Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

kut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 281 posts

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#191

Post by nosianu »

newaccount74 wrote: post #174
Aeolun wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem in all those statements is how US law works (e.g. badly). In Europe, yes, I would agree with your assessment.

No, this is just what a lawyer would say. Every time I've consulted a lawyer (in Europe) I was told that the situation is very difficult, and there are big risks involved if I didn't do it properly, and a long and detailed contract would be required to avoid all these risks, and it just so happens that the lawyer I consulted with is very experienced in this area and would offer to set up such a contract for me. The c…

Yes and no, from experience, it matters a lot who sends that generic paper to another party. When they see it's sent by a lawyer the effect is very different from when a normal person sends it. You hire the lawyer for their title more then for the expertise in such mundane standard cases. It's a signaling thing.

For example, when (in Germany) you get an "Abmahnung" (https://allaboutberlin.com/glossary/Abmahnung) for filesharing even though how to respond is standardized advice you are probably still better off having it sent by a lawyer. It tells the other party that if they escalate that you are less likely to cave in to the pressure, that they would have to actually have to go to court, which is expensive and time consuming and in filesharing cases only worth it when they want to "send a signal" or create a court ruling to be able to point to.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#192

Post by brewdad »

650REDHAIR wrote: post #48
tpmx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could just keep the receipt from Goodwill and use your money in more better ways than paying a lawyer.

But that’s not how the real world works. She 100% did the right thing here. And frankly she deserves a payout for all of the legwork.

In the real world, she might lose possession of the object and be out $35 if she can keep her receipt. Still way cheaper than a lawyer.

I doubt I would involve lawyers across multiple nations if I ever encountered such a thing. Preserve it, enjoy it, and donate it to a major museum in my home nation when I die. It will find its way to a rightful home.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#193

Post by DSingularity »

joosters wrote: post #150
robonerd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.

If you don't trust statements in the article, then you have absolutely nothing to base any of this discussion on. Following your reasoning, why do you trust anything in the story, rather than just select pieces of it - does the bust even exist? Is the person in the story real or just made up? Is the bust even Roman? Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported . What else do we, armchair critic…

Feelings?

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#194

Post by brewdad »

DocTomoe wrote: post #179
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She certainly could have kept it on display in her private residence without anyone knowing anything about its provenance except her.

Let's talk to a lawyer first about that little concept of "concealment of stolen goods".

She didn't steal it and there's no way anyone could ever presume she knew it was stolen. IF she had kept her mouth shut.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#196

Post by brewdad »

newman8r wrote: post #83
Arainach wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodwill in particular moves items between markets and prices them based on the local economy. Gone are the days of 2010 when you could walk into the Bellevue Goodwill and find lightly used designer clothing that some retired Microsoft engineer was tired of. Now everything's priced higher than eBay and there's no reason to stop by. Everyone else wants to be a "Boutique" and charge high end prices for used goods. Blam…

You can still find great deals at university surplus sales. more fun than goodwill ever was. Scored a $1500 RF amp for $25 at one of those.

My kid picked up about $1000 in surplus lab equipment from his school. They were never assigned asset tags so figuring out how to dispo them properly was more trouble than it was worth to the professors. He asked and they said to just take it.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#197

Post by brewdad »

Isamu wrote: post #23
tomcam wrote: post #19

What amazes me about all these stories is the ridiculously low prices the thrift store charged. Here in the Seattle area, everything seems to grossly overpriced in thrift stores.

Yeah, I can never find a reasonable price on a first century Roman antiquity, and believe me I’ve tried.

Just visit your preferred museum on free admission day. They leave things on display for anyone.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#198

Post by heleninboodler »

paulcole wrote: post #14
tpmx wrote: post #4

Back at home, Young had a problem: She was in possession of a looted piece of ancient art. She couldn't keep it. She couldn't sell it. And giving it back to its rightful owners was a lot harder than it sounds. “At that point, I realized I was probably going to need some help,” Young says. “I was probably going to need an attorney.” So she hired a lawyer in New York who specializes in international art law, Leila Amin…

Yeah the hiring a lawyer thing is mind boggling. If that’s the only option, then just donate the stupid head back to Goodwill and be done with it. Goodwill even says they don’t keep records about who makes donations!

My guess is that she placed a high value on trying to get an ancient piece of art back to its rightful owner without falling afoul of any laws governing possession of stolen art, and that hiring a lawyer is a pretty good way to deal with that situation. She could have saved herself a lot of trouble by chucking it in a lake, but something tells me that wouldn't have been a satisfying outcome to her. Everything humans do isn't always about maximizing value to oneself.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#199

Post by Dylan16807 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #76
tpmx wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask them to pick it up.

So maybe she emails the museum and says "pick it up." And then a week later a guy shows up on her doorstep and says "I'm here to pick it up." How does she know the guy really works for the museum and is not some criminal who hacked into her email? She's never met him, and he's not going to be carrying an FBI badge after all. If she gives the bust to the wrong guy, maybe the museum sues her because it was their proper…

If my email's hacked I have much bigger worries than a fake delivery pickup. That's a real stretch of a scenario.

Re: $35 sculpture found at an Austin Goodwill was looted from a museum during WWII

#200

Post by Dylan16807 »

joosters wrote: post #150
robonerd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article wasn't written by her, that isn't a statement from her. That is the journalist's statement, Matt Largey. It may or may not be completely accurate. What does "couldn't keep it" mean anyway? That she felt morally obliged to return it? Or legally obliged? The article doesn't say.

If you don't trust statements in the article, then you have absolutely nothing to base any of this discussion on. Following your reasoning, why do you trust anything in the story, rather than just select pieces of it - does the bust even exist? Is the person in the story real or just made up? Is the bust even Roman? Everyone here is discussing the situation, given the story reported . What else do we, armchair critic…

No need to be so rude.

The story was ambiguous. Don't pretend it wasn't, and don't turn that into a giant strawman.

Post reply on HN