 and can do video chats. And yeah, I mean, my family lives here and so. Okay, cool. And I have a place here and so yeah. Oh, you have a place there? No kidding. Wow, that's very cool. Very cool. I'm recording this video. It'll be uploaded to the Hyperledger YouTube channel. And I've posted the code of conduct and the Hyperledger anti-trust policy in the chat. So let's start. Kyle, thank you for taking time for us today. This is about metadata. It's about stuff that you're working on and moving forward. Tell us a little bit about DDX. Yeah, so DDX or DDX or yeah, I don't actually, I don't know exactly how they pronounce it, but in any case, ddex.net. So if you wanna visit the website, ddex.net. And DDX is the standard organization for digital music. It came about around the time iTunes came about and it's what the tech industry as well as the music industry use to pass data back and forth. It's very much as much not internet as possible while still being internet. So it's interesting being a Web3 and then interacting with this methodology. So in Web3, there are lots of public ledgers and permissionless people can query as much as they want. So one person puts up the data and then many people can engage with it. But with DDX, databases are private. They're owned by the companies. So oftentimes they're not even connected to the internet for the majority of the time. And then when the data is transferred to another database, it's just between two databases. So it's just one-to-one relationships. And it's only the need to know information. It's a very different philosophy than the Web3 philosophy. But it's what the music industry's built on. And there are historical reasons as well as modern practical reasons why that's the case. And so DDX is now building standards for Web3 and the conversation is how do these one-to-one methods of communication handshakes? How do they basically what I would call oracles? How do they become oracles in Web3? So how does the handshake happen over into Web3? And also a very interesting question is how much information is gonna be transferred and should that information be on a private blockchain or on a public blockchain? So we're still just early days out yet. These are important questions because if Web3 wants to use traditional catalogs, whatsoever engaging with the DDX standard is I believe it's necessary. So if Web3 wants to sell nostalgia and other highly lucrative emotions and sentiment and especially as Web3 is built on collectibles. And so a lot of that is nostalgia. The old action figures from when you were a kid, now you're much older and have a lot of money. You buy them as a collectible. And so that's the case in music as well. So the working group has its first meeting last week and its next meeting is on the 28th. So yeah, so it's really registered at the beginning of this but it is actually happening. So that's exciting. Are these public meetings? How are they being held? Yeah, so it's very much that sentiment of having closed databases that are hardly plugged into the internet at all. So the only way to really engage in these meetings is to be a member of DDX and sign NDAs and then do this all behind closed doors, which is really non-negotiable. If that's how the traditional music industry works. And so DDX itself is very open. It is tech people. They also understand who their clients are in and so they want to push the needle forward and that's why they made this working group and they also have to follow the modality that the music industry majors in such require. And yeah, that is membership and then NDAs. So I'm not in the meetings actually myself and what I've done is I've set up the meetings. So I thought, well, instead of having the traditional industry make these standards all by themselves, let's get some Web3 projects in there, especially Web3 projects that are very, that lean quite a bit into the ethos of Web3 of permissionless and composability and all that good stuff, have them become members and they can participate in these bonnicles doors. So at least there's representation. And then I am the liaison. So whatever is made public, then I'll be communicating that to the EVM standards and open access. So basically what I assume is their API exposure. I don't know if we'll be called API. That'll happen at some point and then I'll be sharing that with the wider ecosystem. But that's why it's important to get engaged with DDEX. This working group, because really the only way to know what's happening is to be in the working group. Kyle, is that in the true spirit of public and permissioned blockchain is the DDEX group being really protective of what it is that they're, or the voyage that they're embarking on? Is it going to be just a, is it going to be just a different type of, or different perspective for this industry or is it going to be more open and more collaborative and more equitable? Do you think once they establish what it is they're setting out to establish? Well, my hope, having Web3 projects involved in the working group is that it is as Web3 as possible, given the constraints of the traditional music industry. So I suppose in another future where the Web3 projects didn't join the working group, I would think that the standards that they're producing right now wouldn't really have the Web3 ethos in it whatsoever. And that's an ethos that is one that originated from my vantage, yeah, how I see it. The Linux culture, GNU Linux, and Web3 is, yeah, I feel part of that lineage. But DDEX itself, it's, again, the people that are running DDEX, they're engineers. So they think like us. The music industry, it doesn't really think like us. Music industry