6 ms·

Nobody else considered these two sentences, pretty much one right after the other, quite at odd with each other? > These books are extremely valuable, but more

Nobody else considered these two sentences, pretty much one right after the other, quite at odd with each other? > These books are extremely valuable, but more importantly they are irreplaceable and are of great importance to international cultural heritage > The works were being stored in a warehouse ahead of being transported to a specialist book auction in Las Vegas, in the US So, they were of great cultural/historical importance, yet they were about to get shipped of to the USA to be auctioned. In Las Vegas, of all places. If that was to be an open auction, where essentially anyone could bid, I fail so see how the end result is all that different from these thieves selling them on a black market. Sure, with an open auction there is at least a track record, of where these works end ended up. But access to these works would just as well be on the whims of private owners. To me it sounds like works of such cultural/historical value ending up in private hands either way, is the real crime here. Maybe fully legal(ized) in one case, but I think that says rather a lot about the system as a whole.

emteycz 6y ago
Buildings are often protected as cultural heritage, even though they are private, the owner can't change them at whim, and preserving the looks is usually not enough. Isn't the situation similar with books or art?
- elmo2you 6y ago
  You bring up an interesting point (and perspective) on this. I have to admit, I honestly don't know if/how things might be regulated (if at all) for works of literary art (with historical/cultural significance). AFAIK, with buildings these regulations (now) exists because they didn't in the past. People got really upset with other people just demolishing what they held dear, public outcry as a result and eventually regulations too. But in this situation the destruction is often driven by space being a scarce commodity (especially in cities). I doubt that books often get destroyed to make way for new ones (barring a few criminal/extremist authoritarian regimes), so it might never have reached a point where enough people got upset about it and demand regulation. But now I am curious though, if there are indeed regulations for these kind of works. If there are, that would essentially render my original opinion null and void. Still, I would prefer it that way, rather than know that these works will end up in the hands of the financially powerful private hands. For I have little faith in that lot and their antics.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    > But now I am curious though, if there are indeed regulations for these kind of works. Plenty of countries have some level of regulation on this sort of thing. After all, there's a long history of national cultural treasures being looted. Everything from the British Museum acquiring the Elgin Marbles under very sketchy circumstances to Hobby Lobby having a bunch of Egyptian and Iraqi artefacts seized. Of course, it's debatable where such protections need to start. Only a defined list of items? Only items 200+ years old and worth $250,000+? More?
- est31 6y ago
  Some countries have cultural heritage protection laws that prevent exports of certain protected pieces of art. So it's kinda similar.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
The state arbitrarily deciding that privately-owned material objects are of “societal value” and then confiscating them has a bad history in Romania, and ex-Communist countries in general.
- teddyh 6y ago
  On the other hand, the state deciding that books being forcibly copied (without the owner’s permission) and all copies collected together, turned out to be a great idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Private individuals deciding that objects X, Y, and Z are valuable, then buying them at auctions, and sealing them away from the public, to then have them be lost in time and space, is not exactly better. Digitize as far as possible, otherwise replicate if possible. Then distribute all over the place. Make it accessible, and make it ubiquitous. Any single point of collection will eventually fail. Private collectors are (even) less likely to do this correctly than public actors.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Yes, it’s much better. I’d rather that some artistic objects be lost to time than to give the state authority to take anything it desires. That’s a direct attack on the concept of private property. Otherwise, yes I agree with the desire to digitize and preserve as much as possible.
    - black_puppydog 6y ago
      > I agree with the desire to digitize and preserve as much as possible. But if you put private property above all else, then you need to explain who would have an incentive to take on the digitization/curation/archival/distribution work, and why. Artifacts only command a premium because they are unique. Private organizations, at least profit driven ones, have very little if any incentive to digitize and make something available in the highest quality possible, if they just spent a sizeable amount of money to have exclusive access to it. And that's not even saying something about making it available as a real commons. On the other hand, non-profit organizations are either largely publicly funded, at which the distinction to "the state" becomes blurry, or privately funded, in which case we again depend on the goodwill of a few rich individuals and on their choices what is and isn't worth preserving, and what is and isn't going to be available to the public. Yay! /s
INTPenis 6y ago
Security by obscurity. This summer a truck full of ammo was robbed here in Sweden and I was equally shocked that a truck full of ammunition was allowed travel through customs and then just let go into the country without any tracking. The driver (probably insider) was sleeping on the side of the road when someone just took all the ammo from the back.
- galangalalgol 6y ago
  What are the normal precautions there for dealing with ammo? Here you have to be 18 to buy it but it is just on the shelves at many stores that sell hunting and fishing supplies.
  - INTPenis 6y ago
    I'm not sure about ammo but weapons are of course heavily regulated. So much so that as a registered weapon owner you must tell the Police of the route you take from home to the gun range. At least this is what I heard many years ago. I have no interest in this topic besides being firmly against all forms of weapons in the hands of civilians. And you're not allowed to store the weapon assembled, and you must use a certified gun cabinet. These are also things I've picked up along the way, without actually looking into them.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      IMO there is only one case for having guns in the hands of civilians other than hunting - self defense against wild animals when hiking. I mean, Sweden has bears, moose and wild pigs, how are people supposed to defend against these?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        This is an imaginary problem. "31 people were attacked in all of Scandinavia between 1977 and 2012. Few of the attacks had deadly outcomes and almost all took place during a hunt." https://sweden.se/nature/swedens-most-dangerous-animal/ https://sweden.se/nature/swedens-most-dangerous-animal/ Turns out if you leave them alone they leave you alone. You don't need to 'defend' yourself against them, let alone with firearms.
