They are being asked to write mini episodes for release directly to the internet, but at the same time the studios dont want to share any of the ad revenue generated by these webisodes.
To use your programming analogy:
Development studio pays you minimum wage for a high skilled job, but promises you a portion of box sales. Contract does not include direct download purchases such as Steam as part of box sales.
You refuse to work until direct download purchases are considered part of box sales.
The network can air a rerun on Cable / Satellite TV and pays the writers $1000 per episode per airing.
The network can air an episode on their website, complete with ad revenue, and not pay the writers anything.
Writers go on strike demanding fair compensation for use of their IP.
Studios offer writers $250 per episode per year.
It really shouldnt be that difficult to work out an honest compromise, judging by expected viewers of a TV airing and apply that to page views or something.
Also that doesnt even get into how the writers make less money off DVD sales than the people who shrink wrap the cases.
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I'm sorry, but I'm anti union in general, and pro studio in this case. I don't ask to be paid for code that I've written for companies four years ago if I happen to lose my job, and they shouldn't bitch because the studio's discovered this great loophole called the internet. I'm not saying that the writers don't deserve some profit sharing here, but the studios have made offers on at least four occasons that I've read about, and the writers have turned the offers down. If you're not good enough to stay in business as a writer, learn to paint a fucking house or something. Don't go out and bitch and moan and say you deserve money for shit you've already done, when you've already been paid for it. If they wanted to argue for more up front money that's one thing, but this is just dragging into stupidity now.
Well, what the studios want is the right to designate just about anything as "promotional" and not pay the writers a single red cent.
The internet WAS a loophole, but it won't anymore. How can you say that it's a loophole, then blame the writers for wanting to close it? That's why they re-negotiate contracts every few years.
The studios did the same thing in 1988 by bringing in tons of experts saying that home video was an "unproven" distribution method, when they knew damn well that it was in the process of exploding. They conned the writers that time, and now you want them to just sit there and take the exact same rhetoric again? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The writers can't legitimately sucker to the identical rhetoric again, especially not with the internet, which is poised to become the main method by which people get entertainment. If they don't take their stand here, then they'll stand to be paid nothing in royalties when TV and the internet merges completely.
Your code is not considered your intellectual property because you gave up rights to it to the people you worked for. If you independantly wrote some code that was desired by a multi-billion dollar industry on your own, you would have the right to sell it to anyone you wanted to, and work out your own contract for a percentage of profits. You can't blame the writers for renegotiating their contract for payment for services just because you decided not to factor in profit sharing into your own work arrangement (yes, I know that such an arrangement is implausable, but it's partially because of labor negotiations that many companies make you sign away your rights to things you create while you work there).
If writers (and actors, directors, etc) don't deserve to make money for things that they've already done, then the studios shouldn't be able to make money off of them either. Things should just be shown once and then destroyed. Sound fair? No, it isn't fair (and would be an abominable practice)... the shows we enjoy are part of an ensemble effort, and the fatcats that wrote the checks but provided none of the inspirational qualities we tuned in for in the first place shouldn't be the only ones to profit from them.
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
They are being asked to write mini episodes for release directly to the internet, but at the same time the studios dont want to share any of the ad revenue generated by these webisodes.
To use your programming analogy:
Development studio pays you minimum wage for a high skilled job, but promises you a portion of box sales. Contract does not include direct download purchases such as Steam as part of box sales.
You refuse to work until direct download purchases are considered part of box sales.
The network can air a rerun on Cable / Satellite TV and pays the writers $1000 per episode per airing.
The network can air an episode on their website, complete with ad revenue, and not pay the writers anything.
Writers go on strike demanding fair compensation for use of their IP.
Studios offer writers $250 per episode per year.
It really shouldnt be that difficult to work out an honest compromise, judging by expected viewers of a TV airing and apply that to page views or something.
Also that doesnt even get into how the writers make less money off DVD sales than the people who shrink wrap the cases.
I think $250 is low, but you can't offer per airing with the internet, because it's almost impossible to regulate. a thousand per year would be more reasonable, I'll give you that.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
When the five episodes they wrote keep generating ad revenue years down the line in syndication, I disagree.