traditionally has actually been very litigious towards new technology, if we think about it. And so that's one of my hopes here is that we can mitigate the litigiousness, not relive the Napster's like all and all that. If we have to have notice, hopefully, something like notice and notice, not notice and take down. So that's to me where these battles are just looking at what has happened with the music industry and tech in the past. And the reality of it is we're dealing with copyright here. And so the copyright owners, and there are only now three major labels that own the vast majority of copyrights in music that are lucrative, they have an immense amount of power because they have monopolies and all that. And so to me, this is what is the most practical path because we do have to engage with copyright and copyright owners don't really, they're not passionate about tech, per se. They're passionate about music and they perhaps would be fine if they were still selling only vinyl records and there wasn't any such things in it. So that's how I see it. Yeah, it's not from the lens of, they're following the ethos I agree with, it's more from the lens of how do we have it so that we have a path for compliance and then the Web3 ecosystem has lower friction with that path for compliance with copyright and can build really cool products for the consumer. And then down the road when there's more CC0 and a paradigm shift, great, I'm all for it. But in the here and now, I feel like it's, I guess if we look at DeFi, it's that they're custodial and non-custodial. We have Coinbase, Coinbase engages with banks. And so that's what's happening here but with music copyright. Is it the intention of DDEX and the collaborators to make the industry more equitable in your view? Is that the, or is it to further protect their interests and maintain their monopoly? What's the, what do you think? I think for DDEX, it's equitable. The people running DDEX for their members. Well, I mean, that's one of the reasons why I've worked so hard to get Web3 members is because I do know those Web3 members that are DDEX members have that value of more equitable. If we leave it to only certain kind of members, right? And go, oh, we don't like those members. So we're not going to become members ourselves. Well, then we're not on the negotiating table. And so that means DDEX is pressured to be less of what we like. And so there's that difficulty kind of in many areas of politics where it's, dude, if there's something you don't like, do you then, for instance, say voting, do you just not vote or do you double down on voting? So we're kind of in that spot. And I also see that I don't, so the copyright itself is a monopoly. I mean, that's all copyrights are. So as long as we're engaged with copyrights, whoever owns that particular work, the main use they have is, or I guess lever they have economically is that ability to impose a monopoly. And there are compulsory licenses. And so it's possible with more, that would be a legislative change, it would be a big lift, but we could have more compulsory licenses down the road and that would make things more equitable. And that's one of the things that's already happened with on the music publishing side is people can cover songs. And so then labels are more free to do what they want. Publishers can't control them, but if publishers could say, hey, only I have to prove who covers, then we probably would see publishers much more in charge of labels, where labels tend to not have to, they tend to dictate the narrative. And so those are two different copyrights that sound recording and the underlying work. And there is a hierarchy that, and the labels are, tend to have more sway than the publishers. So yeah, so all of that, I guess I have faith in web three, the web three is building the more equitable future. And so my take here with the DEX is, yeah, have web three members join the membership so that that more equitable future voice is in the membership. And then the real goal here is that legacy content and culture and such can be used in web three. So it's almost like there's this strata layer in the geology, right? And we're kinda, and I think it's important that we have an ability that the earlier strata layer engages with the newer strata layer, but it's a newer strata layer that I think that more equitable future is being built on. And right now it's more just making sure that that songs from the 70s, we can engage with them somehow. I think it's a really big lift to have songs from the 70s I mean, that would be redistributing wealth and all other types of just, I don't think really possible. So it's more, and a hundred years from now, it will be quite equitable, but in the now, we have to live with what we got and build what we wanna see and have a way for those to communicate with each other. So there's lots fighting. That's kind of my philosophy here. There's a lot of talk and action in the NFT space from indie music people, film, et cetera. There is some legal challenges that they face thinking that they can do licensing, et cetera, et cetera, and sort of circumvent the traditional legislative avenues that the industry fits in. With blockchain, with distributed ledger technology, can something be built and live outside of the legacy industry outside of DDEX and be successful? Is it possible to start now with an industry that uses metadata, uses blockchain, uses crypto payments, uses smart contracts to manage the entire process from start to finish and not have the intermediaries that are in many cases consuming a lot of the income, a lot of the revenue streams that artists and content creators deserve