RE: [rights] Apologies + RLTC/XACML

["Godsey-Bell, Connie F. (LNG)" <Connie.Godsey-Bell@lexisnexis.com>]

Bob,
THANKS for your comments!  You shouldn't have to single handedly represent
the content side, but I sure am proud that you are!

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@isogen.com]
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 11:08 AM
To: DuCharme, Bob (LNG)
Cc: 'Hardjono, Thomas'; 'rights@lists.oasis-open.org';
'karl.best@oasis-open.org'; 'Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM'
Subject: RE: [rights] Apologies + RLTC/XACML


Hey Bob,

I'm not sure who said what, and don't feel motivated
to search out the occasion for the apology, but...

if you're in the modern "content ownership" business, be
prepared for routine mistreatment from the pen
of content creators whose "work" has come to be owned
or controlled by others -- middlemen who stand between
author and reader, for example, having extorted
or by other means acquired others' content as
commercial property...

In a Flash presentation (worth watching!)
from OSCON, Lessig makes humorous reference to
Milton's characterization of the London publishers
in such langage:

  "... fraud of some old patentees and monopolizers
  in the trade of book-selling; who under pretence
  of the poor in their company not to be defrauded...
  serving to no end except it be to exercise a
  superiority over their neighbors, men who do not
  therefore labor in an honest profession to which
  learning is indebted, that they should be made
  other men's vassals... [2]

Whatever was written on this 'rights' list, albeit
in a different kind of defense for freedom of
the press, was likely less offensive, I'll warrant.
Vendors and content owners trying to control the
flow of information between author and reader need
a vast wardrobe of designer asbestos suits!

:-)

[1] http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
[2] John Milton. (1608-1674).
     AREOPAGITICA: A SPEECH OF Mr. JOHN MILTON
     For the Liberty of VNLICENC'D PRINTING,
     To the PARLAMENT of ENGLAND.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/part_1

Longer excerpt:

And as for regulating the press, let no man think to
have the honor of advising ye better than yourselves
have done in that order published next before this,
that no book be printed, unless the printer's and
the author's name, or at least the printer's be
registered.... Whereby you may guess ... how it
got the upper hand of your precedent order so well
constituted before, if we may believe those men
whose profession gives them cause to inquire most,
it may be doubted there was in it the fraud of
some old patentees and monopolizers in the trade
of book-selling; who under pretence of the poor in
their company not to be defrauded, and the just
retaining of each man his several copy, which
God forbid should be gainsaid, brought divers
glozing colors to the house, which were indeed
but colors, and serving to no end except it be
to exercise a superiority over their neighbors,
men who do not therefore labor in an honest
profession to which learning is indebted, that
they should be made other men's vassals.

-------------------------

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, DuCharme, Bob (LNG) wrote:

> Thomas,
> 
> I haven't followed the XACML work enough to comment substantively on the
> gist of what you're saying, although it all seems sensible enough. I
can't,
> however, let this go by without comment:
> 
> >The content rights-holders have all the time in 
> >the world to wait, as they are making plenty of 
> >revenues with yesterday's technology.
> 
> This shows a real lack of interest in the content holders' side of things,
> which is a far from constructive attitude to have in the RLTC work. From
> what I know of the current membership, without David Parrott, this leaves
me
> as the sole representative of the content side. As a member of the PRISM
> group, I've been reporting back to them on the RLTC work, so I've also got
> the technical interests of the big magazine groups in mind. I realize that
> many standards efforts are driven by vendors hoping to rack up revenue
from
> being a part of the plumbing that eventually implements the standard, but
> let's not lose sight of why the plumbing is needed in the first place.
> Content holders have more and more content to track, and more ideas about
> new business models that can result from an efficient, standardized
approach
> to dealing with rights-related metadata, and they're looking forward to
> using the results of the RLTC. Belittling their interest in adopting new
> technology will discourage their interest in doing so and will encourage
the
> perception that the standard is merely the result of greedy tool vendors.
> 
> Bob DuCharme
> Consulting Software Engineer, LexisNexis
> Data Architecture, Editorial Systems and Content Engineering
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>