myspy 6y ago
The first thing that came into my mind too. Great importance to international cultural heritage, but hey, they are auctioned off to a private person instead of ending in a museum/whatever is best qualified to take care of it.
londons_explore 6y ago
Books are a classic thing that should just be digitized and the originals sold off. The value is in the content, not the paper and ink. In todays digital world, we can make thousands of copies and distribute them all over the world, giving the content a far far better chance of long term survival than the paper and ink would have had even in the best library. Even libraries burn down. Even the most stable countries have a civil war occasionally...
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "Books are a classic thing that should just be digitized and the originals sold off. The value is in the content, not the paper and ink." Physical books do actually matter to a lot of people, especially if these books have a history. In fact, books are really no different than any other physical item in this respect, and their ability to be digitized does not decrease their value as physical objects in the slightest. There was an interesting Radiolab episode called "Things"[1] about exactly this. I'd recommend listening to if if you're interested in what makes things with a history valuable. [1] - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/things https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/thing...
- xenocratus 6y ago
  > The value is in the content, not the paper and ink. That's not entirely true. While it might be considered a bit of am extreme example, think about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodermic_bibliopegy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodermic_bibliopegy The paper and ink can tell/show us things about the technical environment in which these books were created. If you sell them off to a collector, scientists lose access to them.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    So long as the collector is known science doesn't lose access. Access becomes harder for sure, but most collectors will let some people view their collection. Many collectables have clubs where club members are invited to each others houses to see their collection. Even where the collector is a very private person, the right person asking can generally get access (so long as they swear to secrecy).
epanchin 6y ago
I am a fan of the UK system. Historically significant assets are free of taxes (inheritance, capital gains) provided they are available for public viewing. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/gds/heritage/colsearch.htm http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/gds/heritage/colsearch.htm
- Zenst 6y ago
  That is kinda brilliant - more so that you can search from there and see what items you as the public can view and when. Heck could plan some nice days out around this - brilliant.
- hammock 6y ago
  Can Americans transfer assets to the UK without realizing gains in order to take advantage of this? Also - I guess this is why most of the aristocracy that live in castles open their property up to the public for a few days every year.
woodruffw 6y ago
I agree with everything in your comment, but I wanted to point something out that I found out recently: apparently Las Vegas is full of independent used/rare/second-hand bookstores. Pieces like these shouldn't be allowed to disappear from public eyes and ownership, but at least they probably won't be auctioned off next to a craps table.
leto_ii 6y ago
Your comment reminded me that there is a lot of art and artifacts simply kept in warehouses, and treated mostly as investment assets: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-worlds-greatest-art-collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-wo... As far as I understand it, this even includes da Vinci's Salvator Mundi... how sad is that?
- viggity 6y ago
  I don't know about the tax laws elsewhere, but IIRC, in the US gains from art are taxed as income, not as capital gains, which would seem to reduce their attractiveness as investment vehicles dramatically.
  - kritiko 6y ago
    There are ways around this. Art collectors have started building museums on their properties with limited, often onerous public access: "Wealthy collectors, of course, have long saved millions of dollars in federal taxes by donating art and money to museums and foundations. But what distinguishes Mr. Brant’s center and a growing number of private tax-exempt exhibition spaces like it is that their founders can deduct the full market value of any art, cash and stocks they donate, even when the museums are just a quick stroll from their living rooms." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-gain-tax-benefits-from-private-museums.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-g...
jdeibele 6y ago
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/episode-823-planet-monet https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis... "The art market is going nuts. People are spending record amounts of money of paintings like Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. But not everyone is rushing home to hang their new artwork up on their walls. A lot of buyers are storing their art in vast warehouses near airports. They're called, "freeports." Freeports exist between countries, a sort of no man's land, which means you can store your artwork there as long as you want, without having to pay any taxes on it."
- simonsarris 6y ago
  Haha, so then, if your art is stolen from a freeport, you don't ever pay the taxes. This makes the hilarious incentive for people to steal their own purchased artwork from themselves, so they can finally display it (while dodging the tax). Or else just claim its still in storage while absconding the work to the manor, etc.
  - biztos 6y ago
    I would imagine the security protocols of freeports like Geneva or Singapore make it pretty hard to fake any theft; and artworks valuable enough to be stored in places like that are usually insured, so you'd have the insurance investigator to deal with. Claiming it's in storage while it's actually not: that might work, especially if it's something small and you can smuggle in a copy.
- biztos 6y ago
  Whether "Salvator Mundi" is hiding in a freeport, or hiding on one of MBS's many many walls, either way it still wasn't painted by Leonardo da Vinci. (There is some controversy about this, but the side I take is taken by more than the press lets on, because the auction houses have taken the other side and pissing them off can be career-ending.) https://news.artnet.com/opinion/kenny-schachter-on-the-missing-salvator-mundi-1565674 https://news.artnet.com/opinion/kenny-schachter-on-the-missi...
1-6 6y ago
Welcome to capitalism.

