41–50 of 369 posts
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.
Keep the working copies on computers in a special lab with no external network access.
Restrict access and physically search the people leaving the lab.
Not fool proof, but it will reduce leaks by a lot.
But yeah, once you send out thousands of review copies, there's no stopping the leaks.
The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).
Considering I'm operating from a very different set of values than she was, I doubt I would find the movie particularly persuasive.
Seems like a less controversial solution would be to allow the same tax write-off if the studio releases the film for free distribution (e.g. via the Internet Archive), either into the public domain, or under a license like Creative Commons Noncommercial if there's concern about implicitly allowing derivative works by competitors or similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That they actually incurred the losses they claim to have incurred, so they get a tax break. The taxpayer is defrauded. Did they not incur such losses? Did they claim to delete the movie but actually kept a backup? Granted, the loss is self-inflicted, but that's not a relevant factor in the tax code.
If I burn down my house and claim insurance or tax losses, they’ll laugh and send me to jail. Explain how a corporation doing the effectively the same thing should get a write off. It’s a sham.
1. claiming insurance on it. AFAIK this isn't applicable in the case of the movie
2. endangering other houses by doing it in a non-approved way
Other than that setting houses that you own on fire isn't illegal.
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 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…
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's not setting the fire which causes taxpayers to lose money, it's writing off the loss against taxes you would have otherwise paid on profits made from other movies.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I burn down my house and claim insurance or tax losses, they’ll laugh and send me to jail. Explain how a corporation doing the effectively the same thing should get a write off. It’s a sham.
In your scenario the illegal parts would be: 1. claiming insurance on it. AFAIK this isn't applicable in the case of the movie 2. endangering other houses by doing it in a non-approved way Other than that setting houses that you own on fire isn't illegal.