more of. So do you think that DDEX, their focus is the current inventory and how to protect that, but there's risks associated with going forward, can we build outside of DDEX? So I see DDEX a little bit different as in they're not so much protecting the current, it's more they're actually having the current communicate where otherwise wouldn't communicate at all. So it's that there's a database that without DDEX, the information that database would not leave that database whatsoever, but with DDEX, it does leave it. And also it's easier for another party. I say Spotify strikes a deal with Warner Brothers. Well, with DDEX, another company like SoundCloud, it's a lot easier for them to strike a deal with Warner Brothers because that one-to-one handshake, DDEX has decided it. So there's not that extra transaction cost of, okay, not only are you able to use our copyright, you have to license our copyrights, but we also then have to build out a system of passing our metadata over to you. We DDEX goes, okay, well that system of passing the metadata over, that's standardized. So just follow DDEX. And what still needs is to happen though, because it's how copyright works, is that the parties have to agree on licensing. So I feel DDEX is more greasing the wheels a bit, having them a little bit less squeaky. Web three is definitely building outside of the traditional system and it's doing it well. So really kind of my main comments when I'm chatting with the web three devs that are constructing the future as we speak, I actually, there's been a long debate this morning in our telegram group about topics that are very proximate to what we're chatting about here. And yeah, I mean, there's a very smart conversation occurring. So really my point is, and that was part of our telegram chat, is recognizing we don't necessarily know that if something is uploaded, that we can trust the person who's doing the uploading. So the moment we allow people to upload, somebody could upload a song that they don't actually own the rights to and then eventually the rights holder comes and is litigious, right? So even with best intentions, right now the solution's, because it's a really small industry, it's manually betting. And we're talking about KYC and other ways to automate that. It's going to be tough with full copyright, always to engage with the way Web3 works out. However, there are definitely smart people working on figuring that out. And hopefully it's good enough, at least for safe harbors for the platforms and such. But we're so really now that, yeah, it's really just like, it's manually doing it, which I think is great actually, oftentimes we skip manual and go straight into automation and then we do a bad job because we don't really know what we're automating. And then the other one is CC0. So the devs are, I mean, at some point I'll actually engage with them because there's a little bit of a, it's a nuance here, but CC0 is still copyright. CC0 can't work without copyright, it's a license on top of copyright. It's just one that allows open use. There's issues with CC0 chatting with artists and that CC0 then means that a song can be put on a political campaign so the artist disagrees with that politician, right? That their song's on there and that matters because oftentimes that musician's identity is connected with their song, right? So then it seems like the musician himself is advocating. So say Willie Nelson, a musician known for his ethics, he's put on some political campaign and then it seems like it's Willie that's, you know what I mean? So that's tough. I think it would be dangerous for someone like Willie to do a CC0 even though I suspect that his values, he would want to do CC0 as long as he was making a good wage, right? It probably follows his ethos more. But yeah, so that is an issue with CC0. So moral rights, right now I'm thinking about how we can kind of separate and we have three economic rights from moral rights and that can help with those types of issues. So even when we say, okay, we're not gonna, we're gonna do away with copyright and the mode we can have that right now is that we do creative commons, CC0 is creative commons, zero means zero rights, right? So it just says I'm basically waving all my copyrights. It still relies on copyright because it's just a contract in copyright but we can think of it simplified as basically having no copyrights. So it's not quite public domain. That's when we have no copyright but it's about as close as we can ever have when we do have copyright. Yeah, so even that one's problematic. So we're just, we're really out yet but I do see that a lot of really smart people, really passionate people are when it's new songs. So like, especially EDM because that's the culture you're already, that's kind of pioneering how a system that's permissionless and composable that's a music industry, how that will actually work out. Right now the only way that it's being monetized is being monetized quite well. And so music execs are definitely excited about it but it's being monetized in a collectible way which means a very few, basically like fine art. So very few patrons almost, they buy the song or what have you and that's great that people are making money off of that but I don't know how it's scalable that is and it also doesn't necessarily jive with the point of music which is really about consuming more and more and more. It's about having Spotify on 24 seven and constantly engaging with it. So, did you call that EDM? Yeah, EDM is electronic dance music and so it's a very broad genre. Okay. But devs tend to have EDM friends because EDM artists often have dev skills and so it's fairly, and