Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck

Visual Effects Artists Use MPAA's Own Words Against It 131 131

beltsbear sends a story about the struggles of visual effects artists against the Motion Picture Association of America. The VFX industry in the U.S. has been slowly dying because movie studios increasingly outsource the work to save money. The visual effects industry protested and fought where they could, but had little success — until the MPAA filed a seemingly innocuous legal document to the International Trade Commission two weeks ago. In it, the MPAA argues that international trade of intellectual property is just like international trade of manufactured goods, and should be afforded the same protections. This would naturally apply to visual effects work, as well. Thus: "[E]mboldened by the MPAA’s filing, the visual effects workers are now in a position to use the big studios’ own arguments to compel the government to slap trade tariffs on those studios’ own productions in high-subsidy countries. Those arguments will be especially powerful because the MPAA made them to the very same governmental agencies that will process the visual-effects workers’ case. Additionally, the workers can now take matters into their own hands. ... If visual effects workers can show the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission that an import is benefiting from foreign subsidies and therefore illegally undercutting a domestic industry, the federal government is obligated to automatically slap a punitive tax on that import. Such a tax would in practice erase the extra profit margins the studios are gleaning from the foreign subsidies, thereby leveling the competitive playing field for American workers and eliminating the purely economic incentive for the studios to engage in mass offshoring."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Visual Effects Artists Use MPAA's Own Words Against It

Comments Filter:
  • by adamchou (993073) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:19PM (#46350587)
    That's what you get MPAA
    • by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:36PM (#46350787) Homepage Journal

      That's what you get MPAA

      All it means is that they'll increase their lawsuit damage claims by the adjusted amount. After all, the member companies have never made a profit on a movie.

      • by Bite The Pillow (3087109) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:27PM (#46353343)

        And that means what to whom? You and the shill-slash-idiot and the 3 others who moderated you up is the "whom", I guess.

        The results of a successful prosecution have fuck-all to do with what is asked for in most cases that I have read. I have not read all of them, but I have read what appears to be the larger awards. And they don't take the dollar amount requested into consideration. The amount awarded is calculated as the result of the evidence presented at the trial, and is deliberated upon by the jury and judge (the judge can adjust the amount if needed). And the appeals court can adjust up or down based on the findings of law.

        If you see some correlation between the requested amount and awarded amount in intellectual property suits, for fuck's sake let us know what you have found. Because I'm not seeing it. And you sound like a disillusioned cynical idiot who thinks that the way they understand the world to work is how it actually works. And it's not.

        Lawsuit math is hard, and generally can't be predicted by anyone who hasn't been in the courtroom for anything but the entire suit. And even then, the jury has to argue for a bit to come to a conclusion, so it's not entirely predictable other than within a very wide range.

        Data, please. Support your comment, unless you are just another cynic hiding behind ignorance.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @02:32AM (#46354835)

        All it means is that they'll increase their lawsuit damage claims by the adjusted amount.

        If your "insightful" argument is correct there would have been no economic incentive to outsource in the first place.

        Any argument that effectively reduces to "they will simply raise prices" doesn't understand pricing. If a company could charge higher prices they would already be doing so. There's no reason to find a "need".

        • by Sique (173459) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @04:17AM (#46355143) Homepage
          "They will raise prices" is a fair argument if something affects all competitors in a given market. The prices at your local gas station will rise if the price for crude oil rises. It will also work if we are talking of an oligopoly whose prices are heavily influenced by public opinion or influence.
    • Re:Karma is a bitch! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:41PM (#46350859)

      No, I'm pretty sure karma would be the MPAA being sued into oblivion by the RIAA over distributing a movie from the 1930s that happened to have a short music clip they failed to license properly. This meanwhile is a bit of pointless protest that will, at least on the record, show just how obviously corrupt the system is that favors MPAA because of its lobbyists and will show no sign of respecting the VFX artists.

  • by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:19PM (#46350591)

    The VFX shops don't own the IP of the shit they work on any more than American factories own the brand/design/etc. to whatever they build.
    Work will be farmed out as usual, and only those with $BIGBUCKS$ will control the flow of work.

    • by beltsbear (2489652) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:25PM (#46350655)

      Read the submission. It is long and the meat is at the end.

