351–360 of 369 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that reasoning, you want to force businesses to do something with their own property that they decide is against their interests?
No, the specific reasoning people are mentioning here over and over again is that we, as a people, should not subsidize businesses lighting their property on fire. If they want to completely toss out the movie then they can. But it's insane to think the government should pay them for doing so because they say it has no value.
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…
“Where do we draw the line” is the most common argument for inaction on a complex dilemma. Society can always choose to draw the line. We always draw the line - criminal code, taxation, copyright. The answer is - you gather a work group legitimized by democratic process and figure it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of a destroyed movie is zero. How is that a lie?
No it’s not. If someone offered $10 million for the movie and they chose to destroy it instead, then destroying the movie had a value > $10 million to them because they chose that over the money. If it were worth zero, then why wouldn’t they take $10 million in exchange for something they believe is worth $0?
Why would a greedy company ever intentionally reduce the value to $0 via destruction instead of selling it for $10M?
10M sale plus a 80M deduction is far better than a $90M deduction.
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…
Spend less than that on a media product, and you can axe it as you like without any release.
Spend more than that, and if you want a tax write off it goes straight to the public domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You raise a valid point that I had not considered when it comes to reputation. I agree that the studio has the right to destroy films. I do think that is unfortunate when they do. I dont think, but I have no data so its pure speculation, that at least the majority of movies that get destroyed would not have much of a influence on the studio's reputation. Perhaps more for actors or directors. On your second point I do…
It isn't a tax credit. It is an offset on profit, same as if the studio spent a bunch of money on preproduction and never got to the principle photography phase or if the studio spent a bunch of money on production but stopped during editing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s not. If someone offered $10 million for the movie and they chose to destroy it instead, then destroying the movie had a value > $10 million to them because they chose that over the money. If it were worth zero, then why wouldn’t they take $10 million in exchange for something they believe is worth $0?
Can you answer your own question? Why would a greedy company ever intentionally reduce the value to $0 via destruction instead of selling it for $10M? 10M sale plus a 80M deduction is far better than a $90M deduction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you answer your own question? Why would a greedy company ever intentionally reduce the value to $0 via destruction instead of selling it for $10M? 10M sale plus a 80M deduction is far better than a $90M deduction.
I already answered that. Because the value of doing so is greater than $10 million. Hence, the value of the movie is NOT $0, even when it is deleted they still retain the exclusive rights and that has value. So to say the value is $0 is a lie. When the movie studio claims “Oh boo hoo our movie is worth $0 we need to write it all off” They are lying and the IRS should call it for the bullshit it is and make them take…
That's how a company can lose more money on a $10 million sale then deleting it. If you have to include more than $10 worth of IP or obligations with the sale is a negative return. Alternatively, selling a movie could cost you more than $10 million in losses on a different movie.
These are all legitimate reasons to destroy instead of sell it. Avoiding costs are fundamentally different than increased Revenue for the purpose of taxes, even if they're monetary value is the same. Cost avoidance is not taxable value creation.
I can save $20 in laundry fees by not shitting in my bed, but I don't pay taxes on the value I saved. This is for two reasons. First, I'm no richer off after not shitting in my bed then I was before. Second, the alternative is I would have to pay taxes on every second of every day I chose not to shit in my bed.
I don't think that any retained rights are being valued at zero, besides the distribution rights to a a movie that doesn't exist.
If they keep the rights to develop a script, for example, that would have some tiny residual value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already answered that. Because the value of doing so is greater than $10 million. Hence, the value of the movie is NOT $0, even when it is deleted they still retain the exclusive rights and that has value. So to say the value is $0 is a lie. When the movie studio claims “Oh boo hoo our movie is worth $0 we need to write it all off” They are lying and the IRS should call it for the bullshit it is and make them take…
I think you fundamentally misunderstand what's being written down to zero. The movie is being written down to zero, not all of these extended rights and IP you're talking about. That's how a company can lose more money on a $10 million sale then deleting it. If you have to include more than $10 worth of IP or obligations with the sale is a negative return. Alternatively, selling a movie could cost you more than $10 m…
You clearly have some kind of philosophical objection to taxes in general and a very confused notion that companies are allowed to just deduct anything they want without any restrictions and that is not how this works in the slightest.
This isn’t complicated. If you make a movie and release it and nobody goes to see, ok you lost money, write it off. If you make a movie and it’s not working out and you sell the rights to someone else to cut your losses, ok you lost money, write it off. If you make a movie and then you’re like “jk lol I just want tax deductionz plz.” No, screw you. You’re just playing games with the tax system instead of making movies, so fuck off.