5 ms·

People who give money to museum and university endowments typically attach conditions that are very much meant to be litigated if they are ever violated. The r

People who give money to museum and university endowments typically attach conditions that are very much meant to be litigated if they are ever violated. The recipient expects this. They don't make promises to donors, they sign contracts that force them to use the money the way the donor wants them to. These terms and conditions are ridiculous if they want to be compared to museums and universities.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
What does an art museum's art receipt 'termination clause' look like? When one lodges their collection with a museum "in perpetuity" I'd expect the museum to have a disposal clause that lets them dump non-profitable works? Works gifted to nations seem to get sold off occasionally, I'd guess that's by virtue of renovation clauses that allow the receiver a veritable carte blanch?
- OrangeMango 6y ago
  The term that I think you are looking for is called "deaccessioning" and Wikipedia has what I believe is a good page about it. Sometimes there are conditions, and the museum may have to go to court to be allowed to move forward (and a judge may not allow it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaccessioning_(museum) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaccessioning_(museum)
hosh 6y ago
If we're going to compare those terms and conditions, then also consider this: the people who normally give those kinds of endowments are donating at orders of magntitude larger amounts. The size of those endowments gives the donors the leverage to attach those terms and conditions. What's ridiculous to me is expecting that a micro-endownment of $10 is going to give the donor the same kind of leverage.
- OrangeMango 6y ago
  I think that this is a pretty fair rebuttal, but I'm not sure I personally am convinced. First of all, this entity is inviting the comparison and second, they are saying that $10 is all you need to have something stored in perpetuity.
  - hosh 6y ago
    I wrote elsewhere: I know that there is nothing in the universe that is actually permanent. This is one of the insights from my meditation practice, things come and go. That includes my health and my life. So when I throw that idea out, I can see what they are really offering. This isn't really meant to benefit you. This is meant to benefit our children. If the foundation survives longer than my own life, then I can put files that may be of value to my children and great-grandchildren. It would be up to them to value the preservation of their own digital history and cultural heritage to continue supporting this mission. Both the founder of the Internet Archive and someone from the geaneology industry are among the board. I can see this idea being cooked up as, "hey, what if we were able to offer regular people their very own micro Internet Archive?" "What if we were able to pass on digital photos to be discovered by our descendants the way we have been able to discover photos from the late 1800s and 1900s?" When viewed from that lens, about what happens to data after you die, $10 is a cheap gamble. This isn't really a promise made to me. This is a promise made to my kids. It may not be a promise that the foundation can keep, but I value contributing to my kid's heritage enough to risk $10. I am still going to keep my Google Cloud and Dropbox, and whatever. But the 1 GB I have from this foundation is for a time capsule, stuff I really want to have a shot of passing it down. My kids won't care about my cat memes, or my passwords, or stupid videos. But they may want their baby pictures. They may want their grandpa's and grandma's dissertation. When I die, my Google Cloud drive will shut down. But if things work out with Permanent.org, those files will continue to be there. I won't have to burden my kids directly with its upkeep. And perhaps, when they are older, they will come to value having access to it. Maybe they have not sold their vision well enough. But I guess, they only need just enough people who gets it to kick this off. They are already 75% of the way there.
    - OrangeMango 6y ago

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

What does an art museum's art receipt 'termination clause' look like? When one lodges their collection with a museum "in perpetuity" I'd expect the museum to have a disposal clause that lets them dump non-profitable works? Works gifted to nations seem to get sold off occasionally, I'd guess that's by virtue of renovation clauses that allow the receiver a veritable carte blanch?

OrangeMango 6y ago
The term that I think you are looking for is called "deaccessioning" and Wikipedia has what I believe is a good page about it. Sometimes there are conditions, and the museum may have to go to court to be allowed to move forward (and a judge may not allow it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaccessioning_(museum) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaccessioning_(museum)

hosh 6y ago

If we're going to compare those terms and conditions, then also consider this: the people who normally give those kinds of endowments are donating at orders of magntitude larger amounts. The size of those endowments gives the donors the leverage to attach those terms and conditions. What's ridiculous to me is expecting that a micro-endownment of $10 is going to give the donor the same kind of leverage.

OrangeMango 6y ago
I think that this is a pretty fair rebuttal, but I'm not sure I personally am convinced. First of all, this entity is inviting the comparison and second, they are saying that $10 is all you need to have something stored in perpetuity.
- hosh 6y ago
  I wrote elsewhere: I know that there is nothing in the universe that is actually permanent. This is one of the insights from my meditation practice, things come and go. That includes my health and my life. So when I throw that idea out, I can see what they are really offering. This isn't really meant to benefit you. This is meant to benefit our children. If the foundation survives longer than my own life, then I can put files that may be of value to my children and great-grandchildren. It would be up to them to value the preservation of their own digital history and cultural heritage to continue supporting this mission. Both the founder of the Internet Archive and someone from the geaneology industry are among the board. I can see this idea being cooked up as, "hey, what if we were able to offer regular people their very own micro Internet Archive?" "What if we were able to pass on digital photos to be discovered by our descendants the way we have been able to discover photos from the late 1800s and 1900s?" When viewed from that lens, about what happens to data after you die, $10 is a cheap gamble. This isn't really a promise made to me. This is a promise made to my kids. It may not be a promise that the foundation can keep, but I value contributing to my kid's heritage enough to risk $10. I am still going to keep my Google Cloud and Dropbox, and whatever. But the 1 GB I have from this foundation is for a time capsule, stuff I really want to have a shot of passing it down. My kids won't care about my cat memes, or my passwords, or stupid videos. But they may want their baby pictures. They may want their grandpa's and grandma's dissertation. When I die, my Google Cloud drive will shut down. But if things work out with Permanent.org, those files will continue to be there. I won't have to burden my kids directly with its upkeep. And perhaps, when they are older, they will come to value having access to it. Maybe they have not sold their vision well enough. But I guess, they only need just enough people who gets it to kick this off. They are already 75% of the way there.
  - OrangeMango 6y ago