4 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoYour 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 agoA 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 agoGood point. I don't think many countries have Freedom of Information Act requests and whatnot.