| Author |
Message |
| Registered: January 27, 2010 |  Posts: 6 |
| | Posted: | | | | I know this subject already was treated some time ago, but think it should be done again... The EAN [4-041658-293501] belongs to the movie DREAD (UNCUT EDITION) (BLU-RAY)! The release of CABIN FEVER - DIRECTOR’S CUT (BLU-RAY), which is contributed under this EAN, correctly has the EAN [4-041658-293990] (and is also contributed under this EAN too). The problem is, that both Blu-Rays were nearly released at the same time (Cabin Fever on 09.04.2010; Dread on 07.05.2010). Because of that a mistake by the releasing media companies Sunfilm and Tiberius Film happened and one edition of Cabin Fever was erroneously printed with the wrong EAN... namely the one of Dread! To offset this the 'wrong print release' was labeled with the correct EAN afterwards and all following releases finally got the correct EAN printed on their covers. My request at Sunfilm/Tiberius Film exactly confirms this fact. Here the original answer: Sehr geehrter ######, vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail vom 05.03. Entschuldigen Sie, dass es gedauert hat, bis wir drauf antworten. Denn ich brauchte etwas Zeit um den Sachverhalt verstehen zu können. Sie haben recht, „Cabin Fever –Director’s Cut“ (Blu-ray) wurde ursprünglich falsch etikettiert. Diesen Fehler haben wir dann korrigiert, indem das richtige Etikett auf dem betroffenen beklebt wurde. In der neuen Lage werden wir den Bedruck richtig machen. Ich hoffe, dass ich die Antwort auf Ihre Frage gegeben habe. Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit. Herzliche GrüßeXin LiuTiberius Film GmbH & Co. KGSchellingstr. 4580799 München Phone No. +49-89-130142-92Fax No. +49-89-130142-99 Sitz der Gesellschaft ist München.Amtsgericht München HRA 74 783Geschäftsführer: Wolfgang CarlUSt ID Nr.: DE 202 415 109 www.tiberiusfilm.de So that means to be correct there never was a release of Cabin Fever with the EAN [4-041658-293501], because all covers of Cabin Fever with this EAN on it were wrong prints and should have stuck a new label over it with the correct EAN..... at least on the foil the Blu-Ray is packed in. This fact is supported by the case that a search for both EANs (e.g. at amazon.de or bol.de) will only show the correct film... you won't find any edition of Cabin Fever with the EAN [4-041658-293501]. Moreover you can see the only correct EANs at the homepage of Sunfilm: Dreadhttp://www.sunfilm.de/de/profile.php?id=626&st=0&ty=1Cabin Feverhttp://www.sunfilm.de/de/profile.php?id=659&st=0&ty=1So in my eyes all information contributed under the EAN [4-041658-293501] are just wrong and should be replaced by the correct information of the film DREAD. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | This happens all too frequently inoversead markets, why...who knows. But the fact is the upcoming is already assigned to another title, what you think is right or wrong is not rellevant. It is assigned. The way tobhandle it is to enter the new title via disc id. That is all there is to it. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: January 27, 2010 | | Posts: 6 |
| | Posted: | | | | Maybe it doesn't matter what I think is right or wrong. But invelos and its users should be entitled to maintain a clean database. As far as I'm concerned I am.
So I just can't approve of the fact that something obviously wrong (and Tiberius Film confirmed it) misdetermines in the database and shouldn't be changed anymore just because it was contributed earlier....... First in time, first in line........... regardless of the consequences!!!!?!?!?!?!? |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | You might want to send a support ticket to the powers that be. If this can be fixed it will have to be on invlelos' end.
I think this part is especially important and might make Ken make an exception. "This fact is supported by the case that a search for both EANs (e.g. at amazon.de or bol.de) will only show the correct film... you won't find any edition of Cabin Fever with the EAN [4-041658-293501]"
Send the support ticket and link to this thread to: http://invelos.com/Support.aspx
Good luck! |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting MTdynaMiTe: Quote:
First in time, first in line........... regardless of the consequences!!!!?!?!?!?!? Not all the time, in fact you posted the release dates which would say the EAN belongs to Dread as it was released first. Try submitting with a link to a site stating that and it should win as being first released. I would hope actual release dates would overrule first profile contribution. Cabin Fever with wrong EAN should be by disc ID, not Dread IMO. |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bigdaddyhorse: Quote:
Quoting MTdynaMiTe:
Quote:
First in time, first in line........... regardless of the consequences!!!!?!?!?!?!?
