| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | From the new rules... If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. Possessive examples: "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride", John Carpenter's "The Thing". In each case, the portion within quotes is the title. From the credit block of UPC 043396-016194  It clearly shows the title should be changed from the current John Carpenter's Christine, to Christine. However one  user decides the rules are wrong and should be ignored, and wants to quote the US copyright office to support not following the rules. He has voted no to the change. They are voting illegally, should be banned from voting etc etc and whatever else this user typically spews out when he finds someone he believes is voting against the rules Hypocrit. | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,316 |
| | Posted: | | | | I also had a no vote for George A. Romero's "Land of the Dead"... granted the current vote is 62 yes and only the 1 no... but it is still aggravating when you are following exactly what the rules states... and you still get no votes.
I won't say who the no vote is (anyone with that movie can see it if they really want to)... but will say that it is not who yours is from. as his no vote notes that he don't understand why we use some and not others... so I PMed him to try to explain the rule to him. and how his no vote is against what the rules say to do.
I have removed 4 possessives from movies within the last couple days... thankfully that was my only no vote so far.
I personally hate this possessive rule... but I will only contribute as per the rules states... and the rules do state to determine possessives from the back credit block.... and how to determine it. So that is what I will do and how I will base my votes.
Apparently you have a different UPC or different version of the movie since I don't see your contribution. I have the collector's Edition of Christine.. and mine shows the same as yours... John Carpenter's "Christine". | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Generally if I do not agree with a profile change but it's not against the rules I vote 'Neutral', and I suggest everybody should do the same. The online database is not our property and we should not use it as a battleground to settle our differences. | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,316 |
| | Posted: | | | | This is one time I can definitely say I agree with Martin. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | When I have to vote on a profile update because of a rule change I think that it's an obligation to vote "yes". But, if I don't like the rule I write it in my comment that way I respect the rule and I give my opinion for Ken or Gerri. It's probably the same with a neutral vote, but in my view it's more clear. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,759 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
When I have to vote on a profile update because of a rule change I think that it's an obligation to vote "yes". (...) Nobody is obliged to vote "yes". You have always to right to vote "neutral" aka to not vote at all. EDIT: Actually I wish there would be a real "neutral" vote, where you could add a note to that vote. | | | | Last edited: by RHo |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting AESP_pres: Quote:
When I have to vote on a profile update because of a rule change I think that it's an obligation to vote "yes". But, if I don't like the rule I write it in my comment that way I respect the rule and I give my opinion for Ken or Gerri. It's probably the same with a neutral vote, but in my view it's more clear. You don't have an obligation to only vote Yes. This rule change came about because people wanted it to be more straightforward/clear to get a definitive answer without going anywhere else. So it would be easier to get a consistent database. If everybody had blindly voted purely using the rules as originally stated then there could have been no change. Additionally, Ken has said that he pays attention to the way that the majority vote on submissions. (not only what is said on the forums) so he can get an idea of what people actually want in the database. If you ignore everything you belive / think then you are making his job harder. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Awwww poor baby richie. I can VERIFY per the Rules that the Copyrighted title, IS ABSOLUTELY "John Carpenter's Christine".
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 1,982 |
| | Posted: | | | | That's why I vote "yes" with a comment if I don't agree with a rule. I don't really like "neutral" vote as they are presently (with no possibility to write a comment). It's probably just an impression but I find no use in it.
I'm talking about rule in general, I had nothing against this new one. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | It's not about disagreeing with the Rule.
"Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title"
I can verify IT.
This is predictably about people not wanting to deal with REAL data, they would prefer to CORRUPT the database with MADE UP fictitious data that suits their PERSONAL preferences.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: May 29, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,475 |
| | Posted: | | | | Wouldn't this title actually use both (I highlighted the sections I mean)?
Title
Use the title from the front cover.
• Include possessives if the front cover includes them, and if they are verifiably part of the title. If quotes surround the title in the credit block (generally on the back cover), check whether the possessive is within the quotes. In the absence of quotes to verify, check the font size used for the title on the front cover. Generally, possessives which use a significantly smaller font are not part of the title.
• Possessive examples: "Tim Burton's Corpse Bride", John Carpenter's "The Thing". In each case, the portion within quotes is the title.
Original Title
The Original Title field serves two general purposes, but in both cases allows for the tracking of the original feature title. Use the title from the copyright notice if available, otherwise from the film's credits. In cases where the title is the original title, leave the Original Title field blank.
Therefore: Title: Christine
Original Title: John Carpenter's Christine |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Kathy it could be interpreted that way. But the REAL title, not some fictitious or otherwise imagined title is JC's Christine and that is VERIFIABLE under the Rules.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 4,530 |
| | Posted: | | | | Different sources may provide different titles. As I understand this rule, it specifies the primary means of verification to be the credit block.
There is nothing in the rules that says that the information from the Copyright Office takes precedence over the title in the credit block.
I find it absurd that anyone should consider the title in the credit block "fictitious" or "imagined". | | | My freeware tools for DVD Profiler users.
Gunnar |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | The problem with your logic, Skip, is that Ken is not interested in the "REAL" title, or he would not be telling us to take the title from the front cover of the DVD!
The Rules say for possessives to check the credit block on the back of the DVD. In this case it is clear that the quotation marks do not include 'John Carpenter's'. End of discussion.
The only reason to look further than the DVD cover is if there is no credit block on the back of the DVD. In this case there is, therefore, any other "verification" is irrelevant. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,022 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Awwww poor baby richie. I can VERIFY per the Rules that the Copyrighted title, IS ABSOLUTELY "John Carpenter's Christine".
Skip You really are rather sad with a comment like "awwww poor baby". Save your insults for someone who gives a sh'it. It seems you're intent to distance yourself from every other user of the program, including the owner who has specifically indicated how he wants titles handled with the new rules. The rules even give the example - John Carpenter's "The Thing" - title The Thing Do you not see a connection between that and John Carpenter's "Christine"? Abide by the rules for the common database, and keep your local as what you perceive as correct. | | | | | | | Last edited: by hayley taylor |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | I wouldn't worry too much about this. It's obvious that the one "no" voter is out in the weeds on this one and it will be approved. Just be thankful it's not one of those titles with only 3 voters. |
|