There is certainly politics and posturing and power grabs behind the scenes, but besides that if we look at the economics it’s clearly worth revisiting.
I can understand a museum being worried about the long-term with the current structure:
- Operating a museum necessarily needs money. It’s not always a huge amount if they have the right relationships, but it’s never $0 and so money needs to come in
- Selling tickets relies on people seeing value in seeing the pieces in person
- Selling gift shop items also relies on people coming in as well as being the only source for good quality versions of those things
- Selling posters and other prints also relies on being the only source for good quality versions
What else brings in cash besides government funding (at risk over decades as politics shift) and maybe sales of some pieces (unsustainable of course since you need those to run a museum)?
I can understand the admin staff being terrified of letting the general public have access to files that have the potential to be turned in to perfect enough recreations, but I think everyone here knows that fear and litigation cannot solve their problems any more.
What is sustainable long-term? I suspect that an important piece is that on the whole, enough people want history to be preserved properly and they want some sort of institution to handle that preservation for the public good.
I do wonder what the end goal of people like Amélie Simier is. How is this a hill worth dying on, or at the very least leaving behind a family legacy of being a moron?
joshspankit · · focus · HN ↗
I can understand a museum being worried about the long-term with the current structure:
- Operating a museum necessarily needs money. It’s not always a huge amount if they have the right relationships, but it’s never $0 and so money needs to come in
- Selling tickets relies on people seeing value in seeing the pieces in person
- Selling gift shop items also relies on people coming in as well as being the only source for good quality versions of those things
- Selling posters and other prints also relies on being the only source for good quality versions
What else brings in cash besides government funding (at risk over decades as politics shift) and maybe sales of some pieces (unsustainable of course since you need those to run a museum)?
I can understand the admin staff being terrified of letting the general public have access to files that have the potential to be turned in to perfect enough recreations, but I think everyone here knows that fear and litigation cannot solve their problems any more.
What is sustainable long-term? I suspect that an important piece is that on the whole, enough people want history to be preserved properly and they want some sort of institution to handle that preservation for the public good.
nobodydoesntlik · · focus · HN ↗
ferfumarma · · focus · HN ↗
The museum and judges are outlaws.