History and gaming enthusiast from Finland. Also into politics and culture.

Historiasta ja peleistä kiinnostunut pirkanmaalainen. Seuraan myös politiikkaa ja kulttuuria.

Striimailen pelejä viikottain Youtubeen, asialinjalla ja ilman turhaa kohkausta: https://youtube.com/@NukeminHerttua

  • 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle




  • Some time ago I read about a similar situation with copyright preventing use of pictures of 70+ year old paintings in a doctoral dissertation. The dissertation was all about analyzing those paintings so the situation was sort of ridiculous.

    Even worse, the owner of the paintings (the artist’s heirs) had given their permission for the use, but the the high quality photographs of the paintings were owned by institution that requested thousands of euros for their use. While 100% lawful and I understand cultural institutions also need money, the whole situation felt really wrong and against common sense and decency.

    I understand requesting money from a commercial project, but for and academic dissertation that’s not fair. Same goes for emoji’s that are anyways used by millions of people every day. No one is going to profit directly from a dissertation anyways.It’s just stupid and should be changed.










  • I think the point is that as long as certain services or fundamentals for living are based on good-will and philanthropy, they are in the end at the mercy of whims or calculated actions of those doing well.

    It is PR in the sense that it does not only make the philanthropist look good, it also ties the subjects of the philanthrophy into a bond between the giver and receiver: as a receiver you are forever thankful to the philanthropist and in some perverted way constantly reminded of your subordinate status towards the giver. This strengthens the societal structures that benefit the rich and helps them stay powerful compared to massess. While I am sure that most rich people genuinely donate money to make things better and help others, it is still them who get to choose where the money is spent.

    More equal and transparent option is to make sure that there is enough tax revenue to cover these kinds of costs from public spending.

    I have also been playing with an idea of a philanthropic fund that allows anyone to donate, but not to decide where the money is spent. If the target for philanthropy could be decided by a group of experts/public poll, money could probably be allocated to places where it is needed the most. However, I am sure there would be a lack of bigger donations as the PR effect would be smaller…