The convergence of CONTENT (as Dr. Gurry mentions) into one single artistic work, invites a proper evaluation of each and every individual component that makes up the finished artistic work. The value of a multiple CONTENT work, therefore, does not rely necessarily on the VOLUME of any of its individual components, but principally on the QUALITY – and not on the QUANTITY – of each and every individual component.
Isn’t it true that the financial value of the one SINGLE DIAMOND on a diamond ring is much higher than the sum total of all SIX ZIRCONS that surround it? If cosmetics happen to be considered to be more valuable than the person’s face to which cosmetics are applied, then all unattractive women wearing make-up would be considered to look beautiful – regardless of their basic (unattractive) facial features.
Hasn’t the democratisation of knowledge already taken place starting several centuries ago in universities around the world? It is factual that students who attend universities acquire their knowledge by memorising the material recorded in books published about inventions and/or new discoveries made by creative people.
If KNOWLEDGE is democratised, it could probably work in reference to intellectual property that is tangible and therefore PATENTABLE, but definitely WOULD NOT WORK in terms of intellectual property that pertains to artistic material that is currently protected by COPYRIGHT laws.
“Creativity” originates from the authors’ emotional feelings, which – just like musical composers’ emotional feelings that are translated into musical notes & arranged in a perfect sequential order to ultimately produce melodious sounds – are (as far as commercially successful films are concerned) visually transposed onto the screen containing similar rhythms as to that of a melodious piece of music.
It would be wise, therefore, NOT TO CONFUSE “knowledge” with “creativity”. If Brahms or Strauss lived today, they would most certainly be willing to share the knowledge they have acquired with respect to their composition of music. This does not mean, however, that people who learn to compose music from Brahms or Strauss would automatically acquire the same creative talents enabling them to create musical pieces of the same quality as to that composed by these two outstanding composers.
It can be said, therefore, that if the proposed democratization of knowledge is made to be applicable to artistic works like e.g. feature films, this “so called reform” WOULD NOT necessarily generate better economic returns for anyone who decides to steal what God has given to another person at birth.
The convergence of CONTENT (as Dr. Gurry mentions) into one single artistic work, invites a proper evaluation of each and every individual component that makes up the finished artistic work. The value of a multiple CONTENT work, therefore, does not rely necessarily on the VOLUME of any of its individual components, but principally on the QUALITY – and not on the QUANTITY – of each and every individual component.
lazarus14 2 months ago
Isn’t it true that the financial value of the one SINGLE DIAMOND on a diamond ring is much higher than the sum total of all SIX ZIRCONS that surround it? If cosmetics happen to be considered to be more valuable than the person’s face to which cosmetics are applied, then all unattractive women wearing make-up would be considered to look beautiful – regardless of their basic (unattractive) facial features.
lazarus14 2 months ago
Hasn’t the democratisation of knowledge already taken place starting several centuries ago in universities around the world? It is factual that students who attend universities acquire their knowledge by memorising the material recorded in books published about inventions and/or new discoveries made by creative people.
incomearner2 2 months ago
Comment removed
jacaranda4u 3 months ago
If KNOWLEDGE is democratised, it could probably work in reference to intellectual property that is tangible and therefore PATENTABLE, but definitely WOULD NOT WORK in terms of intellectual property that pertains to artistic material that is currently protected by COPYRIGHT laws.
incomearner2 4 months ago
“Creativity” originates from the authors’ emotional feelings, which – just like musical composers’ emotional feelings that are translated into musical notes & arranged in a perfect sequential order to ultimately produce melodious sounds – are (as far as commercially successful films are concerned) visually transposed onto the screen containing similar rhythms as to that of a melodious piece of music.
incomearner2 4 months ago
Comment removed
incomearner2 4 months ago
It would be wise, therefore, NOT TO CONFUSE “knowledge” with “creativity”. If Brahms or Strauss lived today, they would most certainly be willing to share the knowledge they have acquired with respect to their composition of music. This does not mean, however, that people who learn to compose music from Brahms or Strauss would automatically acquire the same creative talents enabling them to create musical pieces of the same quality as to that composed by these two outstanding composers.
incomearner2 4 months ago
It can be said, therefore, that if the proposed democratization of knowledge is made to be applicable to artistic works like e.g. feature films, this “so called reform” WOULD NOT necessarily generate better economic returns for anyone who decides to steal what God has given to another person at birth.
incomearner2 4 months ago