emteycz 6y ago

Buildings are often protected as cultural heritage, even though they are private, the owner can't change them at whim, and preserving the looks is usually not enough. Isn't the situation similar with books or art?

elmo2you 6y ago
You bring up an interesting point (and perspective) on this. I have to admit, I honestly don't know if/how things might be regulated (if at all) for works of literary art (with historical/cultural significance). AFAIK, with buildings these regulations (now) exists because they didn't in the past. People got really upset with other people just demolishing what they held dear, public outcry as a result and eventually regulations too. But in this situation the destruction is often driven by space being a scarce commodity (especially in cities). I doubt that books often get destroyed to make way for new ones (barring a few criminal/extremist authoritarian regimes), so it might never have reached a point where enough people got upset about it and demand regulation. But now I am curious though, if there are indeed regulations for these kind of works. If there are, that would essentially render my original opinion null and void. Still, I would prefer it that way, rather than know that these works will end up in the hands of the financially powerful private hands. For I have little faith in that lot and their antics.
- michaelt 6y ago
  > But now I am curious though, if there are indeed regulations for these kind of works. Plenty of countries have some level of regulation on this sort of thing. After all, there's a long history of national cultural treasures being looted. Everything from the British Museum acquiring the Elgin Marbles under very sketchy circumstances to Hobby Lobby having a bunch of Egyptian and Iraqi artefacts seized. Of course, it's debatable where such protections need to start. Only a defined list of items? Only items 200+ years old and worth $250,000+? More?
est31 6y ago
Some countries have cultural heritage protection laws that prevent exports of certain protected pieces of art. So it's kinda similar.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

