3 ms·

I don't really care about bad work being released; there are plenty of awful works that were released to the public domain. In this scenario, companies are per

I don't really care about bad work being released; there are plenty of awful works that were released to the public domain. In this scenario, companies are permanently shelving work that has value. Infinity Train for example was made a tax write-off, which means the creator can never continue it and people can never watch it. The negatives of some bad work being released is not outweighed by the amount of good work that has been destroyed by the current system. If you want to argue about artistic control, then you need to come up with a solution to the above. The status quo is unacceptable, so let's see what you got.

crazygringo 3y ago
> The status quo is unacceptable, so let's see what you got. Please don't be snarky or have attitude like that. Anyways, if you'd like to know, the specific Infinity Train example (as well as Westworld etc.) have to do with a very specific write-off opportunity that occurs in a limited time frame when a corporate merger occurs -- in this case, HBO with Discovery. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but if you want to fix something, I'd suggest looking at this particular merger tax write-off loophole (?). It would seem to be a result/problem of that very specific accounting move in merger situations only. It's not a problem with write-offs in general.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  I proposed a solution and your best argument was 'what if it was bad'. Your argument had no substance to it. You're arguing about artistic control when the artists are literally not the one in control, it's the businesses making a decision to take away art from them. And the Infinity Train example has nothing to do with a specific loophole, it is how tax write-offs work. It was done because the merger saddled Warner Bros with debt which it sought to rectify by reducing its tax burden as much as possible through devaluation of assets. The only 'loophole' is that companies have to pay taxes on assets gained during a merger. So to avoid this companies write off their assets to say their value is $0, reducing their total tax burden. But the core problem is still the fact that they can say that their asset is worth $0 and shelve it forever.

crazygringo 3y ago

> The status quo is unacceptable, so let's see what you got. Please don't be snarky or have attitude like that. Anyways, if you'd like to know, the specific Infinity Train example (as well as Westworld etc.) have to do with a very specific write-off opportunity that occurs in a limited time frame when a corporate merger occurs -- in this case, HBO with Discovery. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but if you want to fix something, I'd suggest looking at this particular merger tax write-off loophole (?). It would seem to be a result/problem of that very specific accounting move in merger situations only. It's not a problem with write-offs in general.

fzeroracer 3y ago
I proposed a solution and your best argument was 'what if it was bad'. Your argument had no substance to it. You're arguing about artistic control when the artists are literally not the one in control, it's the businesses making a decision to take away art from them. And the Infinity Train example has nothing to do with a specific loophole, it is how tax write-offs work. It was done because the merger saddled Warner Bros with debt which it sought to rectify by reducing its tax burden as much as possible through devaluation of assets. The only 'loophole' is that companies have to pay taxes on assets gained during a merger. So to avoid this companies write off their assets to say their value is $0, reducing their total tax burden. But the core problem is still the fact that they can say that their asset is worth $0 and shelve it forever.