Not all the time, in fact you posted the release dates which would say the EAN belongs to Dread Not quite. MTdynaMiTe used the date-format DD/MM/YYYY. So in fact Cabin Fever was released about a month earlier than Dread. Being a rule-fanatic, even I have to agree that in this case the EAN should belong to Dread. The documentation is simply overwhelming. Alas, the final decision is not up to us. | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Lewis has it correct. Dead on . Duplicate upc/ean are quite common and this has been prrofiler way of undoing it from the beginning. It was print mistake, granted, such mistakes can be valuable later. But they also must be captured, perhaps in some future version a eat might be found to deal with such questions when a correction is made such as adding a letter to the mistake upc, but we aren't there yet and there are issues which would arise and have to be dealt with first. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: June 21, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,621 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
Quoting bigdaddyhorse:
Quote:
Quoting MTdynaMiTe:
Quote:
First in time, first in line........... regardless of the consequences!!!!?!?!?!?!?
Not all the time, in fact you posted the release dates which would say the EAN belongs to Dread
Not quite.
MTdynaMiTe used the date-format DD/MM/YYYY. So in fact Cabin Fever was released about a month earlier than Dread.
Being a rule-fanatic, even I have to agree that in this case the EAN should belong to Dread. The documentation is simply overwhelming. Alas, the final decision is not up to us. Doh! Forgot the months and days were reversed overseas, in that case, Dread has to go with disc ID. Did any Cabin Fevers make it out to people before the change, or was it just pre-rease info? If none exist then it should be changed to Dread. |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I would recommend to try and get Ken/Gerri to shed some light on how to deal with cases like these, e.g. by sending in a support ticket as Kathy suggested.
Discussions in these forums will only result in the usual bickering and will not accomplish anything at all. |
|
| Registered: January 27, 2010 | | Posts: 6 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, thanks to all so far. To conclude: - Cabin Fever was released earlier than Dread, unfortunately with the wrong UPC printed on its cover. Regarding to Tiberius Film (see the official answer to my request) all of those wrong cover prints were pasted over with the correct UPC label. That means technically there never was a release of Cabin Fever with the wrong UPC. - So far, so good. But now it seems that the correct UPC label wasn't pasted directly on the cover, but on the case or the foil. That means there are still covers with the wrong UPC on it. - Because of that Cabin Fever was rightly - but not knowing the facts above - contributed under the wrong UPC. And now Dread was released with the correct UPC on its cover... and rightly contributed via DiscId, cause the UPC was already assigned. - However, the rules say: Studios occasionally re-release titles with the same UPC, but with changed content – for example Cover Images, Case Type and Overview. All information in the main DVD Profiler database is to be for the Original Release version of the disc; do not contribute any information that is specific to a re-release. You can of course keep this re-release information in your local database profile, but do not contribute it to the main database.- It's a fact, that Dread is not a re-release of Cabin Fever  . So the question is: Do we accept that technically there never was a release of Cabin Fever with this UPC (so vote 'yes'), or do we carry out the rules 'blindly' (then vote 'no')?I will open a support ticket... lets see what happens... Quoting Winston Smith: Quote:
...perhaps in some future version a eat might be found to deal with such questions when a correction is made such as adding a letter to the mistake upc... Would prevent a lot of discussion  . |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 124 |
| | Posted: | | | | Hi,
when Dread came out we had an extensive discussion (mainly myself and silentsign) with the conclusion that according to the rules Cabin Fever should keep the UPC and Dread should go by Disc-ID. The facts you presented were also known back then, so "but not knowing the facts above" is actually not true.
I think i might have documented the conclusion in the contribution notes.
But rules might be changed, and as for me, do what you want, i don't oppose any solution you choose.
Regards
Stefan |
|
| Registered: January 1, 2009 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,087 |
| |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 124 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yes, that is the one. Thanks Virus! |
|