Comments on: Kirk At The Oscars

By: Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:55:00 +0000

Actually international laws are not irrelevant as the individual countries have laws that must be adhered to. This is true whether you are talking about a importing a physical product, digital product, or distribution rights for any combination of the above.

It sounds like you’re someone that quite simply hates the US and doesn’t need an actual legitimate reason why. You will find any reason to lash out and complain.

Your posting shows that you have little to no understanding of the complexities of the legal systems, differences in tax rates, and differences in cost of distribution in various countries.

You talk about the differences in currency rates, but forget about the differences in the cost of doing business itself. You don’t take into account that the US price doesn’t already account for tax, that wages vary in different countries, cost of licensing items internationally, costs associated with localization (ie paying voice actors to re-voice parts), etc.

You assume that the cost for a product is always the same everywhere, because since it was produced there are never more costs associated with it after that original production. It’s a simplification of the worst kind mostly because it ignores many aspects that are key to why the cost is higher in specific areas.

If you want to complain about content not being available in your region then you need to speak to your government.

I have no doubts however that you’ll try to find some way to say I’m wrong again…but to be honest I won’t be replying any further. I’m way too busy these days…as you can see from the time that it took for me to check and reply this time around.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:20:00 +0000

You are wrong. Griffiths’s crime was not recording something for personal use; it was redistribution to others, as with O’Dwyer. Even a quick examination of the cases would have told you this.

By: SJStar

SJStar — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 10:48:00 +0000

International law here is irrelevant, as the distribution and selling of entertainment properties is controlled by mutual trade agreements between countries. Price differentials are complicated, but they must be fair and just on economic (or even moral) grounds. Most trade agreement has trade-offs where you buying, say resources, is compensation by, say technology. Market forces should determine pricing, but in the US corporations it is often perceived as an opportunity to exploit others – and have done it for decades. Unfortunately, this is coming to an en-pass, where many countries will no longer tolerate such anti-compedative behaviour and they will start to fight back. As I said before, unless America and Americans are able to understand this, when the backlash comes, you will be in the dark when its products are no longer supported and they go elsewhere.

For a simple blog site on Star Trek, this is an adequate explanation.

Stopping people seeing something that was already globally shown, then restricting it all then on pretence of some dodgy legal pretext, just openly makes enemies. It makes people, like me, more hostile to America and its economic system. After the devastating damage done in 2008 by the Global Financial Crises, which stems directly from the illegalities made within the American economic system, and damaged share markets right across the world, it is no wonder others have such a distrusting negative attitude. Attempts to improve the America via price gouging helps even less.

By: Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:25:00 +0000

Ok, then show us your understanding of international law as applies to distribution of entertainment properties.

I will have 0 issues with admitting you are educated on the subject if you are able to show that you are. So far what you have posted has seemed to show that you lack a basic understanding of the situation.

If you can show otherwise then as stated I am more than happy to say that you understand the situation.

By: John (not McCain)

John (not McCain) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:05:00 +0000

You wrote: (some who were unfortunately not prim, proper, and lady-like). Obviously, you have standards you expect women to conform to, otherwise you would not have written what you did. Thus, you are a degrader of women.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 06:19:00 +0000

Actually, I have dealt with some dipshits like the ones you have dealt with. And yes, it was unpleasant.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 06:17:00 +0000

It depends on which side of the fence you are on.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 06:14:00 +0000

It depends on how you look at. Let alone on which side of the fence you are on.

By: Polaris01313-1

Polaris01313-1 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 06:10:00 +0000

I do NOT have women conform to any standards that I have set for them. Where in the hell did you get that impression?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 04:10:00 +0000

So, that’s not a personal attack against any American? And that wasn’t name calling?

Secondly, Mitt, I’m sorry, but “If you are a corporation,”… I’m not… so……….