I'm sorry, but I'm anti union in general, and pro studio in this case. I don't ask to be paid for code that I've written for companies four years ago if I happen to lose my job, and they shouldn't bitch because the studio's discovered this great loophole called the internet. I'm not saying that the writers don't deserve some profit sharing here, but the studios have made offers on at least four occasons that I've read about, and the writers have turned the offers down. If you're not good enough to stay in business as a writer, learn to paint a fucking house or something. Don't go out and bitch and moan and say you deserve money for shit you've already done, when you've already been paid for it. If they wanted to argue for more up front money that's one thing, but this is just dragging into stupidity now.
Well, what the studios want is the right to designate just about anything as "promotional" and not pay the writers a single red cent.
The internet WAS a loophole, but it won't anymore. How can you say that it's a loophole, then blame the writers for wanting to close it? That's why they re-negotiate contracts every few years.
The studios did the same thing in 1988 by bringing in tons of experts saying that home video was an "unproven" distribution method, when they knew damn well that it was in the process of exploding. They conned the writers that time, and now you want them to just sit there and take the exact same rhetoric again? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The writers can't legitimately sucker to the identical rhetoric again, especially not with the internet, which is poised to become the main method by which people get entertainment. If they don't take their stand here, then they'll stand to be paid nothing in royalties when TV and the internet merges completely.
Your code is not considered your intellectual property because you gave up rights to it to the people you worked for. If you independantly wrote some code that was desired by a multi-billion dollar industry on your own, you would have the right to sell it to anyone you wanted to, and work out your own contract for a percentage of profits. You can't blame the writers for renegotiating their contract for payment for services just because you decided not to factor in profit sharing into your own work arrangement (yes, I know that such an arrangement is implausable, but it's partially because of labor negotiations that many companies make you sign away your rights to things you create while you work there).
If writers (and actors, directors, etc) don't deserve to make money for things that they've already done, then the studios shouldn't be able to make money off of them either. Things should just be shown once and then destroyed. Sound fair? No, it isn't fair (and would be an abominable practice)... the shows we enjoy are part of an ensemble effort, and the fatcats that wrote the checks but provided none of the inspirational qualities we tuned in for in the first place shouldn't be the only ones to profit from them.
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
And if the writers didn't write the shows, then they wouldn't exist either. Kind of like what is going on now.
If a small group of people is continually making money off of the efforts of another group, why is the second group not being compensated for their efforts? So what if they aren't the original creators of the show. They put in the work to get the show produced, just like anyone else.
Essentially studio managers are just looking for handouts from writers. If they want to make money off of someone's work, that's fine. But they can't reasonably expect to not give those people their cut of the profit.
I'm sorry, but I'm anti union in general, and pro studio in this case. I don't ask to be paid for code that I've written for companies four years ago if I happen to lose my job, and they shouldn't bitch because the studio's discovered this great loophole called the internet. I'm not saying that the writers don't deserve some profit sharing here, but the studios have made offers on at least four occasons that I've read about, and the writers have turned the offers down. If you're not good enough to stay in business as a writer, learn to paint a fucking house or something. Don't go out and bitch and moan and say you deserve money for shit you've already done, when you've already been paid for it. If they wanted to argue for more up front money that's one thing, but this is just dragging into stupidity now.
Well, what the studios want is the right to designate just about anything as "promotional" and not pay the writers a single red cent.
The internet WAS a loophole, but it won't anymore. How can you say that it's a loophole, then blame the writers for wanting to close it? That's why they re-negotiate contracts every few years.
The studios did the same thing in 1988 by bringing in tons of experts saying that home video was an "unproven" distribution method, when they knew damn well that it was in the process of exploding. They conned the writers that time, and now you want them to just sit there and take the exact same rhetoric again? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The writers can't legitimately sucker to the identical rhetoric again, especially not with the internet, which is poised to become the main method by which people get entertainment. If they don't take their stand here, then they'll stand to be paid nothing in royalties when TV and the internet merges completely.
Your code is not considered your intellectual property because you gave up rights to it to the people you worked for. If you independantly wrote some code that was desired by a multi-billion dollar industry on your own, you would have the right to sell it to anyone you wanted to, and work out your own contract for a percentage of profits. You can't blame the writers for renegotiating their contract for payment for services just because you decided not to factor in profit sharing into your own work arrangement (yes, I know that such an arrangement is implausable, but it's partially because of labor negotiations that many companies make you sign away your rights to things you create while you work there).
