xml-dev - RE: power uses of XML vs. simple uses of XML

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

No lack of respect is intended.  I am enabling you 
to "adjust your thinking" based on copyright law which 
is violated by a very large number of Napster users. 
The problem is the model makes that difficult to 
stop these violations.  What does XML have to offer 
as a remedy?  To determine that, we first have to 
admit a problem exists.  (This same kind of thread 
emerged during the pre-PICS days, BTW.)

A spy vs spy argument is a reference to the 
MAD magazine cartoon in which both black and 
white spies equated to the same action and neither 
had a moral imperative; just more of the same 
in a continuous unending struggle for dominance.  
The color of the suit was irrelevant; they wer 
the same thing.

It alludes to some dark netherworld out there trying 
to disenfranchise or otherwise restrict 
developments through nefarious means.  The 
music industry is protecting the rights of its 
members but note that lawsuits are being 
initiated by the artists.

If the distribution network enables and the 
culture rewards violation of copyright laws, 
then it is open season on the software 
industry, the book publishing industry, and 
any product which can be distributed digitally 
over the Internet.  If the content providers 
have to war on each other (play Spy vs Spy) to ensure the same 
moral imperative or lack of it, the WWW is a 
doomed enterprise.  In fact, that will not 
happen.  The probable result will be more restrictive 
legislation and prosecution.  So we get 
Spy vs Spy or Fearless Leader.  Ugly.  The 
alternative is to divise a means to limit 
the life or quality of the copies.

Spy Vs Spy:  In this case, you assert this is 
"what the music industy would have some believe". 
That is irrelevant.  Violation of copyright 
law is at issue.  That is why Napster had to 
remove 300,000 users.  That is why further 
litigation is pending.

The argument you present that since you have 
purchased a copy you also have purchased the 
right to make unlimited copies is legally bunk.  It 
is precisely the right to make unlimited copies that 
is reserved to the copyright holder.  

XML is an interesting means to implement a Napster model. 
 
Using it without a means to enforce the 
copyright is enabling piracy.  Given 
two decades of the software industy trying 
to stop illegal copying, why at this time 
should we espouse that the X in XML come 
to mean a skull and crossbones?   If we do, 
then we should expect a Queen Elizabeth I 
approach to taxation on the high seas.

Len 

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]

I don't know what you mean by a Spy vs Spy argument, and I don't like the
way you're addressing me, and the rest of this list. I didn't read past
"It's bunk" if you want me to listen to you, show more respect. Thanks. Dave

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************