←back to thread

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

(cosmowenman.substack.com)
771 points abetusk | 6 comments | 18 Oct 24 08:50 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
Symbiote ◴[18 Oct 24 12:06 UTC] No.41878622[source]▶
> The court ruled that the museum’s revenue, business model, and supposed threats from competition and counterfeiting are irrelevant to the public’s right to access its scans, a dramatic rejection of the museum’s position

It would have helped the museum and government ministry if this had been clear before the government-funded scanning program was started. (Maybe it was, I don't know.)

I was initially sympathetic to the museum, as it's common for public funding to be tight, and revenue from the gift shop or commercial licencing of their objects can fill the gap. I don't know about France, but I expect the ministry has been heavily pushing public museums to increase their income in this way.

However, that doesn't justify the deception described by the article.

replies(8): >>41878710 #>>41878780 #>>41878801 #>>41878841 #>>41880177 #>>41884218 #>>41886229 #>>41886284 #
ACS_Solver ◴[18 Oct 24 12:36 UTC] No.41878841[source]▶
This same person fought for years to get the Berlin Egyptian museum to release 3D scans of the famous Nefertiti bust. The museum also claimed it would undermine its revenue streams through the gift shop, but as the case progressed, that turned out to be very misleading - the museum had made less than 5000 EUR over ten years from 3D scans.

https://reason.com/2019/11/13/a-german-museum-tried-to-hide-...

replies(6): >>41879008 #>>41879453 #>>41879787 #>>41880239 #>>41881759 #>>41882771 #
trompetenaccoun ◴[18 Oct 24 12:57 UTC] No.41879008[source]▶
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.
replies(6): >>41879063 #>>41879127 #>>41879282 #>>41879326 #>>41879471 #>>41884704 #
1. wiz21c ◴[18 Oct 24 13:11 UTC] No.41879127[source]▶
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...

replies(2): >>41884199 #>>41885931 #
2. grahamj ◴[18 Oct 24 22:50 UTC] No.41884199[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>41889650 #
3. tirant ◴[19 Oct 24 06:00 UTC] No.41885931[source]▶
> 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).

replies(2): >>41887078 #>>41888650 #
4. mejutoco ◴[19 Oct 24 10:52 UTC] No.41887078[source]▶
> 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.

5. necovek ◴[19 Oct 24 16:12 UTC] No.41888650[source]▶
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.

6. trinsic2 ◴[19 Oct 24 18:34 UTC] No.41889650[source]▶
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.