RE: [rights] Apologies + RLTC/XACML

["DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>]

Thanks, I understand better now. I was probably a little confused by your
reference to Sony, because they hold such a weird position as a content
provider + rendering hardware vendor + ... etc. 

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Hardjono [mailto:thardjono@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:24 PM
To: DuCharme, Bob (LNG); 'Hardjono, Thomas';
'rights@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: 'karl.best@oasis-open.org'; 'Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM'
Subject: RE: [rights] Apologies + RLTC/XACML



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
------