then it's also Gen Z tends to like it. So when I see music, a good chunk of the Web3 music that is testing this stuff out is in the EDM genre and there are cool things EDM can do as well because it is fairly digital. So there's my friend, Stemdow, they're a great team and they have, they've gamified stems. So stems are just like the baseline or the vocal line, right? And so they'll have a top artists. I think the artists they currently have is Elohim and they had a pull side in the summer and so Elohim has a song that's famous and so she then offers the stems and then people can remix it. And so remix is also really big in EDM and so they've gamified remixing and so that's fun. And that makes sense as a use of Web3. So it's very, well, I don't know if it's permissionless but it's definitely people are permitted to play the game. So it's very collaborative with the audience. And so that's where I hope music goes is this collaborative because that's what music used to be, a very collaborative, right? Still is, I mean, if you're hanging out with your friends but as far as like an industry. But I got a guitar, you got a bass, let's jam, right? Is Apple music big in this involved at all with the DDX? Are they one of the members of the... I'll have a double check if I'm fairly sure, yeah. Pretty much all the big players are involved with the DDX. So yeah, I'll look up real quick, but I'm pretty sure that they're a part of it. Yeah, so board members Spotify, PRS for music, Sound Exchange, Google, Yema, Sasem, Pandora, Universal, Amazon Music, BMI, Socan, and Apple. Yeah, Apple's a board member. Yeah, ASCAP, Cobalt, Sony. Yeah, that's interesting. It certainly tells me a lot of what to expect from that industry. I can't, with that sort of horsepower behind the industry, the little guys are not gonna have a lot of sway. I think, I'm interested in the concept of open source and the open source being hyper ledger, open source being a collaborative, anybody can play set of rules. Bring your talents, bring your skills. Do you think that something could be built to compete with DDX on hyper ledger, using Ethereum, using all the different tools out there, all of the different blockchains, and basically capture the new up and coming artists that firmly believe in the equitable side of music and film, and all of those things. What are your thoughts on building a competitor to DDX? Yeah, so to me, DDX, where I really focus with DDX on the engineering side of things is DDX is the creating standards for one-to-one database communications for databases that are rarely plugged into the internet, right? So they're like, before web one, you know, web one, one-two, web one, web two, web three. This is before that. So I feel it's less competing with DDX, because DDX is just the handshake for when it's a one-to-one communication and more having one-to-many, which is how I consider this. When I post something, I post a smart contract, I publish it, and then many people can use it. So that's why I think it's one-to-many. Then more and more parties will use one-to-many. And wherever one-to-one is still required, DDX standards are already there. They make sense. And DDX standards aren't dealing with one-to-many. DDX standards also are dealing with just copyright. And so they're not dealing with NFT, and I personally believe NFT is a new type of intellectual property. And you know, there's trademark and such, and I don't know, I think, I think DDX is fairly just focused just on copyright. So to me, it's less competing with DDX and more backwards compatible with DDX. That's really what it is. And so that's what I believe this working group, that's the main value I hope comes out of this working group is that there's backwards compatible with DDX and that backwards compatibility matches our ethos as much as possible. So there could be a few ways that this backwards compatible comes about. And so having actual Web 3 projects in the room, it's more likely that it's gonna come about in a way that is the most equitable type of backwards compatibility. But that's really how I take it. It's not where we're competing with DDX, it's that we're being backwards compatible with them. So then whenever we have to engage with that one-to-one relationship, then we have an ability to. So importantly, a major label can't come around with RIAA or something and sue a small Web 3 project out of existence because there's this a way to be backwards compatible and compliant enough that at least they're safe harbor sent. I mean, it's not like YouTube is done away with copyright infringement. It's YouTube has enough tooling that it has safe harbor and it can take advantage of digital millennium copyright act and so that's how I'm interpreting it. I mean, DDX itself is not actually a market player. And a reason why I set up this, I was able to set up this working group is because I also don't have a project, a Web 3 project at the moment. So I can be neutral. So I do sense that DDX is neutral. One of the reasons they were available for me to engage I'm also neutral. And then the working group, those are non-neutral parties, right? So there's a bit of jockeying and such. I went to their plenary and did a presentation about NFTs and that's all this working group came about. And I saw a little bit of that jockeying. I mean, it was definitely civil, but that's kind of the point of what DDX is. It's a way to have that back and forth between these major players and still decide on a standard that everyone agrees with, right? So Sony will be pushing in one way, Universal will be pushing another way, Apple will be pushing a third way. And so yeah, so I had a little bit