| Author |
Message |
 | dtsig | | Just asking questions man |
| Registered: August 17, 2009 |  Posts: 352 |
| | Posted: | | | | Message removed by myself
Thank you
David Tod Sigafoos | | | | Last edited: by dtsig |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 201 |
| | Posted: | | | |  I tried to remove the invalid "Verleihversion" from the Edition, because it is NOWHERE on the Cover, only a small "Leih DVD"(Rental DVD) on the fine print Quote Darxon: "This version has a different UPC than the retail edition" Yes so what, there are many different EANs/UPCs for the same movie, but does that mean we should invent versions which are not on the cover ? I dont think so.  | | | | Last edited: by nimrod85 |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | You are correct,
according to the rules and clarifications by Invelos Non-Standard Editions are only allowed when printed on the frontcover. This is not the case here.
Nevertheless it has been a good usage for German contributions to differentiate Retail and Rental versions by using the Edition field. I'm afraid that this is only possible locally now.
We have here one of the cases where clarifications do not necessarily improve the data. | | | 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 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I agree... this clarification is one that even messed up some titles here in US R1 land. The non-standard editions are not always on the front cover. I have asked a couple times for Invelos to reconsider this ruling... with no luck as of yet. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 31, 2007 | | Posts: 662 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
You are correct,
according to the rules and clarifications by Invelos Non-Standard Editions are only allowed when printed on the frontcover. This is not the case here.
Nevertheless it has been a good usage for German contributions to differentiate Retail and Rental versions by using the Edition field. I'm afraid that this is only possible locally now.
We have here one of the cases where clarifications do not necessarily improve the data. In fact it is mentioned on the front! Watch out the DVD-logo and you will see it says 'VERLEIH'. | | |  |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
The non-standard editions are not always on the front cover. I have asked a couple times for Invelos to reconsider this ruling... with no luck as of yet. The rules don't currently specify that the edition has to come from the front cover, just to "take it from the DVD box" | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | I know this Corey... but Ken clarified that statement... said to use only the front cover for non-standard (not in drop=down). I been trying to change his mind on this every since... Quoting Ken Cole:Quote:
Edition helps distinguish between different releases, but it does not bear the full responsibility of that differentiation. Per the rule, use the built-in editions when applicable, but tread lightly when stepping out of those choices. When considering non-standard edition text, make sure it both:
- Help to differentiate versions - AND-
- Is prominently displayed on the front cover.
Any other interpretation of this rule starts us down the path to things like "Avatar: The Slightly Taller Version with the Blue Sticker" He said in that same thread that he would consider dropping the from front cover only part... but left it at that and never returned to the topic with any update. So unfortunately as is... non-standard editions must come from front cover only. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 20,111 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
He said in that same thread that he would consider dropping the from front cover only part... but left it at that and never returned to the topic with any update. So unfortunately as is... non-standard editions must come from front cover only. I think he more recently did drop the "front cover only" designation from the edition rules, but never updated his older forum response just as you said Pete. This is one of those things that seems to contradict each other unfortunately. The updated edition rules are probably more recent than that forum post, but there's no definite way to tell since it probably was not a significant change. | | | | Corey |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | While the rules were updated... he didn't change the edition rules at all that I can see, Unfortunately without an additional clarification from Ken... I believe his forum statement stands.
Matter of fact if you read that thread from the start you will see that front cover only was never in the rules... only in his clarification. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting StaNDarD: Quote:
In fact it is mentioned on the front! Watch out the DVD-logo and you will see it says 'VERLEIH'. Found it! It's not exactly what I'd call "prominent", but it is definitely there. Correct "Edition" would be "Verleih DVD" then. | | | 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 31, 2007 | | Posts: 662 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Lewis_Prothero: Quote:
Quoting StaNDarD:
Quote:
In fact it is mentioned on the front! Watch out the DVD-logo and you will see it says 'VERLEIH'.
Found it!
It's not exactly what I'd call "prominent", but it is definitely there.
Correct "Edition" would be "Verleih DVD" then. I never said it is "prominent", but it's a typical Constantin-Verleih-DVD. | | | |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,330 |
| | Posted: | | | | Per Ken's clarification as I showed above... he did say it needs to be prominent.
Once again... I am not happy about this ruling... and hope he changes his mind on it. But that is how it stands as of right now. | | | | Pete |
|