11–20 of 369 posts
I feel like if someone reads that in a thousand years they're going to look at us the same way we look at some ancient tribe worshipping idols. Years of work and cultural artifacts destroyed for the accounting department, that's nuts.
I am surprised Batgirl didn't leak. How do you even prevent that?
It's just bits.
The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).
Sure, that sounds fine, but the taxpayer ought to not be responsible for footing the bill in any way. The studios do this for the tax writeoff, which is tantamount to robbing the people paying taxes (eg:us) blind.
Suppose I make a painting worth $1000. If I had sold that, I would have been required to pay taxes on that at the marginal rate, say 40% so $400 worth of taxes. Instead of doing that, I set it on fire. Does that mean I just robed taxpayers of $400?
Destroying it should be legal. Writing that off as a loss should be considered fraud, especially when there's an offer for it.
From wikipedia:
>In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.
Where's the deception here?
Destroying it should be legal. Writing that off as a loss should be considered fraud, especially when there's an offer for it.
>Writing that off as a loss should be considered fraud, especially when there's an offer for it. From wikipedia: >In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Where's the deception here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Writing that off as a loss should be considered fraud, especially when there's an offer for it. From wikipedia: >In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Where's the deception here?
It's defrauding the taxpayer
I wonder, is it even possible to truly delete a movie? I am surprised Batgirl didn't leak. How do you even prevent that? It's just bits.
For everyone else, there’s law enforcement supported by unlimited budget for prosecution from the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's defrauding the taxpayer
"fraud" doesn't mean "losing money in a manner I don't like", so I ask again: where's the deception here?
They would rather delete the movie to claim the tax break than sell it to another studio offering more than the tax break.
If you think they actually lost that amount of money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, that sounds fine, but the taxpayer ought to not be responsible for footing the bill in any way. The studios do this for the tax writeoff, which is tantamount to robbing the people paying taxes (eg:us) blind.
It's not "robbing the people paying taxes" because the money was never theirs to begin with. Taxes are paid on profits, and if profits are not made they're not owed. Suppose I make a painting worth $1000. If I had sold that, I would have been required to pay taxes on that at the marginal rate, say 40% so $400 worth of taxes. Instead of doing that, I set it on fire. Does that mean I just robed taxpayers of $400?