←back to thread

771 points abetusk | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Symbiote ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
sokoloff ◴[] No.41879453[source]
It seems that with the advent/improvements in AR/VR that measuring the direct sales of scan data is the wrong way to look at the losses.

If many people can experience a 75% compelling viewing of the bust (or the pyramids, Galapagos, Chichen Itza, etc.), the losses in tourism to those sites is far more than the lost sales of scan data.

replies(3): >>41879578 #>>41879603 #>>41889108 #
1. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.41879603[source]
I doubt it. People go to see the original Mona Lisa when they can own a reproduction for less than the cost of the flight. I don't see why those who would have gone to see it would suddenly accept a reproduction just because it's AR/VR.
replies(2): >>41880317 #>>41886316 #
2. sokoloff ◴[] No.41880317[source]
There are hundreds of places I’d like to experience in my lifetime. I probably have the time left to go to perhaps 50 of them (max). Surely being able to experience some of those 300 in VR will affect my lifetime travel plans and I highly doubt that I’m alone.
replies(1): >>41880655 #
3. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.41880655[source]
That's my point. Your top 50 are going to stay your top 50. If you've always wanted to see the Mona Lisa in person you're not going to change your plan because you saw an image of it.
replies(1): >>41880831 #
4. sokoloff ◴[] No.41880831{3}[source]
My top 50 to see in person would definitely change if 25 of them can be experienced in VR. (I might still go in person to my top 3, but there's a lot of nearly even exchange among spots 4-100.)
replies(1): >>41882214 #
5. ruthmarx ◴[] No.41882214{4}[source]
VR isn't that amazing yet, you may as well just sit close to a big screen curved TV with earphones if going in person isn't ultimately that important.

If the smells, sights, people you meet, experience including entering the country and flying, food, traffic, general cultural things etc are not important, why even have it on your list?

Travel should be about the journey as much as the destination, when possible.