[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Traditional RPC

• To: 'Dave Winer' <dave@u...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Traditional RPC
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 17:13:09 -0600

This may be true in the general case.  In the particular case, 
they stole content and used it to start a business.  Napster 
effectively became a pawnshop fence.  So, yes, anything succeeds 
based on taking something of a known or perceived value and 
reducing the cost.  It also helps if the Getting is as Easy 
as the Having.  Users and the used.  Without property 
rights, none of the rest are possible.   I can steal your 
silver and have a grand weekend as well as make a lot of 
friends.  I lose only one and until you replace the silver, 
who needs you?  So based on a numbers game, burglars 
are the ultimate realists.  ;-)

Courtney Love had it right:  had they come to the artists 
first, they would have had a sweet deal.

That said, I may be the only one, but reading Paul's REST 
doc at xml.com on the same page as an ad for Visual Studio 
at the top that touts its advantages in little pop-ups 
says a lot about ease and targeted marketing.

len

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

Yes, and once the free content existed, you got users, and then people
wanting to sell stuff to them, and in order to communicate with them they
would have had to support the protocol that their software supports. No
users, no need to support it. Users, and then support follows.

Think about AIM. Why does anyone care about it (they do, believe me) -- it's
because there are millions of people who use software that runs over AIM.

• Prev by Date: Re: REST made more concrete
• Next by Date: REST made more concrete still
• Previous by thread: RE: Traditional RPC
• Next by thread: How to get the attributes from the Document node
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread