Whatare the implications of these tax write-offs in terms of piracy? If a company decides it'll never air a show again, what claim of ownership do they still have to prevent pirates from spreading the show for them?
I'm sure the studios still be considered the copyright owners, but I don't think there's any ethical reason why they could possibly sue you for releasing something thst they cannot ever release themselves for tax purposes. They binned their shows, so why should the law protect their copyright?
So, I've never actually been able to determine what kind of tax deduction[0] or credit would apply to a TV show that loses money. There's rules for how you account for copyrights and patents in tax law, and what kind of business losses you can and can't claim as a deduction or credit.
My uneducated guess is that there is no specific law that requires you to mothball a show that's been counted as a loss, but the streaming services do this anyway as a show of good faith. i.e. if the IRS were to audit you, you'd be able to show "see, it really was a loss, we made zero dollars off it!"
Morally, your argument sounds correct. Removing shows that have already been made because the owners didn't get enough profit breaks the copyright bargain. Congress should consider penalizing the deliberate destruction of American culture in this way. I doubt a judge would unilaterally decide to impose a "writ of outlawry[1] for copyright", though.
[0] Translator's note: "write-off" means deduction
[1] A 'writ of outlawry' is an old legal instrument that allowed courts to withdraw the protection of the law to criminals it could not bring to justice. Murdering them would be legally equivalent to killing a wild (non-endangered) animal. As you might imagine from a legal concept that is effectively The Purge IRL, it is not used anymore.
> [1] A 'writ of outlawry' is an old legal instrument that allowed courts to withdraw the protection of the law to criminals it could not bring to justice. Murdering them would be legally equivalent to killing a wild (non-endangered) animal. As you might imagine from a legal concept that is effectively The Purge IRL, it is not used anymore.
Damn, you had me excited for a second.
So there’s no chance I can get one of these from a small claims or administrative law judge? Like maybe even just a little one?
How do these writs interact with other wildlife laws in California? Do I have to check if the individual is a native Californian (thus considered native wildlife) or will the judge do that for me? Does that mean I can capture them in a safari if I build the double layered fence enclosures and get them certified for exotic animals?
I don't think writs of outlawry ever existed in American law. The Wikipedia article on it lists a bunch of English examples, but even then, they're all fairly old - like the later examples are in the 1800s.
Native species laws would not interact with writs of outlawry. Capturing outlaws and putting them in a safari would be construed as aiding and abetting, which might get you thrown in jail or outlawed yourself.
I suspect if you tried to convince an English court to actually apply a writ of outlawry to someone, they'd write a scathing and condemning response to your request to have someone Purge'd by the small claims court. If you're absolutely itching to see what happens when someone tries to invoke an ancient and unrecognized function of the legal system, then perhaps you might want to watch this video, in which a lawyer reads and explains a legal filing in Iowa that petitions for trial by combat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMT9pyilkwA
They can still make money later and will just pay taxes.
Just because they value it at $0 doesn’t mean it has no potential future value. It just means when they claim they value they won’t have any costs to deduct. So future profit margins are higher.
Well, yes and no. If they reasonably believe they can make future revenue from it, it would be dishonest (and illegal) to value it at $0. I have no doubt that they are playing funny accounting games, but they have to play within the rules set by the IRS.
Dishonest isn’t what’s important. What’s important is legal and generally accepted and allowed accounting principles.
Which I’m pretty sure they are following since they are required to follow these and are audited and checked up on by the SEC and others.
But yeah, everyone is doing as funny accounting as possible. That’s why we have laws and rules to specify what’s allowed. And it would be truly insane to talk about this on investor calls and whatnot if it was illegal.
It's only an asset if viewers can see it. If they never show it, and never put it on media, it's not an asset and has zero value for tax purposes. So poof Westworld disappears and is no longer an asset.
It’s an asset with zero value. They still own it and retain all rights, they just think it’s worth $0.
This is very important for tax purposes as if they ever sell it then they will pay taxes on the full amount sold. If they had a value on books then they would pay the difference of the sales price vs the value on books.
I'm sure the studios still be considered the copyright owners, but I don't think there's any ethical reason why they could possibly sue you for releasing something thst they cannot ever release themselves for tax purposes. They binned their shows, so why should the law protect their copyright?