| Author |
Message |
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Oh how I long for the days when we simply entered the DVD distributor - that was a breeze, wasn't it?
Unfortunately, "media companies" doesn't have it's meaning explained in the rules, and so anyone can enter whatever they want, and in any order they want, too. As it is, I'm afraid "Disney DVD" is in: there are three fields for "media companies", people see it on the cover, on the disc, and on the screen, so a fairly large part of the userbase is bound to enter it (for the record: I've already seen people entering "Macrovision" as a media company!). We can't expect the average user to recognize which logo's on the cover/screen refer to a "media company" (especially since nobody knows exactly what a "media company" is) and which ones don't. |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 820 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Oh how I long for the days when we simply entered the DVD distributor - that was a breeze, wasn't it?
Unfortunately, "media companies" doesn't have it's meaning explained in the rules, and so anyone can enter whatever they want, and in any order they want, too. As it is, I'm afraid "Disney DVD" is in: there are three fields for "media companies", people see it on the cover, on the disc, and on the screen, so a fairly large part of the userbase is bound to enter it (for the record: I've already seen people entering "Macrovision" as a media company!). We can't expect the average user to recognize which logo's on the cover/screen refer to a "media company" (especially since nobody knows exactly what a "media company" is) and which ones don't. What, Macrovision isn't a Media Company!  | | | | Last edited: by Telecine |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting richierich: Quote:
What a mess eh!
We really need tighter controls and a full explanation from Ken in the rules for this Media company field, or else the database is just going to be overloaded with more useless rubbish. If memory serves attempts at definitions here in and in the Rules forum got us to where we are. Ken added the fields pretty much at user request. We got what we asked for. Now we just need to get out there and herd those cats!  | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! | | | | Last edited: by tweeter |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
especially since nobody knows exactly what a "media company" is But then, the Rules refer to "the DVD publishing company which is usually found (dated with the year of the DVD release) on the back of the box.". So I would think they mean: 1. it must be a company or at least the division of a company, not just a brand; 2. it must be a company that actually published or distributed the DVD, not other companies just holding legal rights or involved in some other respect but not the DVD publishing/distribution. Of course that's just my opinion. A clarification from Ken would be most welcome. Please Gerri let Ken know the natives are restless | | | | -- Enry |
|
| Registered: August 22, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,807 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
Now we just need to get out there and herd those cats! My favorite method: hey kitty come play with the string! What? Doesn't work for MP? | | | | -- Enry | | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
|
| Registered: June 12, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,665 |
| | Posted: | | | | . | | | | Bad movie? You're soaking in it! | | | | Last edited: by tweeter |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting tweeter: Quote:
Quoting richierich:
Quote:
What a mess eh!
We really need tighter controls and a full explanation from Ken in the rules for this Media company field, or else the database is just going to be overloaded with more useless rubbish.
If memory serves attempts at definitions here in and in the Rules forum got us to where we are. Ken added the fields pretty much at user request. We got what we asked for.
I hear ya! but of course there is no shame to take a backward step occasionally if the desired result is not happening. (not sure what the desired result of media company was, perhaps someone who wanted it this way could speak up?) | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting EnryWiki: Quote:
2. it must be a company that actually published or distributed the DVD, not other companies just holding legal rights or involved in some other respect but not the DVD publishing/distribution. The copyright holder is of necessity involved in the 'publication' of a DVD, if in no other way than allowing it to happen at all. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
The copyright holder is of necessity involved in the 'publication' of a DVD, if in no other way than allowing it to happen at all. Not necessarily. A copyright holder, due to lack of funding, may grant production and or distribution rights to another entity in order to get their product on the market. That, IMO, doesn't make the copyright holder a distributor or publisher. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
The copyright holder is of necessity involved in the 'publication' of a DVD, if in no other way than allowing it to happen at all.
Not necessarily. A copyright holder, due to lack of funding, may grant production and or distribution rights to another entity in order to get their product on the market. That, IMO, doesn't make the copyright holder a distributor or publisher. But it would make them a 'Media Company', as they're the ones who own the content. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:
Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
The copyright holder is of necessity involved in the 'publication' of a DVD, if in no other way than allowing it to happen at all.
Not necessarily. A copyright holder, due to lack of funding, may grant production and or distribution rights to another entity in order to get their product on the market. That, IMO, doesn't make the copyright holder a distributor or publisher.
But it would make them a 'Media Company', as they're the ones who own the content.
--------------- No...they are the copyright holder only. The company that was licensed by the copyright holder is the media publisher or distributor. A 'Media Company", as you say, is the actual company handling the physical distribution and or production of the media. The copyright holder has no hand in this. All the copyright holder did was grant them a license, for a fee, to get their product on the market. How on earth does that make the copyright holder a Media Company? | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting 8ballMax: Quote:
No...they are the copyright holder only. The company that was licensed by the copyright holder is the media publisher or distributor. A 'Media Company", as you say, is the actual company handling the physical distribution and or production of the media. The copyright holder has no hand in this. All the copyright holder did was grant them a license, for a fee, to get their product on the market. How on earth does that make the copyright holder a Media Company? Although I fully understand your concerns, again I have to point out that there's absolutely no way you can expect the average user to be able to distinguish in this manner between the various logos that he sees on the cover. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting Leiterfluid:
Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
Then take it out as well. I won't object.
I will.
All I can say (again) is that I believe all entries must represent companies, per the Rules:
Quote:
Enter the DVD publishing company...
I don't particularly care what was discussed in the forums about intentions.
--------------- When it was a conversation that included Ken Cole, you might want to give it just a little weight! | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 4,596 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Although I fully understand your concerns, again I have to point out that there's absolutely no way you can expect the average user to be able to distinguish in this manner between the various logos that he sees on the cover. I agree. And IMO, this is due largely in part to the lack of definition and guidence in the Rules regarding Media Publishers. This was a poorly thought out and implemented process creating nothing but confusion for the average DVD Profiler user. | | | | My WebGenDVD online Collection |
|
| Registered: May 18, 2007 |  Posts: 232 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quote from the Contribution Rules: Quote:
Do not abbreviate Studio names. e.g, use Universal Pictures not just Universal; The Criterion Collection rather than Criterion or Criterion Collection; Walt Disney Pictures not just Disney or Disney DVD. |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,852 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting scotthm:
Quote:
I don't particularly care what was discussed in the forums about intentions.
When it was a conversation that included Ken Cole, you might want to give it just a little weight! I don't (and shouldn't be expected to) read every post in the contributions forum. The Rules are reasonably brief, and the rules and guidelines should be confined to that, IMO. --------------- |
|