      The Obama administration refused to use laws related to subsidized imports to stop off-shoring. Now the visual artists have some real legal ground to stand on to compel the administration to stop or tariff subsidized overseas work.

      • by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:01PM (#46351097)

        Read the submission. It is long and the meat is at the end.

        The Obama administration refused to use laws related to subsidized imports to stop off-shoring. Now the visual artists have some real legal ground to stand on to compel the administration to stop or tariff subsidized overseas work.

        Read my post. It is short and the meat of it is in your face.
        Those with the cash will control the flow of cash. Taxes, tariffs, laws, etc. mean nothing. If some agency or politician tries to do something about it, they're simply outspent by those with the cash.
        For reference, see all the jobs the US has bled away to 3rd world nations over the past century, and where all the profits went.

      • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:40PM (#46351553)

        The Obama admin is a wholly owned subsidiary of the MPAA. What makes you think they'd ever do anything against their wishes?

      • by icebike (68054) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:55PM (#46352443)

        Read the submission. It is long and the meat is at the end.

        The Obama administration refused to use laws related to subsidized imports to stop off-shoring. Now the visual artists have some real legal ground to stand on to compel the administration to stop or tariff subsidized overseas work.

        Look, a casual filing with the FTC on a low-level unrelated matter does not change the law.
        It doesn't constitute "Legal Ground".

        Its just a letter of opinion on a specific issue.
        Nothing compels the MPAA to hold a consistent opinion in other (tangentially related) matters.

        The letter under discussion involved importation of movies/music for sale to the public.
        That's a far cry from Work for hire, which is what Visual Effects work is.

        Mountain, Mole Hill.
        Straws grasped at.
        Its not the same thing.

        And, no, I'm not an MPAA shill, hate the bastards as much as the next guy.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @05:41AM (#46355447)

        So thats Gravity, Harry Potter, Star Wars, James Bond, and many other films which are filmed or worked on in the UK blocked due to subsidies as they get UK tax breaks if they do enough work in the UK.
        All the Lord of the Rings - they got tax breaks in New Zealand - so they'd be blocked.

        This is the Hollywood VFX people realising that they've not developed and innovated to new techniques and technologies and other countries VFX capabilities far outweigh the Hollywood efforts. But then thats always been the case - even back in the 70's the original Star Wars special effects were done in the UK.

        Very few "Hollywood" movies are actually done in Hollywood anymore. Live action is done i

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:27PM (#46350675)

      Huh? What does IP ownership have to do with it? The idea is to put a tariff on the outsourced work so it's more expensive, thus eliminating the financial benefit for the MPAA..

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:47PM (#46350947)
        If I was a company that was offshoring VFX to save money and the damn government slapped tariffs on it to equalize the price with workers in the US, you can bet your ass I would .... still offshore just to spite the pricks who presume to deserve to be paid more than they're worth, and who think artificially inflating prices is a good idea, ever.
      • by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:08PM (#46351189)

        Huh? What does IP ownership have to do with it? The idea is to put a tariff on the outsourced work so it's more expensive, thus eliminating the financial benefit for the MPAA..

        The point is they have no power.
        The movie studios own the golden goose (the IP). If US VFX shops cry foul, so what? If tariffs are put in place, so what? The price of a movie ticket will simply go up to ensure movie studios get the same profits until such a time that the movie studios draft their own legislation and buy enough of their own congress critters to get the situation back under their control. The same thing has played out in every industry we've shipped over seas. Those in control kill off American jobs because American labor is too expensive. Regulations, taxes, tariffs, whatever don't do anything to stop it because once they actually become effective, the industry bribes politicians to get shit dialed back a few notches.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:38PM (#46350815)

      They aren't arguing that they own the IP. They are arguing that if IP has the same protections as real products then there should be a tariff because the out-sourcer is being subsidized by their home country to make the work cheaper for international customers then domestic. I don't know the validity of that argument so don't flame interpreter.

      • by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:12PM (#46351241)

        They aren't arguing that they own the IP. They are arguing that if IP has the same protections as real products then there should be a tariff because the out-sourcer is being subsidized by their home country to make the work cheaper for international customers then domestic. I don't know the validity of that argument so don't flame interpreter.