of a exposure to that. So with this working group that we now have, Web 3 projects will also be able to do a bit of that jockeying. And so whatever this backwards compatibility that comes about, my goal here is that it's as fair as possible. And then what it will allow is Web 3 projects don't have to like what we're in the telegram group right now is concerned about copyright infringement. They don't have to be concerned because they know they have, if they implement these tools, then they can have Safe Harbor or something like that. I mean, we're still early out yet. And then the other thing I actually think is it would be fun, not just kind of heavy stuff, but fun is just being able to license some nostalgic pieces and have that part of the enjoyable NFT, right? And so it's gonna be a lot easier I think to bring in those legacy pieces if we have some DDEK standards that make that more straightforward. But we'll find out what the standards actually, what they produce that don't have a clear understanding of what they will or we're not allowed. Is there a roadmap established for this working group? There might be, they had their first meeting last week, but yeah, so I won't be able to, unless they share that with me, they decided it's public, I'm not gonna be party to it. And any thoughts on any opinions on what to expect a year, two years, six months? Is there any way to estimate whether they would succeed or whether they will commit to something in terms of finalizing these protocols? Yeah, I think they wanna move relatively quickly. I think their next plenary is in November and so they, I would assume we would wanna have a bit of a rough sketch and then maybe the plenary in May that they actually have something that they vote on and that is implemented. Part of it is the NFT market died down. So I don't know if they have as much fire under their feet as they did before that went happen, but they've also been aware of, I think they first started interacting with the technology back in 2018, maybe in 2017, something like that. So they've always been paying attention and I believe that they see this now as the Overton window. And so even though the market is cold down a bit, they might still have that assessment that it's the Overton window and they wanna get these standards out as soon as possible. So yes, majors can get a cut of the pie, totally. There's a lot of motivation when it was really, the market was really hot. And I think their belief is that it would be great if the standards are all there and their actual products that are using them when the market gets hot again. But I mean, obviously can't speak for them. I'm kind of just guessing here, but it does seem like they're moving, they're moving as quick as they can, despite them being an organization that requires a lot of consensus by fairly incumbents that often, well, in the past at least, we're a resident engaged with technology, but it does, I'm hopeful based on the conversations I've had that the incumbents are not so against technology anymore. They recognize technology is always going to shake things up, disruptions part of technology. And I mean, vinyl records were technology too and publishers used to be in charge and now labels are in charge. And so, yeah, so I do believe now I can't actually say, but it does seem like the music industry is aware that they just have, the way to work with it is to ride the wave, not to get upset at the wave and try to punch it. Yeah. Speaking of crypto winter, what are your, just a side note, what are your thoughts on when we may come out of this slump? And it certainly was the price action that got NFTs going and all of the, all of the ideas and surrounding NFTs, moving in an upward direction. When do you think we might see a change in sentiment and popularity of crypto again? That's tough, because there are macro considerations as well that don't have much to do with crypto, but the economy just generally having problems. And then the most recent news, I guess, with the economy is there's, for some people, over 50% chance that by spring we'll be in a recession. And also though, so this is my first proper cycle, I'm not as knowledgeable as people have been through multiple cycles, but it does seem like real actual products get built in a bear market like this. And then they're getting built and people don't really know about them. And then they get, people find enough word of mouth happens, a critical mass goes down and people go, wow, this is such a cool product, came out of nowhere, overnight success type of thing. And then so people get a little crazy about it because it's something that is so mature that they just heard about, right? And so then they buy in and then they see other people buy in and that's kind of this self-fulfilling prophecy. And so that's where this speculation goes down. And I see in Web 3, like I'm personally spending a lot of time in DAOs. And I see that's a potential product when it kind of gets that point where it's consumer friendly, that we can have another, that could be the thing that propels crypto backup into a bull market. And there could be other products as well, but it does seem like the hype over the NFT products, that's over now. So they've kind of died down to their actual utility value. And there can be ways to make NFTs even more exciting, right? And so kind of re-productize them. But I mean, it would be nice within six months or so that there's at least the people that are building that it starts to catch on fire, these products that are actually novel products and that's why they're catching on fire. That's why we get really excited. And the late majority gets a little bit too excited and that's what creates the bubble. But yeah, I mean, at least, I mean, personally, we're really busy, lack style because even when things are bad, actually in some senses, lawyers are appreciated more because when lawyers are kind of, when they're good, people go, well, why are you saying no? I want to do something. And then when they're bad, it's like, oh, help me here. I, you know, so, yeah. But I really would like to bear market down soon and later, I guess, but I can't really, I don't have a crystal ball, so I'm kind of just showing the dark hair. Well, I'll add that I think if you're, if what you're seeing as an estimate of the spring being a major recession, I think we probably have to get to that point. It has to happen before things will turn around. So that's maybe that's the magic period, the spring and summer of 2023 will be the next, the next move. I'm going to see if John, hey, John, how are you doing? Hey, sorry about that. I was in another meeting and listening with one ear and trying to be present and the other thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, welcome, welcome. Thank you. John, you've been following this great chat with Kyle here. Do you have any questions for Kyle? Can you maybe give us a little, a little something on what you're up to and are you in the industry or you, what are you building? Go ahead. Sure. Well, I used to work at Pandora and did some web three experiments at Pandora, which we presented to DDEX a while ago. I'm now in the working for an IDV company. And I guess my only question, this is great to see that DDEX is taking this up formally. So I'm really excited about that. I think that will help a lot when it comes to, you know, setting guidelines and maybe actual standards in which people can sort of innovate within. So desperately needed and that's awesome to hear. I'm super excited. I guess my only sort of generic question was, Kyle is, is there any intentional relationship to Hyperledger or is it just a, this is a great place to talk about this kind of stuff? Yeah, well, I mean, it would be great if Hyperledger thought about joining in some capacity as a DDEX member and then participating in this working group. So, yeah, I mean, if you are interested in that, I can definitely set up the introductions and that's what I'm already doing with other groups. And so far, I don't think it's been an entire blockchain, but that would be great. So far it's been projects, some of them larger projects though. So yeah, so whoever would be in Hyperledger, that would, how Hyperledger would join, but I think that's a great idea if Hyperledger is interested, yeah. Cool, yeah, I think Hyperledger is an interesting angle when it comes to industry because it's meant to be private consortium based stuff. I think there's a lot of overlap there with interest from, as opposed to using Ethereum or something like that, right? I mean, this may not be a chain choice. This may be protocols on top of that, I get that. But I think there's a lot of really interesting tie-ins with Hyperledger in terms of interests, a lot of overlapping interests there with the industries. I think that's interesting. I agree, yeah. And my thought is that majors would be more comfortable if they start to dip their toes into blockchain and to leave this databases that are hardly online at all, that they do a private enterprise and then something like Bazude can then go full. So it's kind of a midway. And yeah, right now it's kind of the way I see it is that there's the traditional system and then the Ethereum system and like that bridge is gonna be pretty tough to cross whatever DDEX does. And so I definitely, I mean, that's one of the reasons I'm participating, I mean, that's the main reason I am participating in Hyperledger definitely is that Hyperledger I feel has a way to kind of smooth that out and just on engineering practicality thought process that Hyperledger can, yeah, eventually goes over to Ethereum but how does it get from this one-to-one all the way over to the just totally open free market and Hyperledger I think, especially with something like Bazude can bridge that. I agree. And this may be controversial but I don't know that it necessarily ever has to be completely open. Depending on whatever the goal of the working group is or maybe not the output is as DDEX itself is sure it's a publicly published standard but realistically it's only used internally but not only but mostly used internally as a communication method between actors in the industry. So whether you publish the standards or not whatever people end up using whatever the actual product is may or may not need to be public. And I know that I kind of overheard when I was dividing my attention between the two meetings earlier I overheard a little bit talk about this idea behind being private and being public and all that stuff. And I just have to say that my experience in music industry is yes that there are certain times when sort of building in public is not productive. And I think that the industry itself does move better in a, and I would say to offer some perspective I think that the names you mentioned in terms of who's involved is actually a very large group for a music industry sort of partnership. And that's about as public as I would expect to get is having all those people involved. So I think that's actually a great usually it's always been like one or two or three people, right? And so setting the standards for the rest of them. And so I think it sounds like you've got a lot of great people from all corners of the industry involved. And to the balance the point, I heard that something like