OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: power uses of XML vs. simple uses of XML

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: xml-dev@xml.org
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:31:28 -0500

Paulo writes:

>Let's force everybody to use the due (monopoly-controlled) 
>distribution channels.

>Have fun Big Brother

I hope not because I am having fun.  It is just 
that there are some who really do make a living 
doing it just as some here make money on books.

Instead of the pre-PICS arguments where some 
wanted to be able to do anything to anyone 
anytime just because as programmers, they 
could get away with it, or as Grateful Dead 
prophets, they felt entitled, let's try a different tact.  

We have this neat technology called XML that lets us 
specify in content, or the message wrapper 
what the rights are with regard to the content. 
That is all a copyright on a package enables 
so the same level of protection is provided, 
but no guarantor.  Copyright always has 
meant the owner is responsible for enforcement.  
All the government does is register a claim. 
This is what the debate is all about:  can the 
system of distribution administer the copyright 
and ensure payment?  This is a lot better than 
what performance rights societies do to get money today.  
Can we say, goons?  

A Napster-like system that 
knows how many copies are out there ought to  
be able to establish when some level of fair 
use has been established.  Napster-like 
system owners can make deals with artists to 
enable direct payments.  Cut out the middle men by atrophy 
who add no value to the product.  Look at it 
this way; if 85 cents a copy were remitted to 
the artist, they would be in better shape than 
they are today and we could avoid requiring an 
army of armbreakers who take a percentage.  It would 
be cheaper than what you pay for that CD.

Getting away from the BigBrother system 
is on every artists' agenda.  They redefined what 
a work for hire was and deprived the artists of the 
ability to hold certain ownership rights as well 
as be able to pass these on to their heirs.  
Believe me, a better deal has to be made somewhere 
and Napster-like systems with fair dinkum clauses 
may be a godsend to the artists.   Courtney Love 
did a great article (surprisingly articulate) 
on this subject but I don't have the URL 
available.  She makes good points on the current 
systems and what the Napster-like systems could 
do to improve the problems.

The essence is not to deprive anyone of their 
rightful ownership, nor to restrict innovative 
means of distribution.  The last thing the artist 
wants is to keep the material from the public. 
The next to first thing they want is to be paid 
for their work equitably.   What can XML do to 
meet the legitimate requirements of that community?



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


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS