RE: [rights] Apologies + RLTC/XACML

[Thomas Hardjono <thardjono@verisign.com>]

Bob,

Apologies if that sentence appeared negative.  It was in fact meant to be 
constructive. I used the term "content-holder" too broadly, when I really 
meant some of the Studios and Record Labels.

This sentence is not aim at or a reflection of the content holder, but 
rather a notice to the standards group (like RLTC) that the industry is 
indeed waiting for a solution (and thus we should not spend time arguing 
about XACML vs RLTC).

Also, it was far from my intention to belittle the interest in new 
technology of content holders.  (ps. I was actually replaying almost word 
by word the words of a Label executive).

Again, apologies.

thomas
------


At 8/15/2002||03:21 PM, 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