Forum - View topic

NEWS: New York Lists Media Blasters as Dissolved as of April 2011

Blood- wrote:

In your opinion. In my opinion it was misleading. It lead me to conclude something about Media Blasters that may not be true. Isn't that the very definition of misleading? ...

If a combination of correct information and false assumptions leads to a false conclusion, some people would lay the fault at the feet of the false assumptions rather than at the feet of the correct information.

The New York State Department of State currently lists the North American anime distributor Media Blasters Inc. as an inactive company. According to the state, Media Blasters was dissolved by proclamation as of April 27, 2011.

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Technical Services Bureau Memo 86 (5)C defines dissolution by proclamation as follows: "A domestic (formed in New York State) corporation which has failed to file required franchise tax reports or pay franchise taxes due for two consecutive years may be dissolved by the Secretary of State upon recommendation by the State Tax Commission." The memo also notes that dissolution by proclamation "will result in substantial penalties against the corporation," and that "once the corporation is dissolved, its name may no longer be used legally."

According to New York Business Corporation Law Article 1005 (a) (1), after dissolution of a company, "the corporation shall carry on no business except for the purpose of winding up its affairs." Also according to New York law, the shareholders, directors, and officers of a company that has dissolved are still responsible for any debts owed to the company's creditors if the company does not notify the creditors of the dissolution, or if the company makes a knowingly false representation of the company with intent to deceive, such as if the company appears that it is still in existence after dissolution.

Blood- wrote:

In your opinion. In my opinion it was misleading. It lead me to conclude something about Media Blasters that may not be true. Isn't that the very definition of misleading? ...

If a combination of correct information and false assumptions leads to a false conclusion, some people would lay the fault at the feet of the false assumptions rather than at the feet of the correct information.

@dragonrider_cody - the only thing I would say about what you wrote is that you seem to be inferring that ANN deliberately with-held additional information to be more sensationalistic and get more attention. I don't believe that for a second. To me there are two reasons why the information wasn't there:

1) Despite their research, they were genuinely unaware that relatively simple remedies existed to mitigate/reverse a proclamation of dissolution in the state of New York, or,

2) They were aware of that fact but made an honest error in judgment in not adding that to the story that is not based on maliciousness or a desire to be sensationalistic.

they said they researched the issue with a lawyer, who should be aware of the fact.

tangytangerine wrote:

There's a couple releases that I'd like to pick up on that release schedule, including the Kanokon tv/ova collection. Don't know if it related to the news lately, but the tv series collection price is weird(look at Amazon's prices for it, wtf?). So hopefully I'll be able to pick it up in September at a reasonable price.

Those prices are from third-party sellers, not directly from Amazon. They can set their own prices, but I'm not sure why they are so high. It was originally released for around $30, nowhere near $1000.

It's still on RightStuf: http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/qaJ3Fm69K-=acIoix8/browse/item/90703/4/0/0

Here's the TV+OVA Collection up for preorder: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007I1TGOA/
http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/qaJ3Fm69K-=acIoix8/browse/item/94167/4/0/0

If you wants it, you can always preorder and cancel later without being charged anything if you change your mind.

I think someone is hacking Amazon and messing with seller prices. There's no reason for something to be $1000 like that.

Yeah, the facts do support my opinion. Relevant information is not there, that's obvious. Other people have expressed the same thought. The fact you don't feel that way doesn't change anything, it simply means you personally don't feel that the missing information is relevant.

So the article should've explained the situation to you all better so you wouldn't panic or jump to conclusions.

Anything else or is that it?

Zac wrote:

So the article should've explained the situation to you all better so you wouldn't panic or jump to conclusions. Anything else or is that it?

Is this a subtle hint that I'm not allowed to respond to people like ikc who continue to question my position? If so, I'd appreciate that you indicate that this topic is closed to everybody, not just people who feel the way I do.

ikc - no, I didn't jump to an "unsubstantiated conclusion." I quite forthrightly admit I know and knew very little about corporate dissolutions in general and corporate dissolutions in New York state specifically. I suspect I share that state with a majority of ANN readers. It would not be unusual for anyone reading the article who didn't know much about corporate dissolutions to be lead to the conclusion that I - and other ANN readers - were lead to. Do you contend otherwise? Is it your belief that general knowledge of corporate dissolutions is comprehensive enough that I should have been able to fill in the blanks left by the article? Okay, well then I guess well just have to ATD on that.

ikc - no, I didn't jump to an "unsubstantiated conclusion." I quite forthrightly admit I know and knew very little about corporate dissolutions in general and corporate dissolutions in New York state specifically.

However, there is something intrinsic in my nature that if I have the energy and inclination, I will continue to counter posts that counter mine. I have also tried to introduced new elements to my basic point so that I'm not simply repeating the same thing over and over (even though, yes, my basic position boils down to what you have identified).

With you specifically this is a common thread - whenever there's news like this you frequently (usually while sounding annoyed and/or put off) say that you're expecting us to write up editorial articles explaining what the news means in the bigger picture, or effectively telling you how you should react to something.

I think someone is hacking Amazon and messing with seller prices. There's no reason for something to be $1000 like that.