3 ms·

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 attac

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