The contrary argument, that a creator has the right to destroy their creation, is made in the Gary Cooper movie "The Fountainhead" (1949).
> The offer to sell the film was, to put it mildly, not undertaken in good faith. It appears that the company would rather take less money by writing off the movie than sell it for even a few dollars more than that, because they might risk having a rival turn it into a success, which would further embarrass them for never even having tried to market it themselves
If it was really bottom line thinking, they'd accept the $70M, more than double what they'd get in tax benefits, and have another distributor release the film. Instead, they'd rather trash the film than risk looking like fools if they allowed another company to reap the benefits for releasing a hit.
Suppose I make a painting worth $1000. If I had sold that, I would have been required to pay taxes on that at the marginal rate, say 40% so $400 worth of taxes. Instead of doing that, I set it on fire. Does that mean I just robed taxpayers of $400?
I bought a stock share for $1000. I wanted to sell it for $2000, but no one was willing to pay more than $400, so I decided to tell the IRS that it was worth zero and take the full tax write off (which was tax fraud).
On top of that, refusing to release or sell the movie should have triggered a shareholder lawsuit.
Even if they didn't delete the movie, the fact that they claimed to have deleted the movie and used it as a tax credit basically makes the value $0, because in the unlikely event they have a copy around, they wouldn't be able to sell it without having all of the profits seized from them.
Why does it matter if they delete it or not? As long as they don’t sell it, they don’t make a profit on it, and don’t pay taxes on the profits. If they didn’t delete it and then actually sold it after enjoying their tax break, then they’d be committing actual tax fraud.
> refusing to release or sell the movie should have triggered a shareholder lawsuit
And yet it didn’t. So maybe shareholders are fine with it? Why should shareholders sue when a company doesn’t release a product? This literally happens all the time.
This is true even if some third party had made an offer to acquire the product - there are many valid reasons why the first company may choose not to sell it.
Considering I'm operating from a very different set of values than she was, I doubt I would find the movie particularly persuasive.
> King Vidor turned Ayn Rand's preposterous 'philosophical' novel into one of his finest and most personal films, mainly by pushing the phallic imagery so hard that it surpasses Rand's rightist diatribes