View Single Post
Old 8th November 2011
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason West View Post
But I visited as an American citizen. I didn't pay any French taxes for access to the Louvre. It is also free to all foreign visitors that don't pay French taxes (British, German, Chinese, etc).
Come on man. So you stayed in a hotel in Paris, you ate at local restaurants. You contributed foreign exchange, and that's how the french government made back it's investment in one day's free viewing per month.
In any case, you simply can't say the artworks have no value, as they are valued in the millions of dollars. The fact is you were granted a free viewing, you didn't demand it any day of the week. This is key to the debate. Giving choice back to the people who own the art.


Quote:
No. Artists' intent is not enough against the tide of public perception (and technological progress). Basically, artists' intent is irrelevant even though we'd would wish it to be otherwise.
That's utterly and totally wrong.
The public perception is that gas prices, electricity, eating at a Michelin starred restaurant are also over-priced and hard to afford.
That's life bud. Whatever the 'public perception' the public [i]fact[/i[] is it's illegal to download music without permission.
What is more important - fact or perception?