|
|
|
|
|
|
by rayiner
2600 days ago
|
|
|
Local governments give tax breaks to entice movies to be filmed in certain places instead of in other places. Presumably they get their money's worth in terms of local economic activity and tourism. That doesn't give them any claim to the resulting movies. (Governments also use tax breaks to entice major employers like Amazon to locate in one jurisdiction versus the other. Nobody would equate those tax breaks with the government somehow helping Amazon run its service.) |
|
|
No, they don't. The fact that Vancouver is Hollywood North is industry inside baseball. The public doesn't know or care that the work is all outsourced (which is in fact how Hollywood wants it). The subsidies exist to bring jobs to the region--especially to keep artists employed, which is seen as socially desirable.
> Nobody would equate those tax breaks with the government somehow helping Amazon run its service.
But they do. That's why the entire controversy in NYC existed regarding the tax breaks for "Amazon HQ2", for instance. People were not happy with the government effectively subsidizing such a rich company.
I don't necessarily endorse the grandparent post's proposal--it seems extreme--though I do believe copyright terms are presently too long. However, I do think that the fact that the public subsidizes the entertainment industry is a valid argument in favor of concessions of some kind, for the simple reason that the public deserves its money's worth.