        The point is that they can cry all they want, they are completely dependent on the movie studios for their continued existence.
        The movie studios would rather deal with paying tariffs (and fighting and bribing to get them reduced or removed) than they would deal with American VFX shops.
        American VFX shops have zero leverage, just as manufacturing jobs for all American industries had zero leverage.

    • by Eric Bacus (2942717) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:31PM (#46351453)
      I fail to see how the ownership of the intellectual property in question would have any impact related to the taxation of imported goods. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it as cut and dry as "if the IP was produced outside of America, it gets taxed punitively"?
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:21PM (#46352039) Journal

      The VFX shops don't own the IP of the shit they work on any more than American factories own the brand/design/etc. to whatever they build. Work will be farmed out as usual, and only those with $BIGBUCKS$ will control the flow of work.

      The issue on the table is the current (surprisingly large, for something with no obvious benefit to the host nation) pools of 'incentives', tax-breaks, and subsidies that you can score by handling parts of your movie in various countries that are suckers like that(and even by the standards of cynics, it's a trifle surprising [bloombergview.com] how much you can wring out of an allegedly competent nation state...)

      If the argument being made here holds, those subsidies suddenly stop hiding in magic-cultural-product-land, and start facing the same anti-dumping rules that apply to boring stuff like steel and cars(and the rules, they are numerous and taken very, very seriously).

      Doesn't mean that the VFX peons won't still be recruited from the cheapest and most desperate outfits the global economy has to offer; but they won't get all that and a tax break from whatever place they end up sourcing them.

  • by Max Threshold (540114) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:20PM (#46350609)
    Visually stunning film at 11.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:23PM (#46350633)
    Grab each and every single rat bastard associated in any way with the MPAA, line 'em up against a wall, and keep shooting until they get the message.
  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:30PM (#46350721)

    TIme for IT to do the same if only we had a union!

    • by dysmal (3361085) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:41PM (#46350863)
      If we had a Union, we'd have to learn a thing or two about being fat and sitting around during down time! (sarcasm)
    • TIme for IT to do the same if only we had a union!

      Please, no union.

      I'm perfectly able to negotiate my own bill rates and job conditions. It isn't that hard, you just have to have a little backbone and learn some people skills.

      • by godrik (1287354) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:17PM (#46351295)

        Well, it is not a union that is necessary in the field I believe. It is statistics. Detailled statistics of what gets paid here or there and for different kinds of seniority or field of application could definitely boost workers leverage during negociations.

        A union will do that statistics for you, but with lots of other things that might or might not be good.

        • Well, it is not a union that is necessary in the field I believe. It is statistics. Detailled statistics of what gets paid here or there and for different kinds of seniority or field of application could definitely boost workers leverage during negociations.

          Again, a little research on the individuals part will let you know what's being paid what in different parts of the country.

          There are several places on the web now that gather and distribute this info, and if you're doing federal contracting, there's the GSA info that is pretty public.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:55PM (#46351709)

        Perhaps a guild, then.

        Engineers (and actors, oddly enough) typically join a guild, not a union. Unions are for unskilled laborers. Guilds are for skilled workers. The main difference is in how bargaining works.

        For unions, bargaining agreements cover everyone and provide a fixed scale based on "time served" (for lack of a better term), not on actual skill or even experience. And at a certain point, you max out and could potentially do better without the union.

        Guilds bargain for minimums and scales, but then allow individuals to build their own pay grade from there. As an apprentice, you get base pay. You can try to negotiate more, but it's unlikely. As a journeyman, you'll easily get base-plus-scale for your experience and skillset. As a master, it's up to you to demand compensation beyond that level. If you're worth it and they need it (whatever "it" is), they'll pay. Put your people skills to work and make more money. Or sit back, relax, and rake in high-experience, high-skill "scale" (which puts to shame just about anything a labor union ever bargained for).

  • Dream on! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:38PM (#46350821)

    If visual effects workers can show the Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission....

    No, they won't be able to because the MPAA with all their money will put a kibosh on anything the workers want. They may even pull the bullshit that tech companies pull and say that they can't get qualified Americans or some such lie.

