Personally my objections are that the notions are self-defeating and xenophobic, that culture is something to be owned instead of shared. It is fundamentally a

Personally my objections are that the notions are self-defeating and xenophobic, that culture is something to be owned instead of shared. It is fundamentally a "permission culture" framework. Not to mention culture is a ship of Theseus period. Norwegian ancestors from the viking era would be appaled at the conversion to Christianity and their devout descendants would be appalled at the prevailing secularism and athiesm. Looking at it from a free culture perspective the notion is an absurdity worse than even overreaching copyright although thankfully lacking its legal force. That something thousands of years old is still "under protection"? By those who don't even have a bill of sales or inheritance? It just compounds. That said it is still possible that even if the framework is invalid that an objected action is still being dickish period.