this does miss sort of the input from the public or from, I think we're just called the small guys or something like that in these. And so that's definitely a tough balancing beam. But again, DDEX is these standards are published. And so I think there probably will be room for comment at some point in some form or fashion. Well, they have, so that's again DDEX being neutral and recognizing that they're a facilitator. And so they have to facilitate in the way that the parties want, right? And so that's why NDAs and such are so important for them because that's what the majors require. They also though, one of the reasons they're successful is where they I guess had their own, they did have their own ethical opinion on things is that they see how much a project is making. And if it's an indeed and the membership is not that expensive at all. So it's rated out. So an organization that basically, they make sure that people aren't priced out and they can get their voice heard. They do have to do membership, so all that NDA stuff, but at least there's not an economic mode. They actually try to make sure that there's a bridge there. And so people that are serious about it, basically anyone who's serious about it, even if it's early stage can join DDEX, they can handle those costs. And yeah, so definitely DDEX is trying to be as public as possible, recognizing that it's a, they're creating standards that are private. And yeah, I mean, like it might change, but one of the ways that Pirate Bay, Spotify beat out Pirate Bay is that the user experience is just easier with Spotify. So we were talking about this years ago, in my community, when we were having debates about whether we should sue peer-to-peer or not, basically. And my side, we were not into suing peer-to-peer. Basically, suing peer-to-peer means you're suing your customers and so that just seems like a bad idea. And what we are, the way that we framed it is that people buy bottled water all the time. Even the water is free. So if there can be, I think it's a multi-million dollar businesses that are selling something that is free, even though music, yeah, maybe it's not supposed to be free or whatever, but there's a channel where it is free because we were just infringing and they don't care. Instead of spending too much energy dealing with that, instead spend energy on having the customer experience frictionless, enjoyable, just like buying a smart water bottle. And so the way that translates practically with music is metadata is really important. So when I listen to Spotify now, a lot of the songs, they have lyrics and the lyrics, as the song is progressing, the lyrics will be highlighted. So it's really easy to sing along. And so just as Spotify continues, there's more and more enjoyable experience. So it's not just frictionless, but also surprisingly fun compared to if I go on, downloaded illegally and none of that, right? And so then, and also it's much more, yeah, it's just more difficult, but more speed bumps. So instead of stopping something, just create some speed bumps on that side. And then on the other side, it's just a little bit more, a little bit more, a little bit more, have it be more enjoyable, more frictionless. But that's one of the reasons why a lot of this data that's in, I think that's in, that these organizations hold, they're not going to want to make it public, at least not in the short term. That's, we'll then, they'll throw away the way they figured out how to compete with free, basically. And that's a distinction to make that. Web three technology can be used in private situations, web three technology, you know, can be used in all types of situations. And these are industries that can benefit from web three technology. And that doesn't necessarily mean the public. Blockchain. And I, I for one would just vote that if anyone else is listening to this, that in itself does not make, you know, DDEX an evil organization or any, or the music industry in general, I think that there's plenty of opportunities in the music industry. When it comes to the accounting side, when it comes to the ownership side, when it comes to the rights side, organic, all these things, just like DDEX itself as a distribution method was a huge improvement to that system. You can add web, you can sprinkle web three technology into all those touch points and create value for artists, value for DSPs, reduce costs, you know, there's just lots of touch points for improvement on web three technology. And that doesn't necessarily require, you know, the public blockchain. That's very well said. Yeah. That's better said than I've said it so far. Thank you. I think there's a, there's no doubt that there's going to be some casualties in the, in the legacy music industry and the film industry. As a result of this technology that is. Parsi metadata and using it as a, as a main tool for whether it be distribution or payments and things of that nature. I think the industry fears just how deep those casualties will run. And it's understandable, but it's inevitable. And I think that I worry that, that they, they're going to be too protective of, of their, of the, of their inventory of music and film. And not give an opportunity to, to use the technology to see what it can do for them. That's my, yeah. I mean, my, I could be wrong, but my impression is that we're not talking about creating exclusionary technologies. What we're talking about is using web three technology to streamline an existing industry. And there are, again, the, the inefficiencies in the current industry really do create negative headwinds on artists and revenue that is lost because accounting is not done