    The little people have no chance in America. The middle class is disappearing. Upward mobility has disappeared and we're in a downward spiral to the bottom while the spoils go to the very top.

    We're no longer told the lie that if we work hard enough, we can get to the top too. Now we're told that we should be grateful that we're not in India. Well, we're on our way to have lifestyles like theirs.

  • Fools!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IonOtter (629215) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:46PM (#46350933) Homepage

    The law does not apply to the lowly masses, except when it is useful to suppress them or steal from them!

    This is not TV Tropes [tvtropes.org], and you cannot turn the law against the ones who created it! [tvtropes.org]

  • by Stonefish (210962) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:47PM (#46350949)

    This is pure protectionism, effectively there are people elsewhere who will do the work cheaper of better. The way to compete against this is to lower your overheads rather than trying to get the government to be your friend.
    The problem is that people are too busy trying to create companies which create millionares rather than actually do work. Accept that fact that a VFX company doesn't really have much net worth beyond the capabilities of its employees and adjust margins accordingly.

    • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:16PM (#46351269)

      The problem is that people are too busy trying to create companies which create millionares rather than actually do work

      Where are you seeing the millionaire VFX artists?

      While I have no doubt that the very top of ILM et al are living a reasonably cozy life, the bottom ranks - be that the modelers, riggers or rotoscopers - are almost all jobhopping between studios not because they enjoy it, but because the studios themselves can ill-afford to pay them. And they can't ill-afford them because they're too expensive, but because the studios themselves see very little in return for what is done.

      I encourage you to check out the very recently (today) released short documentary Life After Pi [youtube.com]. It's more of an industry look at the problems being faced, but is based on the story of the VFX studio behind the effects work in Life of Pi - the movie that so far has a gross of $609M on a $120M budget (boxofficemojo numbers) and won the Academy Award for visual effects - Rhythm and Hues, and their ultimate demise.

      It is one of several documentaries being made on this subject - along with several protest actions calling attention to the issue (if you've ever seen people's profile pictures be a blank green square, odds are they're in VFX).

      Note that I don't disagree with you - in the end VFX jobs can be outsourced, so they will be outsourced. But that is just shifting the problem of extremely skewed compensation between various elements behind a movie from one geographical location to another.

      Payment as ratio to box office performance is something that the industry direly needs - and despite popular opinions that artists should just get paid once for their work created and not charge royalties, I think the other popular opinion that Hollywood Accounting is screwing everybody but the big wigs (the heads of production studios, distributors - the actual millionaires) over could bring some reasonable debate to the floor.

      • by mattyj (18900) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @04:39AM (#46355227)

        There is no longer a 'very top' of ILM. The place was decimated last year.

        Another related part of the problem is one the VFX industry created on its own. Throughout the late 90's and early 2000's, new studios were popping up all over the place and got into an arms race by undercutting each other to get the work, thinking that maybe on the next show they'll charge the movie studios more based on the awesome work they were doing. Instead, they trained the movie studios to expect low-cost, high-quality effects work, and everyone is now losing out. The VFX industry has not been profitable for ages.

        When the US VFX houses got to the point where they couldn't cut any more without going out of business (or they did go out of business), cheaper labor abroad started to get hired. Talent is everywhere and the movie studios just want cheap labor. Labor has always been cheap overseas but the US VFX industry now finds itself in a place where it has to compete globally, and they're hurting for it.

        And anyway, all the big movie studios have overseas subsidiaries that they'll just funnel the money through. I think the US VFX workers have their heart in the right place, but they'll still end up getting squashed.

    • by Quila (201335) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:20PM (#46351339)

      This is pure protectionism, effectively there are people elsewhere who will do the work cheaper of better. The way to compete against this is to lower your overheads rather than trying to get the government to be your friend.

      The American VFX artists are getting the government involved because the foreign VFX artists are being subsidized by their governments up to 60%. RTFA

      • by mattyj (18900) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @04:44AM (#46355247)

        The over head for most US VFX shops is already razor thin, it is not a profitable industry as it is.

