6 ms·

Why would they lie about it then? These museums are subsidized by tax payers, not only just local money but often with additional EU funding as well. The scans

Why would they lie about it then? These museums are subsidized by tax payers, not only just local money but often with additional EU funding as well. The scans were paid for by the public. This seems comically evil for no apparent reason.

littlestymaar 2y ago
> This seems comically evil for no apparent reason. Gervais Principle
- romwell 2y ago
  >Gervais Principle Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
wiz21c 2y ago
Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely on withholding the stuff in question. Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example) But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open. The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal. As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...
- grahamj 2y ago
  > a museum is not there to be profitable This is so important. Museums (should) exist because the artifacts are rare and must necessarily be protected and confined. They should be overjoyed that scans allow everyone to enjoy these artifacts, even without visiting a museum. Anything else is corruption.
  - trinsic2 2y ago
    The problem is that every institution has been corrupted by the capitalistic viewpoint that everything needs to be profitable to work. Everyone believes that and lives there live around those principals there is not much room for a common domain any more.
- tirant 2y ago
  > The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. Otherwise you are imposing on the citizens the maintenance of an organization based on the criteria from either the political party in power or some bureaucrats. And we all know that their incentives are usually not aligned with their citizens, but mostly to perpetuate their position of power. I personally also believe Museums are important to preserve our history and facilitate research, but not all types and not at all costs. And specially they should not be a nest of corruption as I have observed. So I’m most inclined to let the free market decide, which includes private foundations or wealthy individuals owning museums (e.g. Getty Center in LA).
  - mejutoco 2y ago
    > Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. I would say the most democratic way we have found is voting. The free market is efficient, but not concerned with democracy.
  - necovek 2y ago
    How do you explain the relative success of Internet Archive, Wikipedia and previously, public libraries? Obviously not compared to profitable businesses, but instead to our appetite to support them and use them.
bombcar 2y ago
Bureaucracies always argue for the continuation of the bureaucracy and its funding, no matter how insane or small. It's what they naturally do and you have to explicitly fight against it.
- theendisney 2y ago
  First we pay for the scans then we also get to pay for the legal fight trying to not share it with us??? Then the fight should continue until it can dispose of dysfunctional beurocrats? Set an example? It seems normal to fire people who dont understand their work.
  - n_plus_1_acc 2y ago
    In germany, there is a current case going on where one ministry sues another, both with taxpayer money, obviously. Has led to to funny media reportings.
lupusreal 2y ago
Maintaining the status quo is almost always the path of least resistance for organizations like this. Saying no to something new is easy, to say yes puts you out on a limb with uncertain strength.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Why would they lie about it then? T Because among copyright/IP maximalists, the whole point is that they own an idea or a picture or a look or a fashion and deserve to keep it to themselves forever. It's not a rational attitude, but it's a real one and unfortunately rather common.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  And what is the alternative? How do we get it applied to software copyrights?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Flip the script and make everything public unless it has a sort-of "license" which explicitly restricts access. People can proactively restrict access to their work, which would allow for lawsuits, and others can see the potentially very restrictive licenses which some will put on their stuff and possibly learn to avoid such licenses. Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice but it's interesting to think about.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice It's essentially how art worked up until last couple of hundred years, it worked just fine. During most of the most important periods of art history, copyright wasn't a thing.
      - stavros 2y ago
        What also wasn't a thing: Copying an artwork in two seconds with a cost less than a cup of coffee.
        ipaddr 2y ago
        The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.
astrange 2y ago
If you hire a lawyer, they're going to try to make the strongest argument for your case, even if it's not good.
- romwell 2y ago
  And the meta-question of "why did the museum choose to waste money on lawyers that way" is "bureaucrat X decided that the scans belong to the museum, so no further logic or rational thinking will be applied unless absolutely forced to". That's a common property of all large institutions: the reasons why a decision is made may as well be arbitrary, but by golly will they stick to it and die on the hill, if they can.

littlestymaar 2y ago

> This seems comically evil for no apparent reason. Gervais Principle

romwell 2y ago
>Gervais Principle Reference: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

wiz21c 2y ago

Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely on withholding the stuff in question. Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example) But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open. The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal. As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...

grahamj 2y ago
> a museum is not there to be profitable This is so important. Museums (should) exist because the artifacts are rare and must necessarily be protected and confined. They should be overjoyed that scans allow everyone to enjoy these artifacts, even without visiting a museum. Anything else is corruption.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  The problem is that every institution has been corrupted by the capitalistic viewpoint that everything needs to be profitable to work. Everyone believes that and lives there live around those principals there is not much room for a common domain any more.
tirant 2y ago
> The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. Otherwise you are imposing on the citizens the maintenance of an organization based on the criteria from either the political party in power or some bureaucrats. And we all know that their incentives are usually not aligned with their citizens, but mostly to perpetuate their position of power. I personally also believe Museums are important to preserve our history and facilitate research, but not all types and not at all costs. And specially they should not be a nest of corruption as I have observed. So I’m most inclined to let the free market decide, which includes private foundations or wealthy individuals owning museums (e.g. Getty Center in LA).
- mejutoco 2y ago
  > Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. I would say the most democratic way we have found is voting. The free market is efficient, but not concerned with democracy.
- necovek 2y ago
  How do you explain the relative success of Internet Archive, Wikipedia and previously, public libraries? Obviously not compared to profitable businesses, but instead to our appetite to support them and use them.

bombcar 2y ago

Bureaucracies always argue for the continuation of the bureaucracy and its funding, no matter how insane or small. It's what they naturally do and you have to explicitly fight against it.

theendisney 2y ago
First we pay for the scans then we also get to pay for the legal fight trying to not share it with us??? Then the fight should continue until it can dispose of dysfunctional beurocrats? Set an example? It seems normal to fire people who dont understand their work.
- n_plus_1_acc 2y ago
  In germany, there is a current case going on where one ministry sues another, both with taxpayer money, obviously. Has led to to funny media reportings.

lupusreal 2y ago

Maintaining the status quo is almost always the path of least resistance for organizations like this. Saying no to something new is easy, to say yes puts you out on a limb with uncertain strength.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> Why would they lie about it then? T Because among copyright/IP maximalists, the whole point is that they own an idea or a picture or a look or a fashion and deserve to keep it to themselves forever. It's not a rational attitude, but it's a real one and unfortunately rather common.

warkdarrior 2y ago
And what is the alternative? How do we get it applied to software copyrights?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  Flip the script and make everything public unless it has a sort-of "license" which explicitly restricts access. People can proactively restrict access to their work, which would allow for lawsuits, and others can see the potentially very restrictive licenses which some will put on their stuff and possibly learn to avoid such licenses. Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice but it's interesting to think about.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >Hard to say how that would look or happen in practice It's essentially how art worked up until last couple of hundred years, it worked just fine. During most of the most important periods of art history, copyright wasn't a thing.
    - stavros 2y ago
      What also wasn't a thing: Copying an artwork in two seconds with a cost less than a cup of coffee.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        The person who created the art has been dead for a long time.

astrange 2y ago

If you hire a lawyer, they're going to try to make the strongest argument for your case, even if it's not good.

romwell 2y ago
And the meta-question of "why did the museum choose to waste money on lawyers that way" is "bureaucrat X decided that the scans belong to the museum, so no further logic or rational thinking will be applied unless absolutely forced to". That's a common property of all large institutions: the reasons why a decision is made may as well be arbitrary, but by golly will they stick to it and die on the hill, if they can.