Blu-ray and DVD Together at Last

Question: I have a Blu-ray title that is sold together with the DVD version as well (not a digital copy of the movie, but the actual DVD). These are coming packaged in Blu-ray containers, so I am under the impression that the Blu-ray is the predominant item and the DVD is the accompanying material. Do I make the Physical Description “2 videodiscs” or “1 videodisc” with a subfield $e “1 DVD videodisc”? The example that I am dealing with is "Road house" starring Patrick Swayze, OCLC #460107930. It seems to me that to enter “2 videodiscs” would make it seem like it should be a 2-disc Blu-ray item. Has this situation been addressed before? Also, has there been any more discussion on changing the Physical Description for Blu-ray from “videodisc”?

Answer: As I see it, you have two choices.

• If you choose to follow the traditional Specific Material Designations in 7.5B1, describe the two discs as "2 videodiscs ...". Include two 538 fields, one describing the DVD, the other describing the Blu-ray Disc.
  
  
• If you choose to follow the option in 7.5B1 allowing "a term in common usage," you will need to choose one of the discs as the predominant one and the other as the accompanying material:
  • 1 Blu-ray Disc (114 min.) : $b sd., col. ; $c
  • 4 3/4 in. + $e 1 DVD-video (114 min. : sd., col. ; 4 3/4 in.) and further describe each in a separate 538 field.

AACR2 1.10 does not seem to apply because only a single material type (videodisc) is present. If you check page 16 of the OLAC Guide to Cataloging DVD and Blu-ray Discs Using AACR2r and MARC 21 (http://www.olacinc.org/drupal/capc_files/DVD_guide_final.pdf), you will see that 7.5B1 allows you the option of "1 Blu-ray Disc" as an SMD.

The Difference Between 540 and 506 is 34

Question: I was wondering if someone could tell me the difference between the 540 tag and the 506 tag in terms of restrictions. We have items with restricted public performance rights and I am not 100% sure which tag they should go in. Also, is there a specific language for public performance rights that I should be including?

Answer: According to the MARC 21 definition of field 506, it is intended to convey: "Information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials. For published works, this field contains information on limited distribution. For continuing resources, the restrictions must apply to all issues. ... Terms governing the use of materials after access has been allowed are recorded in field 540 (Terms Governing Use and Reproduction)." (Emphasis mine.) According to the MARC 21 definition of field 540, it contains: "Terms governing the use of the materials after access has been provided. The field includes, but is not limited to, copyrights, film rights, trade restrictions, etc. that restrict the right to reproduce, exhibit, fictionalize, quote, etc. Information about restrictions imposed on access to the described materials is recorded in field 506 (Restrictions on Access Note)." (Again, emphasis mine.) In other words, field 506 is for restrictions on access to the resource itself, whereas field 540 is for limitations on use after access to the resource has been given. By those definitions, public performance rights would generally go in field 540. The usual practice is to simply state what the resource says, but if you have a reason to standardize such statements, that's OK. If you do so, you should document your particular practice.

Capitalizing on the Capabilities of Word Processing

Question: I've been noticing that a number of LC records have been coming through with machine-generated contents notes (505) that are in ALL CAPS. This data is being harvested from publisher-supplied ONIX data. They are also not properly formatted with regards to punctuation. I am trying to decide what to do with these. The data make the materials retrievable, but they are ugly. Do I retype the entire 505, or do I just let it go and look all ugly?

Answer: Here's a suggestion about reformatting the 505 without having to retype everything. Copy the text and paste it into whatever word processor you use. If it's Word, highlight everything, go to the Format tab and down to "Change Case." Click on "Sentence case" and most of the work will be done for you. You can clean up the rest. Then copy and paste the corrected text back into the record and replace the record.

Library Edition Versus Retail Version

Question: : It appears that Tantor Audio issues a lot of their audiobooks in both a retail issue, which is a Unikeep package, and in a library edition, which is a binder package. In WorldCat, I have seen the retail and the library edition entered as separate records to distinguish between the two and I have seen the ISBNs for both on the same record (for instance, #501067334). Can you tell me if these are really two different items and would constitute two different records or should only 1 record be entered with both ISBNs?

