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

91–100 of 369 posts

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#91

Post by zokier »

fl7305 wrote: post #28
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…

> 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?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#92

Post by zoky »

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…

> The solution to their "attribution" problem was found by directors a long time ago when they didn't want their names on a film: it's directed by "Alan Smithee."

That’s not exactly how that works. A director can’t just decide to take their name off a film because they don’t like it. They have to petition the DGA for permission to do so, which is only granted in the event that the director can show that the producers took creative control away from the director and substantially changed the product from the director’s creative vision as a result. In practice, this rarely happens, as the DGA is extremely reluctant to allow directors to take their names off of movies simply because they weren’t happy with how it turned out.

Also, “Alan Smithee” isn’t actually used as a pseudonym anymore, but that’s beside the point.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#93

Post by advael »

loughnane wrote: post #90
advael wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn't that WB shouldn't be able to scrap projects. The argument is that the tax break for doing this is bad and should not exist

If we're to do that are we going to force every company to release a product they've developed, or otherwise the code/blueprints for it? Aside from the reputation hit I mentioned, the unreleased film might have some neat ideas they want to recycle into another, better project. There's a case to be made that we should eliminate tax breaks for all "R&D" work, but this article doesn't persuade me. It reads like it was w…

Again, eliminating a perverse tax incentive doesn't "force" anyone to do anything. Why is it self-evident that we should subsidize failure at the level of a corporation to prevent balance sheets going negative, especially when we are so against doing the same for an individual to prevent them from becoming homeless?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#94

Post by mdasen »

simonw wrote: post #23

I wonder what would happen if a bunch of extremely bankable talent - the Christopher Nolan, Greta Gerwig, Tom Cruise crowd - quietly got in touch with Warner Bros and made it clear that they would avoid working with any studio that had a track record of cancelling completed projects for a tax write-off.

I'm sure this is happening already. People aren't going to want to bring projects to Warner Bros Discovery given all the crap they're pulling. WBD will be the option of last resort when someone else won't take your project - or the place you need to go when WBD owns the IP behind certain characters like Batman.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#95

Post by gruez »

bhpm wrote: post #89
gruez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>insurance money That's fraud because the insurance policy specifically says it won't pay out if you intentionally set it on fire. If you actually did set it on fire, then claimed that you didn't then that's the deception. >No, you are not entitled to claim it as a write-off. Can you point to the relevant tax law that prevents this?

“ Nondeductible losses. A casualty loss isn’t deductible, even to the extent the loss doesn’t exceed your personal casualty gains, if the damage or destruction is caused by the following. Accidentally breaking articles such as glassware or china under normal conditions. A family pet (explained below). A fire if you willfully set it, or pay someone else to set it. A car accident if your willful negligence or willful a…

The linked document looks like it's for personal taxes, not corporate taxes. Business taxes is different from personal taxes in many ways, including how deductions are handled. For instance if you buy office 365 personally that can't be deducted, but if you bought it as a business it can.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#96

Post by prepend »

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…

> It's the tax write off for destruction that's fucked up

How so? They aren’t selling it. So its value is $0.

If the artist burns the painting, its value is $0. Is it bad because the artist could have sold it and chose not to?

And it’s not fraud, because if the studio ever chooses to sell, they will pay taxes on 100% since they already deducted all expenses.

I’m not really sure what you’re arguing. What’s the alternative? The IRS forcing you sell at a liquidated value so you only deduct 90% instead of 100%?

This seems like a really odd argument.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#97

Post by fred_is_fred »

verisimi wrote: post #43
blincoln wrote: post #14

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.

Why are movies given tax breaks at all, is the question.

I think this specifically is a write off, same as if you made 500,000 widgets and nobody bought them.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#98

Post by prepend »

lekangoo wrote: post #47
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…

We can draw the line right here. We don't need spurious analogies when we have a clear case where a company is abusing the tax system.

How is the tax system abused?

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#99

Post by smarx007 »

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…

At claiming a tax break.

A tax write off is intended to help you when you suffer a loss. In this case, a company does not suffer a loss but inflicts it on itself by destroying its asset without even trying to liqudate it properly.

Re: Deleting and destroying finished movies

#100

Post by prepend »

nerdponx wrote: post #79
lekangoo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can draw the line right here. We don't need spurious analogies when we have a clear case where a company is abusing the tax system.

We don't need to draw any line. Larger corporate entities should get progressively smaller caps on deductions. Hard cutoffs breed adverse incentives.

You think that some costs shouldn’t be tax deductible? So companies should pay taxes not only on profit, but revenue independent of profit?

I don’t think that would have a positive effect as you imagine.

Post reply on HN