Oh, they would if it were feasible. Years ago, before Disney, Marvel tried to do just that and clamp down on artists, especially on eBay.
I remember that
Oh, they would if it were feasible. Years ago, before Disney, Marvel tried to do just that and clamp down on artists, especially on eBay.
I find it funny a small company like XM which has a very limited Edition Sizes can make a big company like SSC shake in their boots
If SS messes with XM and kills them with licensing laws I will never buy ss again. Their walking a fine line with a sensitive niche base
I dont give a f... about licensing. I just want the best product and representation of a character in my collection. I have 31 ss pfs and 5 XM pieces. I dont know about you but none of my 5 were bought from XM. All mine were bought with great difficulty from a secondary source at a markup and in foreign denominations.you condemn SS for enforcing the terms of a license, but give XM a free pass for skirting it?
I dont give a f... about licensing. I just want the best product and representation of a character in my collection. I have 31 ss pfs and 5 XM pieces. I dont know about you but none of my 5 were bought from XM. All mine were bought with great difficulty from a secondary source at a markup and in foreign denominations.
For me ss was losing my business for a while and xm filled that high quality space for those of us who could afford it. Now I know a higher standard can be made, the standard I expect. So if XM dies im not running back to SS.
I don't understand how you can tell a retailer who they can/can not sell their products to. Once it leaves the company's or distributor's hands it's a free market for the retailer isn't it? I mean they can tell XM not to sell to Simply Toys, but I don't think they can tell Simply Toys who they can sell to. Am I missing something?
Exactly.
Pretty good post by a member on SF covered this:
I honestly don't think Disney would care, judging by the way Disney does business to maximize their profits and nobody else. For example:
Sideshow Exec: Mr. Disney/Marvel exec. A company called XM studios is selling their products within their agreeable location, but those retailers are in turn selling to the United States, and its cutting in on our profits.
Disney Exec: They aren't breaking the terms. Its retailers, not XM themselves. By the way, aren't you putting a lot of work into your Court of the Dead series as well as our direct competition, DC comics? And aren't those typically turning out better than the Marvel counterparts on a large scale?
Sideshow Exec: So, where would you like to go to lunch?
Basically, Sideshow I would imagine isn't carrying enough weight with Disney to dictate how they operate with other companies. As long as XM themselves aren't breaking the terms, there is no reason for Disney to intervene. Especially on behalf of a company that isn't treating the Disney/Marvel license itself very well. I could see it if Sideshow was in the business of solely distributing Marvel and Star Wars products, but they are pushing DC and CoTD as well. My guess is if Disney was going to crack down on Simply Toys being a secondhand distributor, we would have heard about it long ago.
I dont give a f... about licensing. I just want the best product and representation of a character in my collection. I have 31 ss pfs and 5 XM pieces. I dont know about you but none of my 5 were bought from XM. All mine were bought with great difficulty from a secondary source at a markup and in foreign denominations.
For me ss was losing my business for a while and xm filled that high quality space for those of us who could afford it. Now I know a higher standard can be made, the standard I expect. So if XM dies im not running back to SS.
Redo it then.
Enter your email address to join: