4 ms·

So you'd like to incentivise more obfuscation of revenue to boot? I think an effective remedy for this kind of situation can't just be fiscal, we need requirem

by advael 3y ago

So you'd like to incentivise more obfuscation of revenue to boot? I think an effective remedy for this kind of situation can't just be fiscal, we need requirements to publish adequate technical specifications and strong IP carveouts to make it likely to move the needle. Forcing companies to maintain continuous support is a non-starter. We should instead focus on enabling unofficial support from outside the companies, and remove legal threats from those who choose to do so

nine_k 3y ago
Obfuscation of revenue is a really bad idea, all the way to a federal criminal investigation. The idea is that the continuity requirements should not be onerous, given the revenue, say, less than 1% of it, "a good problem to have". Publishing a reasonable spec would be a part of that.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Pretty sure that hasn't stopped Hollywood accounting for the last century, and I see no reason why EA can't pull off the same things that Warner Brothers has been doing.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Hollywood accounting is about hiding profit by making it look like all of the revenue was used for expenses. Hiding all of your revenue outright is a different ballgame and if it were easy to do legally Nintendo wouldn't be paying billions in taxes on it already.
    - manymatter 3y ago
      This is unrelated to the thread. The point was obfuscation of the fact that the profit is from a specific copyrighted work. I.e. selling 600 versions of a game each with a different default skin hides no income from tax authorities.
      - zamadatix 3y ago
        You're referencing profit instead of revenue, which the thread was referring to. Again, you can't hide revenue as easily. Splitting it up 600 ways doesn't solve the problem that game XYZ sold 10 million copies from the 600 subsidiary distributors. Nintendo could hide the profit that way, saying the subsidiaries took 100% of the revenue as costs, but the total revenue can't be hidden. It's either a reported sale or not, there's not really a way to fudge that.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

by advael 3y ago

nine_k 3y ago

Obfuscation of revenue is a really bad idea, all the way to a federal criminal investigation. The idea is that the continuity requirements should not be onerous, given the revenue, say, less than 1% of it, "a good problem to have". Publishing a reasonable spec would be a part of that.

noirbot 3y ago
Pretty sure that hasn't stopped Hollywood accounting for the last century, and I see no reason why EA can't pull off the same things that Warner Brothers has been doing.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Hollywood accounting is about hiding profit by making it look like all of the revenue was used for expenses. Hiding all of your revenue outright is a different ballgame and if it were easy to do legally Nintendo wouldn't be paying billions in taxes on it already.
  - manymatter 3y ago
    This is unrelated to the thread. The point was obfuscation of the fact that the profit is from a specific copyrighted work. I.e. selling 600 versions of a game each with a different default skin hides no income from tax authorities.
    - zamadatix 3y ago
      You're referencing profit instead of revenue, which the thread was referring to. Again, you can't hide revenue as easily. Splitting it up 600 ways doesn't solve the problem that game XYZ sold 10 million copies from the 600 subsidiary distributors. Nintendo could hide the profit that way, saying the subsidiaries took 100% of the revenue as costs, but the total revenue can't be hidden. It's either a reported sale or not, there's not really a way to fudge that.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]