Well, according to your comment, we might say that Beck as a “truly creative” individual, while making his music is in fact engaged in the same type of activity as his granddad while shitting on the carpet. However, in order to determine whether or not this is the case and provided in your comment definition of “create” applies to both acts we must first consider whether or not granddad could be regarded as a “truly creative” individual. In that respect, in my opinion, it would not be unreasonable to consider aforementioned granddad as a remarkable and indeed “truly creative” person. Consequently, we might move on and consider whether or not he, while being creative on the carpet, was simultaneously engaged in thinking about “poses and lighting”. After detailed examination of available evidence, particularly taking into account mindless look on his face during the act in question and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I am of an opinion that on balance of probabilities it is safe to assume that no such consideration as to “prior art”, “licensing” and “poses and lighting” took place during the act in question. Therefore, for the purpose of your comment we could reasonably consider that both, Beck and his granddad while being engaged in the acts of music-making and shitting on the carpet, respectively, were in fact engaging in the same type of activity to which from now on we might refer to as “creative”.
In other words, your reliance on broad and vague definitions of words makes your statement completely meaningless. For example, what do you mean by “just create”? Isn’t it rather obvious that “truly creative people” “create”? What is the difference between “truly creative people” and people that are just “creative”? How can we distinguish “truly” creative people from those “not so truly” creative? Is a “creation” still a “creation” if its creator who is “truly creative” had an intention to monetize on his creations? Would such intention make him somewhat less than “truly” creative? And so on.
In any case, I hope you do recognize the difference between “listening to” and “hearing”, on the one hand and “comprehend” on the other? And you do know that the former does not have to be followed by the latter. Nevertheless, you would probably agree with me that “understanding” is a prerequisite for any attempt to “explain” no matter how “laughable” it may seem. And with this in mind try to consider the following:
1.One cannot create something out of nothing;
2.in abstract terms, any process of creation could be expressed as “input-whatever-output”; where “input” and “output” are indicators of some form of interaction between creator and his environment.
3.While simple rules are inherent to even most basic forms of interaction, significantly more complex sets of rules are necessary for the development of more complex interactions.
4.“Legal” rules create a platform for large numbers of such interactions, which take place in every complex society.
In short, in my “input-whatever-output” model, “legal” rules and those who deal with them are concerned solely with “input/output” and do not give a shit about “whatever”.
Contrary to what you may think, any such attempts to “explain” “whatever” which in your opinion are so amusing, many lawyers would probably consider as inappropriate, if not quite dangerous.
As for the “big stick”, again you might be surprised to learn that individuals are very welcome to hold the stick by themselves, but most of them would probably hurt themselves with it. It seems very likely that you would.