        Most of the overseas, subsidized countries are emerging economies that are trying to kickstart their tech industries. It makes sense for them to subsidize as their economies grow. To subsidize in the US, it means that we taxpayers will be the ones subsidizing, and I find it hard to believe the general population of the US is going to have any sympathy for the lowly VFX artists and go along with subsidizing their industry. We barely supported the car industry when it collapsed, and that is arguably a more American rah-rah-rah industry than VFX.

        I don't like it or agree with it, but that's the reality in the US.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:48PM (#46351627)

      You are assuming that is realistic for workers in one country to compete with those in another country with very different economic conditions.

      Also, even assuming equal cost of living in the US vs whichever country we wish to outsource to, "lower your overhead" is no solution if the government in that country is subsidizing their local businesses. Even if you argued that the US should provide similar subsidies, the layout of cities and suburban areas coupled with the price inflation of property in many large cities would still cripple our ability to price these services competitively.

      The US's duty to our citizens should really be primary over our duty to industry, so, while you throw around "protectionism" as a dirty word, a certain incentive to keep a minimum amount of work within the country is undeniably necessary.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:07PM (#46351823)

      This is pure protectionism, effectively there are people elsewhere who will do the work cheaper of better.

      Wow. Talk about knee jerk. Even the summary says this is about foreign subsidies, not people who will work for less.

      The way to compete against this is to lower your overheads rather than trying to get the government to be your friend.

      And how do you compete with someone who's getting a government subsidy?

      The problem is that people are too busy trying to create companies which create millionares rather than actually do work.

      You lost me there.

      Accept that fact that a VFX company doesn't really have much net worth beyond the capabilities of its employees and adjust margins accordingly.

      What does this have to do with anything?

    • by AK Marc (707885) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:17PM (#46351953)
      It's not about others working for less, but others working for more. If Peter Jackson gets paid by the NZ governemnt to have Weta do the sfx for LoTR, then the US should tax the imported product to even the playing field. Same with Ewe Boll in Germany (though it looks like cg is beyond his ketchup budget). It's about foreign government paying people to move jobs out of the US. The US should object to that, and tax accordingly.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:47PM (#46350955)

    ... but ... that's different. So there!

  • by kamapuaa (555446) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:52PM (#46350991) Homepage

    Wow, an online-only newspaper caught an instance of the MPAA being somewhat hypocritical, I'm sure that'll change everything! Hoo-wah, I'm going out to buy me some stocks in the company that makes Green Screens!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @05:56PM (#46351041)

    Not going to happen. It'll be ignored or overruled. But by all means, if that makes you happy, go with it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:02PM (#46351113)
    Ha ha ha ha! Please stop! I'm dying over here!

    Enough money in the right pockets and the government will find a way to 'overlook' the violations they don't want to bother with.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:08PM (#46351197)

    If trade in intelectual property is the same as trade in manufactured goods, then it must be effected by the same supply and demand relationships. This would mean that as the intelectual property is infinately reproducable at an infinitesimal cost, leading to a near infinite supply, then, as demand is finite, its value must approach zero.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:17PM (#46351297)

    In a grand sense we as the voters have to be the perpetuation of karma and bring about the best justice we understand.

  • by slapout (93640) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:20PM (#46351343)

    So that explains the SyFy channel movies of the week

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @06:56PM (#46351727)

    I don't get it, am I supposed to be enraged, or applaud their effort to protect the American VFX community? I'm so lost, are we raging against the MPAA, or against them foreigners undercutting us? OR both? Please, help, lemmings can't think for ourselves!

  • by jennatalia (2684459) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:02PM (#46351773)
    Am I right?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:04PM (#46351795)

    On the topic of VFX dying - there's a lot of borrowing of a lot of loaded phrases going around. Case in point:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcB9u-9mVE

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:19PM (#46351999)

    this is a bunch of useless text to bypass the lameness filter. all i have to say is in the subject line.

  • by Xeno man (1614779) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:35PM (#46352227)
    The MPAA doesn't care about right or wrong or looking stupid. They will stand in front of the exact same judge and argue the exact opposite of what they argued last time and do it with a straight face. There are no beliefs or moral guidance. No mission statement describing good things they want to do. The bottom line is making more money. They will campaign for laws that hurt competition or reduce their own taxes. They will destroy lives and anything that stands in their way to make more money.
  • by YesIAmAScript (886271) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:59PM (#46352485)

    The VFX workers may eventually have to come to grips with the idea that if you can't do it better you can't charge more for it. And thus they will probably have to cut their rates to compete.

