we come to a finale. I do not. So? If the right ideal is seen our activities will not be blindfolded “improvements”, that is for sure. For if ideal solution is not seen any “improvement” may very well be just another problem.
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)
Culture vs. Copyright is accepted for exhibition at BookExpo America. Here is their on-line catalog:
http://www.combinedbook.com/2014-bookexpo-america-new-title-showcase_onlinecatalog_500.html
The book can be searched under Philosophy / Social
There are a few major pro-copyright speculations. One is that “ownership” of works of art in terms of intangible aspect (like text besides paper it is printed on) is natural for capitalism. “Right” and “Left” perceive this alike. But this is a superficial perception. Every single work, say, a book creates its own separate market. That is, copyright creates a total monopoly on that market. And total monopoly, essentially is communism. And vice versa. If there is no copyright at all, all books become available for all publishers which situation translates into classical market place … with fierce competition, of course.
I look at exclusive rights from a very definite stand point which is culture. The culture is understood here as “dialogue of cultures” (the theory of a philosopher Vladimir Bibler) paired with the logic of paradox. So, here and there, all over the book, “between lines” and somewhat articulately I provide kind of popular introduction to this not-that-simple-theory.
Large part of the book is composed as dialogues among first graders. This is not just a literary device there. The dialogues were modeled (am not telling written or recorded dialogues they are) after certain practices within framework of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures (educational face of the mentioned above theory). Thus the book makes yet another indirect presentation of the culture as dialogue of cultures.
Besides these general points, the book is packed with dozens of specific ideas regarding arts, creativity, humanity, psychology and more — mainly in dialogic perspective.
First of that was a beautiful blurb! That is why it got on the book’s back cover:
In Culture vs. Copyright: A Diary of a Naïve Philosopher, Anatoly Volynets lays out a treatise challenging many of society’s assumptions about intellectual property, what artistic ownership means, and how to best benefit both the artist and society. While you may not agree with all of his points, this book is sure to generate hours of meaningful discussion. It is an interesting, accessible blend of Walter Benjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Jostein Gaarder’s Sophie’s World, Lawrence Lessig, and gift economy theory. Definitely a must-read for artists and thinkers alike!
Now, I would like to explore some of the concepts brought forth in the blurb.
Among assumptions that I challenge there is one worth of special emphasis: the very notion of “Intellectual Property” (respectively, notions of copyright, patent, etc.)
That entails the next. Of course, one may agree with some of my points and disagree with others… In the beginning. But one has to take into account that all the points but that challenging basic notions are derivatives. That means, all of the ideas, contemplated in the book, relate one to another, can be inferred one from another and therefore, in the end, have to be accepted entirely… or not accepted at all. This is how I see it. Well, someone may disagree with this too.
And the final note is that I am very pleased and honoured that my work is perceived as a blend of unquestionably prominent authors. At the same time, I very much hope, that my book is some whole, which is the most essential feature of real work of culture.