If writers (and actors, directors, etc) don't deserve to make money for things that they've already done, then the studios shouldn't be able to make money off of them either. Things should just be shown once and then destroyed. Sound fair? No, it isn't fair (and would be an abominable practice)... the shows we enjoy are part of an ensemble effort, and the fatcats that wrote the checks but provided none of the inspirational qualities we tuned in for in the first place shouldn't be the only ones to profit from them.
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
I think it should be plainly obvious by this point that without the writers, nothing exists either.
Edit: as for the offers the studios have made, have you seen how absolutely horrible they are? Their offer is basically one giant loophole to continue letting them not pay the writers anything.
I'm sorry, but I'm anti union in general, and pro studio in this case. I don't ask to be paid for code that I've written for companies four years ago if I happen to lose my job, and they shouldn't bitch because the studio's discovered this great loophole called the internet. I'm not saying that the writers don't deserve some profit sharing here, but the studios have made offers on at least four occasons that I've read about, and the writers have turned the offers down. If you're not good enough to stay in business as a writer, learn to paint a fucking house or something. Don't go out and bitch and moan and say you deserve money for shit you've already done, when you've already been paid for it. If they wanted to argue for more up front money that's one thing, but this is just dragging into stupidity now.
Well, what the studios want is the right to designate just about anything as "promotional" and not pay the writers a single red cent.
The internet WAS a loophole, but it won't anymore. How can you say that it's a loophole, then blame the writers for wanting to close it? That's why they re-negotiate contracts every few years.
The studios did the same thing in 1988 by bringing in tons of experts saying that home video was an "unproven" distribution method, when they knew damn well that it was in the process of exploding. They conned the writers that time, and now you want them to just sit there and take the exact same rhetoric again? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The writers can't legitimately sucker to the identical rhetoric again, especially not with the internet, which is poised to become the main method by which people get entertainment. If they don't take their stand here, then they'll stand to be paid nothing in royalties when TV and the internet merges completely.
Your code is not considered your intellectual property because you gave up rights to it to the people you worked for. If you independantly wrote some code that was desired by a multi-billion dollar industry on your own, you would have the right to sell it to anyone you wanted to, and work out your own contract for a percentage of profits. You can't blame the writers for renegotiating their contract for payment for services just because you decided not to factor in profit sharing into your own work arrangement (yes, I know that such an arrangement is implausable, but it's partially because of labor negotiations that many companies make you sign away your rights to things you create while you work there).
If writers (and actors, directors, etc) don't deserve to make money for things that they've already done, then the studios shouldn't be able to make money off of them either. Things should just be shown once and then destroyed. Sound fair? No, it isn't fair (and would be an abominable practice)... the shows we enjoy are part of an ensemble effort, and the fatcats that wrote the checks but provided none of the inspirational qualities we tuned in for in the first place shouldn't be the only ones to profit from them.
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
I think it should be plainly obvious by this point that without the writers, nothing exists either.
That's simply not true. They can produce Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader and Dancing With The Stars for all eternity.
I'm sorry, but I'm anti union in general, and pro studio in this case. I don't ask to be paid for code that I've written for companies four years ago if I happen to lose my job, and they shouldn't bitch because the studio's discovered this great loophole called the internet. I'm not saying that the writers don't deserve some profit sharing here, but the studios have made offers on at least four occasons that I've read about, and the writers have turned the offers down. If you're not good enough to stay in business as a writer, learn to paint a fucking house or something. Don't go out and bitch and moan and say you deserve money for shit you've already done, when you've already been paid for it. If they wanted to argue for more up front money that's one thing, but this is just dragging into stupidity now.
Well, what the studios want is the right to designate just about anything as "promotional" and not pay the writers a single red cent.
The internet WAS a loophole, but it won't anymore. How can you say that it's a loophole, then blame the writers for wanting to close it? That's why they re-negotiate contracts every few years.
The studios did the same thing in 1988 by bringing in tons of experts saying that home video was an "unproven" distribution method, when they knew damn well that it was in the process of exploding. They conned the writers that time, and now you want them to just sit there and take the exact same rhetoric again? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The writers can't legitimately sucker to the identical rhetoric again, especially not with the internet, which is poised to become the main method by which people get entertainment. If they don't take their stand here, then they'll stand to be paid nothing in royalties when TV and the internet merges completely.
