Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deleting and destroying finished movies

rogerebert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 369 posts

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#181

Post by Exoristos »

zokier wrote: post #91
fl7305 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is the artist to be prohibited from destroying the painting Perhaps not prohibited. But we could make it so they lose all IP rights. Copyright is intended to promote the creation and distribution of new works. It is not a natural human right, like ownership of your physical things.

In what sense is ownership of physical things natural human right?

To take it to the primitive level, the thing in your grasp is in your grasp and not in else's. "Intellectual" property is really not like that at all altho we spend tremendously on legal artifice and violent enforcement to make it so.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#182

Post by singron »

AlbertCory wrote: post #122
sokoloff wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they irretrievably destroy it, its value becomes zero. That's the essence of being able to claim the tax loss (to "finally determine the value"). It's no different from having a stock position in a company that's in limbo. You can't claim the tax loss and keep the position. You have to get the clearinghouse to take the position for $0 in order to claim the loss. The studio's position is that they've already incurr…

In the IRS's eyes, you destroyed an item that had value. Its value was whatever someone was willing to pay for it. Say $30M. If you destroyed it, that was your choice, but you didn't thereby incur a loss of $30M. Any more than if you had dynamited your HQ building.

The value prior to disposal is irrelevant. The IRS cares about the basis (cost to produce) and that it was disposed at $0.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#183

Post by dahart »

isthatafact wrote: post #61
gruez wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It feels like tax fraud. Given that it is apparently not possible to prove that they deleted the movie, it seems like the IRS should assume that they still have the movie. I bought a stock share for $1000. I wanted to sell it for $2000, but no one was willing to pay more than $400, so I decided to tell the IRS that it was worth zero and take the full tax write off (which was tax fraud). On top of that, refusing to re…

> Given that it is apparently not possible to prove that they deleted the movie

Why does it matter if they delete it or not? As long as they don’t sell it, they don’t make a profit on it, and don’t pay taxes on the profits. If they didn’t delete it and then actually sold it after enjoying their tax break, then they’d be committing actual tax fraud.

> refusing to release or sell the movie should have triggered a shareholder lawsuit

And yet it didn’t. So maybe shareholders are fine with it? Why should shareholders sue when a company doesn’t release a product? This literally happens all the time.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#184

Post by latortuga »

peterleiser wrote: post #105
lisper wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destroying a movie to claim the tax break is analogous to burning your house down for the insurance money or to claim a casualty loss. Yes, you really did lose your house. No, you are not entitled to claim it as a write-off.

Businesses are allowed to destroy inventory and then write that off. In this case I guess the movie is the inventory.

Did we read the same article? That's literally the authors point. Arguing that it is defensible because it is legal is wrong.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#185

Post by bongodongobob »

philsnow wrote: post #81

Criminal fraud issues aside, I would think that all of the artists had a reasonable expectation that the work they were doing would be released, and would then become part of their resume. Since it didn't get released, they collectively and/or individually might very well bring a civil suit against the company for lost compensation (where compensation is defined as some combination of cash and reputational gains, and…

I worked for a month on a server migration project that ended up getting axed.

I have 0 expectation of any sort of retribution because I don't get to put the migration on my resume.

That's an insane expectation.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#186

Post by dylan604 »

pradn wrote: post #165
AlbertCory wrote: post #22

Where do you draw the line? If an artist pays a model and paints her, is the artist to be prohibited from destroying the painting because it sucks, and because the model wants credit? What about a music producer who pays a studio band to record a song that turns out to be terrible -- is the producer prohibited from deleting it? It's the tax write off for destruction that's fucked up, as @cnees says. Failures are part…

Why does someone have to demarcate exactly where "the line" is to make a judgement on this situation? You can simply ask yourself "do I want to live in a world where this happens" - and any decent person would say "no". The presence of a "slippery slope" is not enough to prevent going down a path, even somewhat. A film takes hundreds of people to create - how does it feel for them to just have years of their lives fa…

> A film takes hundreds of people to create - how does it feel for them to just have years of their lives fall into the void?

Very few of those hundreds of people care about the project. Maybe the producer and/or director cares, and maybe the writer. There's a funny shirt that crew members wear with the phrase "I'm just crew. I don't have to know what it's about" that sums up exactly how much they care. Even the actors don't care, and a lot will admit they never even see the finished project.

Essentially, the majority of people are just hired hands.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#187

Post by LoganDark »

interroboink wrote: post #175
LoganDark wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those things being disliked doesn't mean a law shouldn't be made about them. They are much worse than merely being disliked, which is why there are laws.

I feel like that just moves the goalposts. Instead of deciding what should be law or not, now we are deciding what constitutes "mere dislike" vs "something worse." It's ultimately the same issue, no?

I once fell and hit my head, sliced it right open. It was traumatic. Not any of the aftermath like having to go to the hospital or so on. Just my head being hit. I could have died. I could have died. It took me days to process this. There was something in my head for days preventing me from thinking properly, from feeling emotions properly. There was no concussion, no actual cranial damage. It was all psychological trauma.

Imagine if it wasn't an isolated event but if you knew there's someone out to get you, and who continues to be a risk to your well-being. Say, domestic abuse. SA. Something like that.

Try saying there's nowhere to draw the line between that and "mere dislike".

No one should have to suffer that. That's why there are laws against things like rape and murder.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#188

Post by Dylan16807 »

Terr_ wrote: post #72
fl7305 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is the artist to be prohibited from destroying the painting Perhaps not prohibited. But we could make it so they lose all IP rights. Copyright is intended to promote the creation and distribution of new works. It is not a natural human right, like ownership of your physical things.

> Perhaps not prohibited. But we could make it so they lose all IP rights. I'm not sure how that would work. Suppose I make two draft comics of my original character ExampleMan. One features a dark brooding morally ambiguous anti-hero, and the other is a wholesome family character. Are you saying if I destroy one draft and publish the other, the character comes partially or wholly into the public domain? Or that I am…

Do those 10 engines have ten different patents? Then definitely take away 9 of those patents if they won't use them or FRAND license them.

If all the prototypes were for the same patent, there's no issue.

For the draft comics, I think you could pretty well argue those are part of the same work. And I'd be okay excluding projects under a certain size from the rule.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#190

Post by Dylan16807 »

prepend wrote: post #152
theshrike79 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How so? They aren’t selling it. So its value is $0. If its value is $0, I should be able to buy it for that price.

That’s not how private property works. The owner doesn’t have to sell to you. Have you ever had a car totaled? Just because the insurance company salvages your vehicle doesn’t mean you get to buy it for that value.

The company's officers are obligated to be fiscally responsible. If they won't accept half a million dollars for something with negligible value, they're not being responsible.
Post reply on HN