    This is basically the end game of the guild system Hollywood uses. You can keep people from undercutting you within the country by requiring guild membership and declaring union shops (or productions), but then the production just moves overseas. How many films are produced overseas nowadays to mitigate labor costs?

  • by Dereck1701 (1922824) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:09PM (#46352589)

    These **AA agencies truly have no shame, hopefully this little "oversight" lands a boot so far up the MPAA's rear that they'll think twice about their brazen and often completely false/misleading statements for decades to come. Sadly I'm not betting on it, they'll probably use some circular reasoning to "justify" why they can take advantage of off-shoring but others shouldn't, but one can always hope. At a bare minimum they've given the actual artists ammunition to use against them.

  • by Baby Duck (176251) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:09PM (#46352593) Homepage
    If the MPAA loses here, they'll just appeal to the WTO to override US law. If the US doesn't comply, the WTO will slap even bigger penalties at the US.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:26PM (#46352791)

    And all the other animated shows from Korea.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:06PM (#46353189)

    yes fuck off beta

  • by Kvasio (127200) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @09:38PM (#46353469)

    Such a tax would in practice erase the extra profit margins the studios are gleaning from the foreign subsidies, thereby leveling the competitive playing field for American workers and eliminating the purely economic incentive for the studios to engage in mass offshoring

    or ... to move entire companies abroad. Given that more and more movie content is CGI, it would be cheaper to fly movie stars to the set somewhere in Asia.

  • by microcars (708223) on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @10:15PM (#46353699) Homepage

    There is a good possibility that all this is a moot point in the end thanks to "hollywood accounting".

    take a look at the end credits of any movie. They are ALWAYS initially "owned" by a shell corporation, usually using the name of the movie + LLC or something.
    There is a reason for this.
    Once the movie is made it is promptly sold for a loss (or very small profit) to the "parent" company or any number of other companies in between before it gets to the top. It could also be sold (on paper) for a massive amount of money so that the "costs" are never actually recouped.
    I can't really say with any authority because that is an area kept secret from the likes of me.
    The point of this is obfuscation of actual ownership, costs, and rights for tax advantages at the very least.

  • by CimmerianX (2478270) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:46AM (#46356357)
    I wonder if we could get I.T. work designated as a manufacturing product also. Have Government slap a tax on outsourced IT work.... I'd like that alot.
  • Engineering jobs are offshored (and subsidized) much more extensively than visual effects artists. The number of engineers in the world dwarfs the number of visual effects artists by at least 1000x to 1. Offshore STEM work is subsidized by foreign governments. I wonder if this can lead to tariffs on works thus derived overseas. iPad tariff, anyone?

  • I mean, why can't *we* use the same arguments in the US, that use of the H1-B visa is, in effect, dumping cheap labor on us, and demand more taxes on all employers who use them...?

                          mark

  • by RockDoctor (15477) on Friday February 28, 2014 @10:42AM (#46367241) Journal
    The first part of TFS starts talking about "outsourcing", which is the use (by a company) of a second company to provide part of it's product. For example, a design studio may outsource the scrubbing of shit cans and the serving of food in the canteen to a third party. After all, does a design studio really need to know how to burn food, or what sort of arse wipe is cheapest? You might not like outsourcing, but there's nothing new or strange about it.

    Then at the end of TFS, they've slipped to discussing a completely different thing : offshoring.

    Why are they conflating two different things? Sloppy thinking? Or is it just common racism, not wanting to have those smelly foreigners here with their strange foods, different ideas and wrongly coloured skins.

    Are the authors "Native American" "First Nation" people? Or some sort of second-rate immigrant?

    I can't say that I'm terribly happy to be doing my job on one continent, with people looking over my shoulders from three different continents. If you ask me, they should be sitting out here and putting their own lives at risk. But I don't particularly care which other continents they're on. Just that they're on a different continent from the one that I'm working on this week, while criticising my action choices.

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Working...