Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:

I see pros and cons either way. Not really sure what is best. 

But then, after doing a good few searches on multiple sources, I seem to realize that the Theatrical Release from web sites is nearly a random pick, it may depend on which database you lookup, while the Copyright Year -often the same as the Original Release Year anyway- is just there in our DVDs. After all, we are tracking the data in our DVDs. 

Quoting ya_shin:

Quote:
I support this feature request.

me too, I've been using copyright year locally all the time

Here's a situation that could very easily come to pass:

Two films are released let's say in 1947.  One wins the Oscar for Best Picture, the other becomes famous for not winning it.  Years later, someone discovers that the Copyright Year for the second movie is a year different than the production year, and we change it.  Profiler would look pretty stupid when you compare those two movies, especially when they were on the same Oscar billing together.

The point here is, that copyright dates can be years different than the release date.  To be sure, production year can also be different than the release date, but that isn't so common.  I say leave it alone as far as release date goes, and change the field name to match what the data actually represents.

Quoting Katatonia:

Quote:
Quoting Mark Harrison:

Quote:
I'd guess in most cases they're be the same.  Or that's already what's in the database.

Not really. I see the production year vary quite often from the copyright year shown in the film.

Exactly as I have seen it, I like the idea but dread the updates 

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
I'm actually in favor of changing the name of the field to "Theatrical Release" and then the addition of a new field for "Copyright Date".

I think this would be the ideal way in my opinion... though I imagine more times then not it will be the same year.

Wonder if he could make it so that if the copyright Year is the same as the Theatrical Release... then the copyright year does not appear.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Copyright date works better for one simple reason. Hal's suggestion requires research and the use of third party datasources which have already proven to be questionable....at best. More ARGUMENTS...that is bad. Copyright date exists on the disc as first hand information.

Skip

Hal's suggestion does not require any more research than the current rules. He is suggesting renaming the field to match the data it contains and then adding a new field for the copyright date.

My request to change the field name to 'Copyright Year' (and changing the rules to match) is to remove the need to do that research in outside databases.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Here's a situation that could very easily come to pass:

Two films are released let's say in 1947.  One wins the Oscar for Best Picture, the other becomes famous for not winning it.  Years later, someone discovers that the Copyright Year for the second movie is a year different than the production year, and we change it.  Profiler would look pretty stupid when you compare those two movies, especially when they were on the same Oscar billing together.

The point here is, that copyright dates can be years different than the release date.  To be sure, production year can also be different than the release date, but that isn't so common.  I say leave it alone as far as release date goes, and change the field name to match what the data actually represents.

I totally agree. Who cares about the copyright date anyway. Copyright comes and goes and every country has different copyright laws. The result is that the copyright date may end up being different in a number of countries in the same region. Film lovers only care about theatrical release date. The DVD related information that we record is DVD release date.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I understand that, paul. You must think I am really stupid.

No, I think that you have a style of playing fast and loose with the facts. I also think that you never reread what you have typed before you hit submit.

Quote:

I don't want to write a Doctoral thesis wuth every post to 1) put you to sleep and 2) to make sure that you absolutely crystal clear in what i am saying, I give everybody credit for having just a bit more intelligence that that. though i will confess sometimes...I wonder.

Skip

Skip, you often post that others can't 'get' what you are trying to say. This is a case where you know, Dan knows and I know that renaming the field as Dan suggested does not change the work needed. But for others reading what you posted it looks like you are saying that it adds work.

pdf