[RFC] The Studio structure as it exists in StashdB should not reference "channel" and "series" hierarchy.

[GernBlanston12]

Title

The Studio structure as it exists in StashdB should not reference "channel" and "series" hierarchy.

### Scope
Studios in Stashdb should be defined to a standard that doesn't shift on a Studio-to-Studio basis. I suggest having its own .com be the litmus for what constitutes a "Studio" and what does not, and that reference to "channels", "series", and "studios" that do not have an associated .com be handled via other means than a rigid hierarchy where all these things are coeval. Simply accepting whatever the API is calling a Studio at Gamma websites this week into such a rigid Studio hierarchy is, IMHO, asking for trouble.

Examples

Mike Adriano is/was his own website, then distributed some videos through EA, and others he now distributes through Sticky Dollars. Adding "Mike Adriano" as a "studio" separate from what was MikeAdriano.com the past handful of years, and MikeAdriano.com when it was a mirror for Evil Angel, and Mike as he appears on Sticky Dollars, is confusing and implies ownership of his name/brand where such a relationship may or may not exist. I propose Mike's EA videos belong to EA as a Studio, and videos found on Swallowed.com belong to a sub-studio under his mikeadriano.com, etc. There's no reason Mike's offerings at EA can't be called EA videos under "Studio" and have Directed By or a Tag or a DVD/Series or some other structure instead of trying to pound that channel on EA into a Studio round hole, trying to make Studio mean all things to all people/vendors.

Same concerns Hookup Hotshot, supposedly another "Studio" under EA. Will your EA password get you onto Hookup Hotshot? It will not, nor will all the Hookup Hotshot videos be found at EA. EA only has EA Hookup Hotshot videos, placing Hookup Hotshot in a Studio hierarchy with EA is illustrating a 1:1 that doesn't exist.