Do not get distracted by the #AI hype: When the #commons meet a monopolist, they die - more or less slowly. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/google-search-generative-experience-content-creation/674674/

@Shamar Read the papers I linked and you'll see the ministry is acting as a bully. :) They can afford to do that because the taxpayer covers the personnel and legal costs of these bureaucratic activities and nobody covers the externalities.

As for the #Commons, are we using Ostrom's definitions?
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6980.001.0001

On the physical maintenance, art. 108 doesn't contribute because it doesn't earn money.

As for the immaterial side, art. 108 makes projects like #WikimediaCommons impossible.

@quinta Put this way, I'd argue that the Italian law is, in fact, superior to the EU law in this case.

A good belongs to #Commons only when rules exists that protect it from careless private exploitation.

And while for intellectual artifact like software and "digital" contents this should means that when something enter the public domain, its use and derivation should be bound to share-alike rules, it sounds reasonable that for physical good like artistic masterpieces, this means that private profit drawn from a reproduction should contribute to the preservation of the original artwork.

I know that @nemobis won't agree though... 😃