Answer: The presence of the edition statement plus the difference in ISBN would justify separate records. The ALCTS publication "Differences Between, Changes Within," in fact, explicitly cites "Library edition" as a sort of edition statement that indicates a major bibliographic difference (A2A). One has to assume that a record with a 250 reading "Library ed." is for the Library edition and a record lacking that 250 is for the retail version. LCRI 1.8 would have catalogers record all ISBNs that appear in the resource at hand on that bibliographic record. In other words, the presence of an ISBN for the Library Edition on the record for the retail version would be following the rules. In theory, the ISBN that occurs first should be the one for the manifestation being cataloged. But we have to rely on the body of the record, the presence or absence of the actual edition statement to distinguish the two. So if the existing record has no edition statement, it must be considered to be for the version that would not usually have an edition statement, the retail version. If the existing record does have the "Library ed." 250, consider it to represent the Library Edition. It is my understanding that the retail version does not usually include any statement to that effect.

The Copy Protection Racket

Question: We have a question regarding copy protection on DVDs and Blu-ray discs. We’ve got a disc that was originally released in 2003, with that a “c2003” date both on the disc label and on the container. There is no mention anywhere on that original container of copy protection. Now we have received a repackaged version of the same title. To the right of the language options chart on the back of the container, the repackaged version now says: “These discs are copy protected.” The container of the repackaged version has a 2008 copyright date. The disc labels of the original DVD and the repackaged DVD both have only the “c2003” date, which is the original release date of the DVD set. The contents of the DVD have not changed. If copy protection and different package copyright dates are the only differences, is a new record justified? I’ve been noting the copy protection in a 540 field.

Answer: The fact of added copy protection alone would not justify a new record. In fact, I'm not sure that I would ordinarily bother to include such information in a bibliographic record (or for that matter, to assume that enough other catalogers have included the information, so as to make it a useful distinction). For local use, an institution could indicate that one copy is copy protected and another is not. The later copyright dates on the packaging of the repackaged version almost certainly reflect container design/printing dates and may be disregarded, especially in light of the fact that the disc labels themselves have only the original; 2003 copyright date. If you are going to include a note about copy protection, field 540 seems the logical place.

Subtitles Get No Respect from AACR2

Question: In hand, I have a DVD of the film Cadillac Records. Its language options include the English original, a dubbed French version, and subtitles in English and in French. Which language or languages, if any, can I add to the uniform title in this case?

Answer: AACR2 25.5C1 says in part: “If the linguistic content of the item being catalogued is different from that of the original (e.g., a translation, a dubbed motion picture), add the name of the language of the item to the uniform title. ... Do not add the name of the language to a uniform title for a motion picture with subtitles.” The monumental LCRI 25.5B Appendix I goes into much more detail about when to add and not to add language designations to motion picture uniform titles, although it generally holds to the dubbed/yes, subtitled/no rule. Here are some of the relevant passages from that LCRI: "Today's technology makes it possible to issue resources that contain various language-related conditions. In general, assign a uniform title and name the language(s) as specified in rule 25.5C1. For example, if a resource contains an original version of a motion picture and one dubbed in another language, name the original language second. If the resource contains two dubbed versions but not the original version, name both languages in the order specified by the rule. If a resource contains three or more dubbed versions, or the original and two or more dubbed versions, use the term 'Polyglot' to identify the language in the uniform title. ... Note, however, that if a resource contains a mixture of options, some of which are language-related selections and others not (in terms of the cataloging rules), apply the language-related specifications accordingly. For example, if a resource contains an original version in English, a dubbed version in French, and a subtitled version in Spanish, assign a uniform title followed by the language French (dubbed version) and English (original version). This applies because although three versions are present, the rule only calls for the use of language in the uniform title for two (dubbed and original). The rule does not call for adding language in the case of a motion picture with subtitles." So by the logic of AACR2 in the case of your DVD, only the English original and the French dubbed versions get reflected in the uniform title, with the addition of subfield $l French & English.