Your code is not considered your intellectual property because you gave up rights to it to the people you worked for. If you independantly wrote some code that was desired by a multi-billion dollar industry on your own, you would have the right to sell it to anyone you wanted to, and work out your own contract for a percentage of profits. You can't blame the writers for renegotiating their contract for payment for services just because you decided not to factor in profit sharing into your own work arrangement (yes, I know that such an arrangement is implausable, but it's partially because of labor negotiations that many companies make you sign away your rights to things you create while you work there).
If writers (and actors, directors, etc) don't deserve to make money for things that they've already done, then the studios shouldn't be able to make money off of them either. Things should just be shown once and then destroyed. Sound fair? No, it isn't fair (and would be an abominable practice)... the shows we enjoy are part of an ensemble effort, and the fatcats that wrote the checks but provided none of the inspirational qualities we tuned in for in the first place shouldn't be the only ones to profit from them.
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
I think it should be plainly obvious by this point that without the writers, nothing exists either.
Well, reality shows do. Damnit.
I know it's probably horrendously illegal given current labor laws, but a part of me would love to see the WGA just say "screw it" and start their own damn studio. Sure, they couldn't legally make another season of "Lost", but I'd rather take original written material over "Choirs Wars" any day.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
I'm sorry, but I'm anti union in general, and pro studio in this case. I don't ask to be paid for code that I've written for companies four years ago if I happen to lose my job, and they shouldn't bitch because the studio's discovered this great loophole called the internet. I'm not saying that the writers don't deserve some profit sharing here, but the studios have made offers on at least four occasons that I've read about, and the writers have turned the offers down. If you're not good enough to stay in business as a writer, learn to paint a fucking house or something. Don't go out and bitch and moan and say you deserve money for shit you've already done, when you've already been paid for it. If they wanted to argue for more up front money that's one thing, but this is just dragging into stupidity now.
When you write code for a company you are paid for the entire time you are there, and you usually have another job waiting just around the corner. The market for coders is gigantic in comparison to writers (and odds are you aren't coding something that will make millions of dollars. If you are, you are part of a large group of people). It's a different model. Apples. Oranges.
If you are a writer you get paid per script. In the case of a feature writer, you have NO IDEA when you will sell a script again, if you will. TV writers are a little more stable, but if the show goes under you are left in the same boat. Writing is NOT STEADY WORK. It never has been, it never will be unless you are one of a very, very small number of people. The same goes for acting and directing. If everyone who could not make a living as a writer went to paint houses there would only be 3 new TV shows a year and a dozen movies.
BOTH SIDES have made offers that the other has rejected. The WGA is trying to make fair offers whereas the AMPTP is making offers that are WORSE than what the writers are currently getting and, frankly, are insulting. Take, for example, the only ground they offered on the web market: $250 a year for a show that streams online, IF it plays for more than six weeks and IS NOT marked as promotional (i.e., "a loophole that means we don't have to pay anyone shit. ever.). This is versus $20,000 for a year's reruns on TV. The writers have released a lot of details on their proposals, including a breakdown of how much it will cost each major studio. It amounts to one less really, really shitty movie that won't make a profit anyway per studio. The AMPTP apparently does not even know what "negotiate" means, as they aren't giving any ground at all and walked out like babies because their deceptive, poorly planned PR tactics have all backfired.
You are complaining about the writers wanting to be part of HOW THE FUCKING SYSTEM WORKS. Residuals are part of it, directors get them, actors get them, writers get them. Laborers in Hollywood benefit from it (see the DVD sale breakdown a few pages back). And you can be damn sure that if the AMPTP pulls the same shit they are pulling on writers on the DGA in a few months or SAG this summer, those groups will strike as well.
You know what I don't understand? This bullshit argument about moral superiority.
It's a contract between two willing and at least comparably powerful entities. There is no "deserves" or "right to" anything, there's just what one side is willing to give the other. Maybe the studios deserve a bigger share fro fronting the money and providing the infrastructure, maybe the writers deserve more for doing the writing. The one thing that is for certain is no of this is dictated from on high by way of divine right.
