Print

Print


Hugh, IMHO, it is a mistake for us to go into the philosophical pit and spend time and energy arguing about property rights, definitions, etc. I think most of us are aware of current law, private vs. public, etc. It could be argued for instance that a contemporary version of a JP Morgan who had six Rembrandts, a Van Gogh, a Leonardo, and 25 Monets in his private collection could do whatever he wanted with them. Go out into the alley behind his property and toss them all into a heap, pour on the gasoline, light the match and so on. Yes, they are his property, but they are inarguably part of a world’s heritage and in the common interest of humanity to preserve.

Let’s focus on a good start, and so maybe we can quickly come to some version of an agreement with Carl’s contribution. He said, "I’m happy that ARSC will formulate a statement about the UMG tragedy. I hope it doesn't pull its punches. And I hope that it places this matter in the context of the long history of neglect the industry has perpetrated.”

Please help Nathan with his request to the ARSC membership.

Alex