properly. Publishing is, is not accurate, right? There's, there's ownership rights get confused. There's millions of dollars spent on audits that don't need to be spent. There's, there's, there's a lot of places where web three can just create money that wasn't there in existing situation. And I don't know that we're talking about locking out technology from other people. These standards are usually published. You can certainly use the standards in your own system. You know, like DDEX itself is an XML format, right? Like that's not exclusionary, right? It's just a way which a bunch of send data and deliver file efficiency, which create a value in the entire industry. That's my impression of what we're talking about here. I'm sure all these different actors have their own ways to capitalize on whatever new technology is created, but ultimately we're talking about creating efficiencies, which should benefit everybody. Again, I'm speaking from the outside. I don't know what they're talking about the meaning, but that's my impression. Yeah, good. Totally agree. John, do you have, have you got, sorry, Kyle, go ahead. I have to jump on another call. I just want to say real quick that, so the one area that I guess it's problematic is sometimes people, certain individuals, they, their job is to, to create those efficiencies, right? And so they're intermediaries and those people will be disrupted to some extent. And I do know certain initiatives when they've kind of addressed that head on, then there's been not a basically political pushback from people that will, if it's actualized that way, we'll lose their job kind of overnight and whatever. And, and so even the efficiencies does, we do kind of need to be tactful with, but, but I, one of the reasons, so there's this, the way that I created this DDEX working group is I started something called Web 3 Music Coalition. And the reason I started that is because I saw that a, a bunch of the Web 3 people were basically, they're out with pitchfork saying we're going to disrupt you or whatever, right? And there's this morning that telegram group, similar thing, they're relating it to Uber and how Uber taxi drivers are, used to be all of transport. And now it's like, I think the, the stat I saw this on that blog post that was shared this morning was like 13% or 30%, something that, you know, less than 100 or whatever substantial cut and, it was disrupted. Yeah. Yeah. And so, and so that's, that's a narrative that is being pushed right now a lot. And that narrative, I, I will get people, their backs up. And we, so the narrative we tried first, which was, we're going to, we're going to make it efficient. Well, sometimes people don't want their books to be audited because either they're, because they're intermediaries or even sometimes a lot of companies actually have been fraudulent. They don't want, we know, right? So that one, the going head on with that one, that doesn't work. And this new strategy of like, oh, we're just disrupting. I don't think that one necessarily needs to work. What I hope happens is more, and that's why I'm leaning in on NFTs is more what in the music industry, when there were only publishers and then labels came about, and it wasn't like publishers disappeared. It's just labels made so much money in a whole new type of area of making money that now suddenly labels are such a big thing. And so that's what I, I think that would be a more helpful narrative is that there's publishers labels and there's this new third thing. And then NFTs like resale, that's a royalty that didn't exist before. And so looking at how there was neighboring rights that people didn't really care about neighboring rights 20 years ago, but now that's a big portion of royalties. And so that that's still a copyright, but now we have this whole NFT space that we can play around with different royalties. And we already see how resale is helpful. So maybe there'll be a new name for it, like publishers labels and then this third thing or not. I don't know, but really what is exciting is to me is this whole other, like basically continuing to diversify the revenue streams. And so consumers are going to be spending money in ways that they aren't now. And we see a little glimmer of it already. And so that way we don't, we can really avoid the disruption narrative. And I'm working with that in the legal community too with automating the law. Well, if you automate the law, lawyers are out of a job. No, lawyers are, they're just going to accountants have that in the 80s where accounting was automated in the 80s. And then it's not like accountants have gone away. CFOs are more important than ever. They are able to, they're more empowered. So the people that don't embrace. Well, that's tough. They're, you know, change, but with the people that do embrace what ends up happening actually is that just the productivity, right? Just the skyrockets. So that's what I'm really hoping here is that we focus on overall productivity. And, and, and people just continued education. So get them up to speed. And. Yeah, just. So I got to, I got to run, but. Kyle, thank you very much for taking the time for us. John Kyle is the lead of the hyper ledger music subgroup for the media and entertainment subgroup. I put the membership directory in the chat there, John, if you want to throw in an email address in there, get set up, then we can continue this discussion with the Kyle and other people in our groups. But Kyle, thank you so much. We'll talk to you soon, buddy. Take care of yourself. John, thank you so much for coming and J field LLC. Thank you for joining, for attending today. Take care, everybody. Thanks, Brad.