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

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

It can work both ways and as in most developments, 
depends on the humans to do the right thing.  We 
have to be careful of developing a culture in which 
it is ok for one group to do to another that which 
they would not have done to themselves.

XML could make it devilishly easy to take all 
of the books about XML, encode them after buying 
one legal copy each, then make them available from a 
central site, say one of the oil platform countries 
that sit in international waters complete with 
full XLink cross-referencing for ease of use.  
Why?  

1.  We bought a copy.  
2.  We know the cost of buying a book far 
    exceeds the cost of producing it (so they say).
3.  This is information people need and 
    have a right to at their convenience.  
    For example, students can't afford the XML books.
4.  We can do a far better job of presenting the 
    information than the authors did and in a better 
    medium.
5.  We will make the authors even more famous.
6.  Authors should make their money from touring 
    and lecturing, not selling books.
7.  Information wants to be free.

See how that will work.  Pretty soon, no publisher 
will accept XML manuscripts.  After that, most good 
writers will quit writing them.  After that, the 
only way to get an explanation of XML Schemas will 
be the courtesy of folks like Roger Costello 
("i have always depended on the kindness of 
strangers") or trying to read the specification. 

Anyone remember the days when your choices for 
SGML were ISO 8879, Dr Goldfarb's reference, or 
Martin Bryan?  Anyway, the US Senate is having 
hearings today on this subject of digital downloading. 

Let's hope the baby doesn't go out with the bathwater 
because I do want to keep enabling people to download 
my music for free.  It's fun, but I don't hire 
producers, manage a tour, pay other musicians, 
have to bribe radio station program managers, 
press CDs and distribute them without a guarantee 
of repayment (it is very difficult to collect 
for this), and so forth.  Like Roger, 
I do it because I can.  BTW, an album 
can take a year to four years to record and 
if you have to pay for the studio time, costs  
a million plus.  The artist pays for all of the 
above via recoupment from royalties.  This 
is where the digital medium can be a blessing 
and we are very much aware of that.

len 

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: KenNorth [mailto:KenNorth@email.msn.com]

> The music industry is protecting the rights of its
> members but note that lawsuits are being
> initiated by the artists.

I've heard and read more than one artist being interviewed about MP3 and
Napster. Their viewpoint has been pretty consistent. They feel they have a
right to be paid for their effort. It often takes years to develop talent,
and weeks to write and record an album. There are, of course, other
musicians who applaud MP3 because they can become known by giving away the
product of their talent (or lack thereof).

People who write music, software, or books should have the choice whether
they want to work for free or be paid. We should be cautious about any laws
or technologies that usurp that right.

Let's hope XML doesn't develop a reputation as being primarily a technology
for ripping off intellectual property.