←back to thread

771 points abetusk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
MichaelZuo ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.41883327[source]
If the place is packed you should raise prices.
replies(1): >>41884952 #
autoexec ◴[] 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 #
1. necovek ◴[] No.41889152[source]
Lottery system could plausibly result in resale of tickets and thus reduce to pricing people out.

The problem with cases like Mona Lisa is that Louvre never really is that overcrowded, but Mona Lisa attracts a crowd at all times (even if it's less than 1% of all visitors on the grounds of Louvre, that's still a lot).