The proposed text seems quite straightforward and will go a long way in structuring the media company info. I have a couple of comments:

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Secondary publishers (eg. The Criterion Collection's Eclipse label) may also be listed.

Labels are not publishers! If the intention is to allow labels to be entered in this field, the rules should state this rather than confusing the matter by calling them "Secondary publishers". Personally I would prefer to restrict the 'Media Company' field to actual companies.

Slightly related, the new rule should address what form of the media companies' names should be entered. The draft text refers to both logo and credit block, which is fine if they use the same company name. Often that is not the case. One example from R2: logo is 'EUREKA!', the credit block lists 'Eureka Entertainment, Ltd.' I would prefer to go with the company name from the credit block (without the 'Ltd.' suffix).

Quoting Dag Ove:

Quote:
The proposed text seems quite straightforward and will go a long way in structuring the media company info. I have a couple of comments:

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Secondary publishers (eg. The Criterion Collection's Eclipse label) may also be listed.

Labels are not publishers! If the intention is to allow labels to be entered in this field, the rules should state this rather than confusing the matter by calling them "Secondary publishers". Personally I would prefer to restrict the 'Media Company' field to actual companies.

Slightly related, the new rule should address what form of the media companies' names should be entered. The draft text refers to both logo and credit block, which is fine if they use the same company name. Often that is not the case. One example from R2: logo is 'EUREKA!', the credit block lists 'Eureka Entertainment, Ltd.' I would prefer to go with the company name from the credit block (without the 'Ltd.' suffix).

Here we go again, in the film industry there is no such thing as a label, at least as defined back in the old days. There is no "Label" per se on any DVD, there used to be record labels, Sun Records, Capitol Records, Apple, etc. Such does NOT exist in the film industry. Maybe label means something to you, if so then please quantify it, since it has no meaning to film and never has, not even back in the days of Videotape There are production companies, Distribution Companies, Licensor Companies and Licensee Companies, this mysterious "Publisher" does not exist  and neither do labels.

We throw these terms around as if they have meaning when in fact they do not. For example dag, Label seems to mean something to you, in the film business it has no recognizable meaning to me. So WHAT are you talking about?

Skip

Who knows? Do you, it might be a label, it might be an MC, the fact is no one knows. Don't pretend that you do or that you can make it something becuase you brought it up. We had these discussions two years with all the same "red herrings" and the exact same answers that were not answers. The end result is that an ill-advised and ill-defined Rule was created and here we are discussing it all over again because we couldn't get it right before and are no closer this time.

Skip

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
What is "Disney DVD", for instance?

From what I remember, it is a brand name so, while some people want to track it, I don't think it would be acceptable under the proposed rule.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
What is "Disney DVD", for instance?

This article on Richard Cook says he "spearheaded the highly successful launch of the "Disney DVD" brand, and has consistently broke industry records with DVD and Blu-ray releases".

Seems as though the alien remember's correctly. It is a brand name, at least acording to The Walt Disney Company's website. 

Is he talking to me?!?  Last I heard I was blocked. 

I'm fine with James' proposal and would like to thank him for his work once more.