5 ms·
> Their is no ownership without exclusivity. Why not? Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public. Art in galleries is all owned by some
by TimJRobinson 5y ago
> Their is no ownership without exclusivity.
Why not? Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public. Art in galleries is all owned by someone but many are free for public viewing. Everyone getting to enjoy the thing while the creator still gets paid sounds like an awesome future to me.
- scubbo 5y agoThose things you have described are still exclusive in that the owner _could_ prevent public access if they chose to.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Why not? Because “ownership” is the right to exclusivity. > Plenty of people own parks and gardens that are open to the public You can choose not exercise the right to exclusivity (or to do so selectively), but if you don't have it, you don't own anything. > Everyone getting to enjoy the thing while the creator still gets paid sounds like an awesome future to me. Sure, patronage of public art can be great, but it's not ownership (except maybe “ownership” of an exclusive right to receive some defined form of credit for the patronage.)
- 8note 5y agothe control is exclusive. the owner can always put up a fence, or tell people to get off their lawn