←back to thread

Secret 3D scans in the French Supreme Court

(cosmowenman.substack.com)
771 points abetusk | 10 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 #
sokoloff ◴[18 Oct 24 13:48 UTC] 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 #
MichaelZuo ◴[18 Oct 24 14:03 UTC] No.41879578[source]▶
This doesn’t seem likely, the major tourist destinations during the busy season are so crowded, or slot limited, that it’s a pretty unpleasant experience.

If anything it would reduce overcrowding .

replies(1): >>41883234 #
thfuran ◴[18 Oct 24 20:34 UTC] No.41883234[source]▶
Unless you're suggesting that they'll increase prices proportionally, how would that not result in loss of revenue?
replies(1): >>41883327 #
ipaddr ◴[18 Oct 24 20:44 UTC] No.41883327[source]▶
If the place is packed you should raise prices.
replies(1): >>41884952 #
autoexec ◴[19 Oct 24 01:34 UTC] No.41884952[source]▶
Not really. Their goal shouldn't be to maximize profit and they should take care not to price people out from access to cultural artifacts. If the goal is just to reduce the number of visitors then a lottery system or limitations on ticket sales issued on a first come first served basis is far more fair.
replies(2): >>41884987 #>>41889152 #
MichaelZuo ◴[19 Oct 24 01:41 UTC] No.41884987[source]▶
How is pricing by available time to wait any more fair than pricing by available money to spend?

It’s not like the average tourist has unrestricted opportunities to visit any day of the year, usually it’s only a narrow number of dates.

replies(1): >>41885156 #
1. autoexec ◴[19 Oct 24 02:20 UTC] No.41885156[source]▶
> How is pricing by available time to wait any more fair than pricing by available money to spend?

Because its a lot easier to get someplace early on your day off than it is to suddenly get into another tax bracket. Even poor people usually get at least one day off every single week.

Restricting access by income level is going to leave most people who don't earn enough locked out for their entire lives because upward economic mobility is declining in the EU and a total joke in the US.

Certainly when it comes to travel there's already a high barrier and limitations on opportunity so a lottery might be better than only knowing if you'll get in on the day.

replies(1): >>41887453 #
2. MichaelZuo ◴[19 Oct 24 12:37 UTC] No.41887453[source]▶
No? Those who earn less can save up money, it’s not like it will cost millions of dollars either.

And money is a lot more fungible than time, so in literally the dictionary sense, it is just as fair or even better (assuming the pricing stays below say a monthly salary).

replies(1): >>41898617 #
3. thfuran ◴[20 Oct 24 21:27 UTC] No.41898617[source]▶
You seriously think that other people should have to save up weeks of pay to go to the museum so that you don't have be to near people when you go?
replies(1): >>41899576 #
4. MichaelZuo ◴[21 Oct 24 00:09 UTC] No.41899576{3}[source]▶
Did you just make up an argument with yourself?

I don’t want to vacation to any tourist attraction anytime soon, let alone the places that are currently overcrowded.

And if this is your own subconscious desire, it’s a bit bizarre to insert it this deep into a comment chain…

replies(1): >>41906349 #
5. Tostino ◴[21 Oct 24 17:32 UTC] No.41906349{4}[source]▶
That was the entire point of the comment thread you are replying to.

Someone mentioned prices should be increased to reduce demand, and here we are.

replies(1): >>41906907 #
6. MichaelZuo ◴[21 Oct 24 18:25 UTC] No.41906907{5}[source]▶
If that is your opinion then clearly the user could have responded to the actual parent comment that they believe contained such, higher up in the comment chain.
replies(1): >>41907093 #
7. Tostino ◴[21 Oct 24 18:44 UTC] No.41907093{6}[source]▶
I don't know why you are even arguing here. This is pointless.

But either way, you responded to them first: https://imgur.com/a/Q7nFW8t

Be better at this next time.

replies(1): >>41907464 #
8. MichaelZuo ◴[21 Oct 24 19:21 UTC] No.41907464{7}[source]▶
Huh? Why post an allegedly ‘pointless’ imgur link? There’s no reason to click on it…

Edit: If you have confused thoughts I don’t appreciate being dragged into it. Take it somewhere else.

replies(1): >>41910370 #
9. Tostino ◴[22 Oct 24 01:45 UTC] No.41910370{8}[source]▶
I'm sorry, are you having a hard time understanding how online conversations work? I wasn't involved in any of the above comments. I know from this interaction to never interact with you again if I can help it though.

Have a great great day.

replies(1): >>41910739 #
10. MichaelZuo ◴[22 Oct 24 02:50 UTC] No.41910739{9}[source]▶
I can’t make heads or tails out of this logic so I’ll just say it frankly:

I didn’t choose to reach out and engage with you, ‘Tostino’, or ‘thfuran’, nor do I care about who ‘Tostino’ wants to interact with, relative ‘arguments’, etc…, because this user didn’t exist for me until 3 comments ago!

There literally wasn’t enough time to care about this nonsense. So take it and leave already instead of doubling down.