5 ms·

So there are many sets out there and this few fragments, 13 in all, are actually going to be tested for authenticity. That is a very good outcome and one benefi

So there are many sets out there and this few fragments, 13 in all, are actually going to be tested for authenticity. That is a very good outcome and one benefit of those who can and desire to collect such artifacts has, especially when they are willing to turn them over to groups that can properly discern authenticity. As to some claiming its merely dealing in stolen artifacts, most of this concern only arises when profit is to be made or the group claiming ownership has a strong voice. When does it stop? We argue day in and day out here about the absurdity of copyright and patents yet rush to defend states declaring ownership over stuff they know not existed? (its even sillier with sunken treasures)

g00gler 10y ago
Isn't the argument against copyrights very similar, if not the same, to the argument for the state to own historic artifacts? I'd argue that the state should own historic artifacts so that they can be held in common. That way no one individual can claim ownership, retain the right to destroy it if they wish, and prevent others from viewing/studying it. Of course the state isn't going to let me or you handle it, but they'll obviously give access to research institutions and whatnot who will publish their findings. Hobby Lobby dude might not do the same and as a private owner, he retains the right not to.
- Retric 10y ago
  Your argument is just they should be owned by X vs Y. You are not arguing that these should belong to a humanity, but rather a specific state. Thus, no they are not similar arguments.
- chc 10y ago
  A state also might not do the same. You might live in a place where the government would be likely to be generous with its property and encourage intellectual pursuits, but that isn't inherently any more true of government officials than it is of "the Hobby Lobby dude."
  - g00gler 10y ago
    Good point. I don't think many countries have Freedom of Information Act requests and whatnot.
emodendroket 10y ago
Copyrights seem more akin to private ownership of artifacts than state ownership, and it's hard to talk about this issue in completely abstract terms given the shameless looting of Egyptian artifacts in the past.

g00gler 10y ago

Isn't the argument against copyrights very similar, if not the same, to the argument for the state to own historic artifacts? I'd argue that the state should own historic artifacts so that they can be held in common. That way no one individual can claim ownership, retain the right to destroy it if they wish, and prevent others from viewing/studying it. Of course the state isn't going to let me or you handle it, but they'll obviously give access to research institutions and whatnot who will publish their findings. Hobby Lobby dude might not do the same and as a private owner, he retains the right not to.

Retric 10y ago
Your argument is just they should be owned by X vs Y. You are not arguing that these should belong to a humanity, but rather a specific state. Thus, no they are not similar arguments.
chc 10y ago
A state also might not do the same. You might live in a place where the government would be likely to be generous with its property and encourage intellectual pursuits, but that isn't inherently any more true of government officials than it is of "the Hobby Lobby dude."
- g00gler 10y ago
  Good point. I don't think many countries have Freedom of Information Act requests and whatnot.

emodendroket 10y ago

Copyrights seem more akin to private ownership of artifacts than state ownership, and it's hard to talk about this issue in completely abstract terms given the shameless looting of Egyptian artifacts in the past.