James:

It is NOT about ownership or even whether or not they could prevail or even whether or not they ciould successfully get into a trial. It is simply about a larger company, in this case a huge company with lots oif cashand a known penchant to sue, deciding that it wants to either acquire a smaller company or force them out of business. So, you force them to spend their cash on defending themselves, INSTEAD of other more useful things. It's a chess game...nothing more. It happens all the time. Will they or won't they...I have no idea one way or the other, I merely recognize that it IS a possibility.

As for the companies you listed in your post, several of those copanies pay a licensing fee to use another companies data.

Skip

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I concur with both Snark and midnit., both of which are old friends. We are disagreeing., nothing more. For both snark and midnit, my problem with what everyone has been saying is that they have all been parrotting Tim, also a friend, and instead of discussing the merits OR lack thereof of standardizing, they happear to have signedon to a SPECIFIC type of standardization. And I repeat, I have seen no valid reason put forth to support that particualr standard, tthe potential legal issue aside there are reasons toi use a different standarad if we are to do so and that would be that Hollywood far more commonly usesthe , Jr. form as does society. There is ONLY one possible argument to favor COPYING someone else's standard and surely you aren't goig to argue keystrokes...are you?

Skip

Now now Skip... I've said several times I don't care what standard is adopted.  I merely endorsed your own suggestion of no punctuation for a simple reason.  It's simple and we don't need to deal with questions of how to punctuate "Guy Incognito, Jr." vs "Guy Incognito, Sr." vs "Guy Incognito, III", etc...

It removes all ambiguity. 

As far as adopting some "other database's" standard...

In general punctuation of suffixes is irrellevent in databases.  They usually get a field of their own.  And in any case... there are what... a grand total of 4 possibilities. 

1)  None
2) ","
3) "."
4) "," + "."

They wouldn't even get into court

And there's no chance they would sue on that basis for a simple reason Skip...

They're not competing with DVDProfiler and more than the DVD case people are in competition with those who make popcorn bags.

Invelos makes software and sells to the end user.  The "Other Datbase" (Hereafter referred to as ODB) makes their money by selling adverstising and headshot hosting for wannabe actors.

There's no overlap there.  In terms of data, ODB kills us and always will.  Their userbase is internation and much much bigger userbase.  We are not in competetion with them.  (Although I seem to remember someone hoping in that direction once...)

They offered legal action against Ken to protect their intellectual property when it was being hijacked by DVDPro users.  They needed to do so if they wanted to protect it.  That doesn't imply that they are competitors or would profit from DVDProfilers demise.  In fact, as long as users here hit their site but are forbidden to take it directly it's all to their advantage that DVDProfiler keeps kicking.  It's more ad revenue.

But I'm more than happy to drop that whole line as it appears you're happy with a "," + "." standard.  It's a bit more cumbersome but certainly preferable to the absurd use of the CLT in this case.

As I said before, with a standard, everybody wins.

If you suspicion of one person voting no to everything you say is true then you have nothing to worry about. As Ken said, the system is designed to not even count votes of people who always vote the same (either positive or negative) against the same person.

It is set up that way to KEEP people from abusing the system by either giving out negative votes to someone they don't like OR friends continuously giving each other positive votes to simply raise their rating. Personally I trust Ken and take him at his word that the system can't be abused, but that's just me I guess

And I have to ask... you continuously say you are being "shut down"... have you looked at your post count lately?    I couldn't imagine what it would look like if you allowed to speak whenever you felt like it! 

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
James:

It is NOT about ownership or even whether or not they could prevail or even whether or not they ciould successfully get into a trial. It is simply about a larger company, in this case a huge company with lots oif cashand a known penchant to sue, deciding that it wants to either acquire a smaller company or force them out of business. So, you force them to spend their cash on defending themselves, INSTEAD of other more useful things. It's a chess game...nothing more. It happens all the time. Will they or won't they...I have no idea one way or the other, I merely recognize that it IS a possibility.

As for the companies you listed in your post, several of those copanies pay a licensing fee to use another companies data.

Skip

I've already posted more than I care to on this topic, so I'll move on. Enjoy. 

Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:

Promises, promises

Done. Bye...

Like I give a rat's behind . Finally!!! I don't have to read your constant whinning anymore.

Thank you, thank you, thank you .

Guess someone is a little miffed   as I got a red arrow for my post. Oh well. It still made my day .

Edit: Make that 6 red arrows now . Geeeeeze...get a grip .

ANy chance we get stop the childish bitching and get back to actually discussing standardisation? 

So far I have yet to see a practical reason why we shouldn't standardise punctuation. We'd no longer have to worry about what variations we need to search on in the CLT and we can still keep credit accuracy via "credited as".

The only bone of contention I can think of at the moment, is when there is a question between using the suffixed and suffixless versions of the name as common name (Lon Chaney/Lon Chaney Sr. for example).

Personally, I'd still prefer a programming solution.

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
ANy chance we get stop the childish bitching and get back to actually discussing standardisation? 

So far I have yet to see a practical reason why we shouldn't standardise punctuation. We'd no longer have to worry about what variations we need to search on in the CLT and we can still keep credit accuracy via "credited as".

The only bone of contention I can think of at the moment, is when there is a question between using the suffixed and suffixless versions of the name as common name (Lon Chaney/Lon Chaney Sr. for example).

Personally, I'd still prefer a programming solution.

North:

I have yet to see arational, not a personal preference reason for doing so. The REASON for not doing so is that this ignores both the Rules and the results of the alias tool which people lobbied for so many years for ken to create, and now you want to ignore that and pre-determine the answer. What's next a dartboard for all names, should we use a blindfold as well.

Skip