Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
James:

I'll thank you to stay out of it.

I've been involved in the discussion. I have a responsibility to see it through in terms of the studios thread, for which I have made attemps to contact Ken. I won't be staying out of it.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
With all due respect, don't push me further. You dare to call me, while you ignore Tim's absolutely unacceptable behavior. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

I have nothing to call T!M on. Sorry. Your argument has run its course and now you are calling people names. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
You seem to not understand or care why I am angry...you aren't being helpful.

Your anger is not my responsibility; it's yours.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Ken please lock this thread, this is over and i have no interest in this users opinion on much of anything at this time.

We lock threads when you have no interest in the discussion? 

Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Just wait until we get to the hard questions, like what to do with The Criterion Company, which presently is distributed by Image Entertainment, but previously was distributed by Home Vision Entertainment, and who knows who will distribute them after their deal with Image expires.

It is only a hard question if the words, "Distributed by," aren't printed on the case.  We are after the DVD Distributor and, try as some people might, you can't argue with those two words.

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Just wait until we get to the hard questions, like what to do with The Criterion Company, which presently is distributed by Image Entertainment, but previously was distributed by Home Vision Entertainment, and who knows who will distribute them after their deal with Image expires.

Well said. And if the rules will go in that literal direction Unicus69 hints at, it will be yet another field I have to completely manage on my own.

I am curious, what is the problem with the literal direction?  'Sony Pictures Home Entertainment' and 'Buena Vista Home Entertainment' distribute DVDs for several film companies.  They are entered as distributor, when there is room, based on those two words.

To me, this seems very simple to do.  Why should it be any different. 

Note: I am not trying to start an argument.  I really am curious as to your point of view on this.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting gardibolt:

Quote:
Just wait until we get to the hard questions, like what to do with The Criterion Company, which presently is distributed by Image Entertainment, but previously was distributed by Home Vision Entertainment, and who knows who will distribute them after their deal with Image expires.

It is only a hard question if the words, "Distributed by," aren't printed on the case.  We are after the DVD Distributor and, try as some people might, you can't argue with those two words.

Indeed! I've just contributed a BVHE distributor entry for my Criterion Collection DVD of 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zizzou' - as the back cover clearly states: "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment". Is it just me, or is this all really not that hard to grasp?

For my personal db, I will change that one to The Criterion Collection. I understand that for the main db, it will by necessity have to be BVHE. I think for some people, what we're interested in is the DVD Label rather than the name of the distribution arm.

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I think for some people, what we're interested in is the DVD Label rather than the name of the distribution arm.

Exactly the problem!  I'll be doing the same for all of my Criterion Collection.

Based on the suggested Rule, The Criterion Collection would not appear in the profile at all as a studio. 

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Indeed! I've just contributed a BVHE distributor entry for my Criterion Collection DVD of 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zizzou' - as the back cover clearly states: "Distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment". Is it just me, or is this all really not that hard to grasp?

For my personal db, I will change that one to The Criterion Collection. I understand that for the main db, it will by necessity have to be BVHE. I think for some people, what we're interested in is the DVD Label rather than the name of the distribution arm.

I'm indeed interested in who did the DVD production, I couldn't care less who drives that stuff to the retailers. I understand the literal arguments, after all, the field is named "Media Distributor". I wonder if Ken did that intentional or just didn't consider the ramifications.

I don't care what we have always done or whether that's even true or not. We have a new field and we should consider its content.

If indeed (as T!M and Unicus69 suggest) we want to capture the distributor in the literal way, then that's fine. If (like, for example, m.cellophane) we would like to capture the DVD producer/label, but feel compelled by the current field name to do something else, then that's an entirely different matter.

We are still in Beta. If necessary, Ken can still change the field name without causing a lot of hassle. I have made my preference clear. You (the general one, not skipnet50) should take a moment to consider what YOUR preference is and not blindly draw conclusions from a field name that may have been chosen without giving it much thought.

That's not to critize Ken, btw. I colloquially refer to companies like Criterion as DVD distributor myself, even if technically they are not.

Quoting goodguy:

Quote:
(...) I have made my preference clear. You (the general one, not skipnet50) should take a moment to consider what YOUR preference is and not blindly draw conclusions from a field name that may have been chosen without giving it much thought. (...)

If I would have to decide, I would rename the field to "DVD Label" and enter stuff like "The Criterion Collection", "Disney DVD", "Universal" etc.