The state arbitrarily deciding that privately-owned material objects are of “societal value” and then confiscating them has a bad history in Romania, and ex-Communist countries in general.

teddyh 6y ago
On the other hand, the state deciding that books being forcibly copied (without the owner’s permission) and all copies collected together, turned out to be a great idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
black_puppydog 6y ago
Private individuals deciding that objects X, Y, and Z are valuable, then buying them at auctions, and sealing them away from the public, to then have them be lost in time and space, is not exactly better. Digitize as far as possible, otherwise replicate if possible. Then distribute all over the place. Make it accessible, and make it ubiquitous. Any single point of collection will eventually fail. Private collectors are (even) less likely to do this correctly than public actors.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Yes, it’s much better. I’d rather that some artistic objects be lost to time than to give the state authority to take anything it desires. That’s a direct attack on the concept of private property. Otherwise, yes I agree with the desire to digitize and preserve as much as possible.
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    > I agree with the desire to digitize and preserve as much as possible. But if you put private property above all else, then you need to explain who would have an incentive to take on the digitization/curation/archival/distribution work, and why. Artifacts only command a premium because they are unique. Private organizations, at least profit driven ones, have very little if any incentive to digitize and make something available in the highest quality possible, if they just spent a sizeable amount of money to have exclusive access to it. And that's not even saying something about making it available as a real commons. On the other hand, non-profit organizations are either largely publicly funded, at which the distinction to "the state" becomes blurry, or privately funded, in which case we again depend on the goodwill of a few rich individuals and on their choices what is and isn't worth preserving, and what is and isn't going to be available to the public. Yay! /s

INTPenis 6y ago

Security by obscurity. This summer a truck full of ammo was robbed here in Sweden and I was equally shocked that a truck full of ammunition was allowed travel through customs and then just let go into the country without any tracking. The driver (probably insider) was sleeping on the side of the road when someone just took all the ammo from the back.

galangalalgol 6y ago
What are the normal precautions there for dealing with ammo? Here you have to be 18 to buy it but it is just on the shelves at many stores that sell hunting and fishing supplies.
- INTPenis 6y ago
  I'm not sure about ammo but weapons are of course heavily regulated. So much so that as a registered weapon owner you must tell the Police of the route you take from home to the gun range. At least this is what I heard many years ago. I have no interest in this topic besides being firmly against all forms of weapons in the hands of civilians. And you're not allowed to store the weapon assembled, and you must use a certified gun cabinet. These are also things I've picked up along the way, without actually looking into them.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    IMO there is only one case for having guns in the hands of civilians other than hunting - self defense against wild animals when hiking. I mean, Sweden has bears, moose and wild pigs, how are people supposed to defend against these?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      This is an imaginary problem. "31 people were attacked in all of Scandinavia between 1977 and 2012. Few of the attacks had deadly outcomes and almost all took place during a hunt." https://sweden.se/nature/swedens-most-dangerous-animal/ https://sweden.se/nature/swedens-most-dangerous-animal/ Turns out if you leave them alone they leave you alone. You don't need to 'defend' yourself against them, let alone with firearms.

myspy 6y ago

The first thing that came into my mind too. Great importance to international cultural heritage, but hey, they are auctioned off to a private person instead of ending in a museum/whatever is best qualified to take care of it.

londons_explore 6y ago

Books are a classic thing that should just be digitized and the originals sold off. The value is in the content, not the paper and ink. In todays digital world, we can make thousands of copies and distribute them all over the world, giving the content a far far better chance of long term survival than the paper and ink would have had even in the best library. Even libraries burn down. Even the most stable countries have a civil war occasionally...