No side is superior to the other, and each side deserves exactly what it can convince the other to give it.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
The guy who wrote 5 episodes of Dawson's Creek played his part in the creation of the episode as much as the producers or actors did. Sure, they could have had soemone else write it, but then that nameless writer should get the credit (and money).
The studios are NOT the reason it all exists. People make independant movies on their own nickel all the time, and sometimes they're really good (Clerks, May, and El Mariachi, for example). Many are in it because they love making movies, not because they're getting paid. The studios facilitate everything because they see money in it, but that doesn't mean that they should be the sole inheritors of the product's worth.
I think $250 is low, but you can't offer per airing with the internet, because it's almost impossible to regulate. a thousand per year would be more reasonable, I'll give you that.
I really don't understand you now. So you ARE siding with labor here, in that you think the studios aren't offering a fair deal? How do you even get your thousand dollar figure? How does that apply to a fluctuating economy where a thousand dollars per episode per year could become relatively meaningless (necessitating another negotiation and probably another strike)? Wouldn't a reasonable percentage make more sense?
The studios will always take the lion's share of the profits. That much will always be the case. But you're saying that they shouldn't share their profits pretty much at all with the writers... and if they do that, then it's pure capitalism that the quality of the writing will go down because good writers won't have encouragement to do it for the money. I think we can all safely agree that, with all the poorly written crap that's already on TV and in movies (See: Alien vs. Predator: Requiem), we really can't afford to tell writers to fuck off if we expect to continue to enjoy filmed shows.
You know what I don't understand? This bullshit argument about moral superiority.
It's a contract between two willing and at least comparably powerful entities. There is no "deserves" or "right to" anything, there's just what one side is willing to give the other. Maybe the studios deserve a bigger share fro fronting the money and providing the infrastructure, maybe the writers deserve more for doing the writing. The one thing that is for certain is no of this is dictated from on high by way of divine right.
No side is superior to the other, and each side deserves exactly what it can convince the other to give it.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the studio execs should have seen this coming, and could have given the writers a fair cut of the profits, thereby negating the need for a strike.
I don't think anyone would reasonably deny the fact that innocent people are being caught in the middle of this whole thing, and that it takes two to tango. But the fact still remains that one group isn't fairly compensating another group for profits made off of their work.
To use your programming analogy:
Development studio pays you minimum wage for a high skilled job, but promises you a portion of box sales.
Except these people are not being paid minimum wage. They are being paid tons of money for the scripts in the first place.
Except in most cases, they are not getting paid "tons of money". Sure, they might get $200,000 for a screenplay. But when they can't sell another screenplay for three or four years, that doesn't go very far - especially in L.A.
I really don't understand you now. So you ARE siding with labor here, in that you think the studios aren't offering a fair deal? How do you even get your thousand dollar figure? How does that apply to a fluctuating economy where a thousand dollars per episode per year could become relatively meaningless (necessitating another negotiation and probably another strike)? Wouldn't a reasonable percentage make more sense?
A percentage of profits is exactly what the WGA is requesting. And, given how Hollywood accountants handle profit, still isn't really a fair deal for them.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
This bit of AMPTP rhetoric seems to be making the rounds rather well.
The writers aren't screwing the set crews. The studio can keep those people in work, they just often choose not to. Some responsible show runners (the aforementioned O'Brian, Leno, etc) accept the hobbling of a lack of writing and soldier on because they take their responsabilties to their employees seriously.
If the writer's strike succeeds, the set crews are actually in a better position for their own labor relations.
Yes, the WGA is a wealthy and reasonably powerful American union.
The AMPTP is made up of some of the largest corporations in the world. In comparison, the WGA is the little guy "sticking it to the man." It's like a mongoose vs. Quetzalcoatl.
You know what I don't understand? This bullshit argument about moral superiority.
It's a contract between two willing and at least comparably powerful entities. There is no "deserves" or "right to" anything, there's just what one side is willing to give the other. Maybe the studios deserve a bigger share fro fronting the money and providing the infrastructure, maybe the writers deserve more for doing the writing. The one thing that is for certain is no of this is dictated from on high by way of divine right.
No side is superior to the other, and each side deserves exactly what it can convince the other to give it.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the studio execs should have seen this coming, and could have given the writers a fair cut of the profits, thereby negating the need for a strike.
