Could we get a tag for unofficial releases?

Bump ? Anybody?

Give example of an unofficial release. Bootleg?
Definitely not.

"Definitely not" what?

I see there is a lot of bootlegs getting added now.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn between an unofficial release that's worth adding and a bootleg that is not.
I've got some bootleg CD's from Nepal that are pretty interesting but I never even considered adding them to discogs because I assumed they weren't allowed.
I guess that on the other hand, they could be interesting to document.

Definitely not BOOTLEGS.

I was asking that tam89rds give an example of what he or she was writing about.

Dibb-s, can you provide link/s to bootlegs being added?

Someone gave me a DVD-R of Bumfights they burned. I would not consider that to be a valid RELEASE.

Purchased what I thought was a variant/alternate cover release of Crying Freeman Volume 1 (ADV Films) from used DVD store. Disc was official, but cover was fan-made - complete with fake barcode/UPC. I would not consider that to be a valid RELEASE.

Promotional or Preview Copies of films. I WOULD consider those to be valid RELEASES - even though they were not available to general public.

"Promotional or Preview Copies of films" --> These are NOT unofficial. please remain on thread topic.

My thread is about unofficial releases on factory-made DVDs, ex:

This DVD is made in a regular DVD plant in Indonesia, sold in shops and is completely unofficial, but is a real DVD. It contains Indonesian language too.

As on discogs, if we want to have the largest database of releases ever made, we need to document these.

I am against documenting home-made unofficial copies of movies on burned DVDr's, as on Discogs. Probably what you call "bootlegs" (What is your definition?).

So the request of this thread is to have an unofficial tag for my example above. As on Discogs. Nothing new under the sun.

My thread is about unofficial releases on factory-made DVDs, ex:

Do you own this release? The format listed DOES NOT match the logo on the image - HD DVD/DVD Combo Format - one side a DVD, the other HD DVD.

Also, packaging "Other Cellophane" does not make sense. Again, image seems to be different. Is there a back cover?

I would consider that entry almost a garbage release - not enough information or images for to actually help other users to verify data.

I own it.
Information on packaging is inaccurate. It is a simple DVD.
It is packed in a cellophane bag. Why doesn't it make sense to you?
There is a back cover, full of incorrect information. Those producers of unofficial DVDs in Indonesia do not bother with data. They just copy-paste back covers on all their DVDs, including barcodes, duration, etc. Totally inaccurate and unreliable. After entering a few, I decided it does not make sense to enter their bogus data. So you get what I have. With the photo, packaging, languages it is easy to distinguish from other releases.

If you do not own it you can not verify data. You have to take my word for it.

This is almost a "garbage sub" of yours:
Needs a lot of changes. All caps, no packaging, incorrect format etc. What about correcting it?

Plus do not confuse release and sub.

And tone down a bit your rhetoric by the way.

The kidney transplant video title is EXACTLY as it appears on the release itself. And the intro screen.

There is NO INCORRECT INFORMATION. Please list what you think is incorrect!

That is the packaging the disc came in - in the larger patient information packet - as noted.

Also! The vast majority of RELEASES I entered were done BEFORE the additional fields now required!

Stop Shouting.

If you can not behave with civility, do not use forums.

Your release above mentioned lacks correct format, packaging.

If you had the tiny bit of experience with Discogs or any database, you would know that we do not type in all capitals. For data, it is incorrect. When posting in forums, it is very rude.

a thin transparent wrapping material made from viscose.

I have never seen cellophane only packaging. Is it a printed foil bag?

This isn't discogs. Nor is it library-rules indexing.

What is wrong with the format or packaging?

Packaging listed in NOTES. Before PACKAGING field was even implemented.

C-Shell is a legit term for that style package. DVD-R is the format; description of format - DVD-R5 was listed in VSO Inspector program used to get information from disc.

Stop shouting. As long as you are shouting, You are talking to yourself.

I'm writing, not talking.

And you're reading. ; )

I think bootlegs need to be added, and in great detail. It makes the harder-to-detect ones that much easier to research and avoid. Don't you?

I could go on about other finer points, but I think that is the most significant reason why (marketed, not privately/anonymously sold) bootlegs warrant inclusion here.

Interesting point raised by morgue_sludge.

I have another argument. I have spent a lot of time in China, where censorship (alongside lax copyright enforcement) has ensured a thriving unofficial release market.

I confess it is a thorny ethical issue; but for whole generations of Chinese cinephiles, these pirated films were and are the only way to see uncensored material. Meanwhile, the pirates have been growing audiences that Western studios could not develop themselves.

I have watched many of these - largely to see the levels of 'professionalism' the pirates were attempting. Many of them are very high quality - not just the transfers, which are often far superior to official Chinese releases if they do exist at all; but also the range of extras and packaging can exceed official releases there too - these extras are often also pirated, but sometimes collated from numerous international sources, creating unique releases of sorts.

I would never try to sell any of the unofficial material such as this, but I wonder if there was a way that unique unofficial releases might be acknowledged somewhere down the line.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.