Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Do you guys not see the problem here? This field is messed up! OK, maybe I'm just figuring that out but it doesn't make it any less so.

X is correct according to the rules but you really need to use X's logo to get the true company, unless of course you are in Europe, then you can use X.

It would really be good for Ken to step in and give us some official input here. I hope he's sitting on a rooftop somewhere, watching...

I agree that it's being made a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Users should be able to look at the back of the box and list what they see without knowing who owns who or who's just a name and not a company and who's a real publisher in the distributor sense of the word and who's technically a media company but not exactly a publisher. Too much! Keep it simple.

Quote:
Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
Keep it simple.

The sad thing is that we actually had a simple way of dealing with this - simply tracking the DVD distributor and nothing else. Unfortunately, just a few extremely vocal users have succeeded in messing this up beyond repair, meaning the field is now open for just about anything: not only have I seen packaging design companies entered, but also authoring houses, copyright holders, license holders, names of TV stations who at one point in time have been airing a show whose logo is splattered somewhere on the cover, parent companies like the Warner Bros. Entertainment<->Warner Home Video debacle that started this thread, and many others. Heck: I've even seen "Macrovision" being entered as a media company, and also a company name that was credited for providing the film's summary that was used as an overview on the back cover. Under the current rules, basically anything goes, and that's why I thoroughly dislike the field. I was against the move away from tracking the distributor only right from the start, and I still am.

Quote:
The program just had a new release and there's this new Media Publisher rule that's 5 days old. I doubt that we'll have a re-release of the program any time soon that will reverse everything to what some wish it to be. Let's deal with the program as-is and the rule that we have. It's possible the rule will be clarified. I could see that happening a whole lot sooner than revamping a new release.

Quote:
Not all, I see a lot of Copyright information on that cover as I detailed, James and none of it really fit. We aren't profiling Art and Package Design...yet and, based on Copyright you are being selective in what YOU consider to be consistent with the rules, which means you are being inconsistent in application of the rule. If Copyright is your criteria....

Skip

Quote:
What's the justification for distributor? Who made the software on the disc is both easier to determine and more useful than who shipped the disc to the store.

Quote:
Quoting Ace_of_Sevens:

Quote:
Who made the software on the disc is ...more useful than who shipped the disc to the store.

Not to me.

Quote:
I agree that it's being made a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Users should be able to look at the back of the box and list what they see without knowing who owns who or who's just a name and not a company and who's a real publisher in the distributor sense of the word and who's technically a media company but not exactly a publisher. Too much! Keep it simple.