Why not allow or maybe even force things like this in favor of destruction for tax write off purposes? I mean I know its probably because the way these specific tax codes are written, but what would the downside be if the law was changed to accommodate allowing works to be in the public domain? The company would still realize zero profits while the public would benefit from the tax write off too.
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
-1 points (0.0% liked)
movies
1746 readers
877 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the titleβs subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fine, circlejerk yourselves to death.
Couldn't you place the copyright for the work in the public domain without doing the same to the trademark on it? If not then what about having the works licensed under creative commons licensing?
I don't buy the dilute the pool agreement. We live in a time of nearly endless media out there for people to consume and blockbusters are still coming put and making money.
That will be their arguments, never said I agreed with it.