pmoriarty 6y ago
"Books are a classic thing that should just be digitized and the originals sold off. The value is in the content, not the paper and ink." Physical books do actually matter to a lot of people, especially if these books have a history. In fact, books are really no different than any other physical item in this respect, and their ability to be digitized does not decrease their value as physical objects in the slightest. There was an interesting Radiolab episode called "Things"[1] about exactly this. I'd recommend listening to if if you're interested in what makes things with a history valuable. [1] - https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/things https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/episodes/thing...
xenocratus 6y ago
> The value is in the content, not the paper and ink. That's not entirely true. While it might be considered a bit of am extreme example, think about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodermic_bibliopegy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodermic_bibliopegy The paper and ink can tell/show us things about the technical environment in which these books were created. If you sell them off to a collector, scientists lose access to them.
- bluGill 6y ago
  So long as the collector is known science doesn't lose access. Access becomes harder for sure, but most collectors will let some people view their collection. Many collectables have clubs where club members are invited to each others houses to see their collection. Even where the collector is a very private person, the right person asking can generally get access (so long as they swear to secrecy).

epanchin 6y ago

I am a fan of the UK system. Historically significant assets are free of taxes (inheritance, capital gains) provided they are available for public viewing. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/gds/heritage/colsearch.htm http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/gds/heritage/colsearch.htm

Zenst 6y ago
That is kinda brilliant - more so that you can search from there and see what items you as the public can view and when. Heck could plan some nice days out around this - brilliant.
hammock 6y ago
Can Americans transfer assets to the UK without realizing gains in order to take advantage of this? Also - I guess this is why most of the aristocracy that live in castles open their property up to the public for a few days every year.

woodruffw 6y ago

I agree with everything in your comment, but I wanted to point something out that I found out recently: apparently Las Vegas is full of independent used/rare/second-hand bookstores. Pieces like these shouldn't be allowed to disappear from public eyes and ownership, but at least they probably won't be auctioned off next to a craps table.

leto_ii 6y ago

Your comment reminded me that there is a lot of art and artifacts simply kept in warehouses, and treated mostly as investment assets: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-worlds-greatest-art-collections-hides-behind-this-fence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/arts/design/one-of-the-wo... As far as I understand it, this even includes da Vinci's Salvator Mundi... how sad is that?

viggity 6y ago
I don't know about the tax laws elsewhere, but IIRC, in the US gains from art are taxed as income, not as capital gains, which would seem to reduce their attractiveness as investment vehicles dramatically.
- kritiko 6y ago
  There are ways around this. Art collectors have started building museums on their properties with limited, often onerous public access: "Wealthy collectors, of course, have long saved millions of dollars in federal taxes by donating art and money to museums and foundations. But what distinguishes Mr. Brant’s center and a growing number of private tax-exempt exhibition spaces like it is that their founders can deduct the full market value of any art, cash and stocks they donate, even when the museums are just a quick stroll from their living rooms." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-gain-tax-benefits-from-private-museums.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-g...

jdeibele 6y ago

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/episode-823-planet-monet https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis... "The art market is going nuts. People are spending record amounts of money of paintings like Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi. But not everyone is rushing home to hang their new artwork up on their walls. A lot of buyers are storing their art in vast warehouses near airports. They're called, "freeports." Freeports exist between countries, a sort of no man's land, which means you can store your artwork there as long as you want, without having to pay any taxes on it."

simonsarris 6y ago
Haha, so then, if your art is stolen from a freeport, you don't ever pay the taxes. This makes the hilarious incentive for people to steal their own purchased artwork from themselves, so they can finally display it (while dodging the tax). Or else just claim its still in storage while absconding the work to the manor, etc.
- biztos 6y ago
  I would imagine the security protocols of freeports like Geneva or Singapore make it pretty hard to fake any theft; and artworks valuable enough to be stored in places like that are usually insured, so you'd have the insurance investigator to deal with. Claiming it's in storage while it's actually not: that might work, especially if it's something small and you can smuggle in a copy.
biztos 6y ago
Whether "Salvator Mundi" is hiding in a freeport, or hiding on one of MBS's many many walls, either way it still wasn't painted by Leonardo da Vinci. (There is some controversy about this, but the side I take is taken by more than the press lets on, because the auction houses have taken the other side and pissing them off can be career-ending.) https://news.artnet.com/opinion/kenny-schachter-on-the-missing-salvator-mundi-1565674 https://news.artnet.com/opinion/kenny-schachter-on-the-missi...

1-6 6y ago

Welcome to capitalism.