I don't think anyone would reasonably deny the fact that innocent people are being caught in the middle of this whole thing, and that it takes two to tango. But the fact still remains that one group isn't fairly compensating another group for profits made off of their work.
So your response to "it's just a negotiation between two powerful entities" is that one of the groups (who are both exactly the same, ie fighting for what they want at the cost of anyone not strong enough to also fight for a spot at the table) should have pre-emptively caved to the other?
There is no such this as fair share of profits in a labor contract. It's all a negotiation. I hate to harp on this crap, but it's absolutely maddening to see people fall for this bullshit. There is no "greedy studio" screwing the "underpaid and noble writers". It's all bullshit, and if you want to be pissed at anyone it should be the writers for poisoning the well of public sympathy for ACTUAL underpaid groups just to pad their own pockets.
Not that I think the writer's aren't free to do what they want. But don't feed me crap about how they're on the right side of this just because they happen to be a union.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
I totally don't buy the idea that All the Other Unions will be in a better position if the writers don't come out on top of this. I mean, seriously.
The set crews are just a strawman. The writer's guild responsibility is to their members and future writers, they're under no obligation to work for shit pay so that another guild can keep working.
I'm sticking up for the WGA not because God said so, but because their requests seem fair and the AMPTP seem, well, fucking greedy as shit.
Scooter on
0
Options
WulfDisciple of TzeentchThe Void... (New Jersey)Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
All I see coming out of this for us, the consumer, in the end is a jacked up price on all the networks and movie tickets to help 'pay for the increased income for the writers'. Fucking Industry isn't even going to end up paying for this shit, we are.
You know what I don't understand? This bullshit argument about moral superiority.
It's a contract between two willing and at least comparably powerful entities. There is no "deserves" or "right to" anything, there's just what one side is willing to give the other. Maybe the studios deserve a bigger share fro fronting the money and providing the infrastructure, maybe the writers deserve more for doing the writing. The one thing that is for certain is no of this is dictated from on high by way of divine right.
No side is superior to the other, and each side deserves exactly what it can convince the other to give it.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the studio execs should have seen this coming, and could have given the writers a fair cut of the profits, thereby negating the need for a strike.
I don't think anyone would reasonably deny the fact that innocent people are being caught in the middle of this whole thing, and that it takes two to tango. But the fact still remains that one group isn't fairly compensating another group for profits made off of their work.
So your response to "it's just a negotiation between two powerful entities" is that one of the groups (who are both exactly the same, ie fighting for what they want at the cost of anyone not strong enough to also fight for a spot at the table) should have pre-emptively caved to the other?
There is no such this as fair share of profits in a labor contract. It's all a negotiation. I hate to harp on this crap, but it's absolutely maddening to see people fall for this bullshit. There is no "greedy studio" screwing the "underpaid and noble writers". It's all bullshit, and if you want to be pissed at anyone it should be the writers for poisoning the well of public sympathy for ACTUAL underpaid groups just to pad their own pockets.
Not that I think the writer's aren't free to do what they want. But don't feed me crap about how they're on the right side of this just because they happen to be a union.
Sorry man, but it's completely unethical to outright not compensate someone for their work. Doubly so when you are making money off of their work.
I didn't say the writers are underpaid. All I'm saying is that they aren't getting a cut of the profits made off of their work. Which is a fact.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
This bit of AMPTP rhetoric seems to be making the rounds rather well.
The writers aren't screwing the set crews. The studio can keep those people in work, they just often choose not to. Some responsible show runners (the aforementioned O'Brian, Leno, etc) accept the hobbling of a lack of writing and soldier on because they take their responsabilties to their employees seriously.
If the writer's strike succeeds, the set crews are actually in a better position for their own labor relations.
Yes, the WGA is a wealthy and reasonably powerful American union.
The AMPTP is made up of some of the largest corporations in the world. In comparison, the WGA is the little guy "sticking it to the man." It's like a mongoose vs. Quetzalcoatl.
Yeah, I'm the one buying into rhetoric. Our opponent could keep the hundreds of other people involved in our business employed, if only they weren't so worried about money. Now excuse us while we shut down an industry so we can get some more money.
Again, I don't give a crap. Good for them they want more money. But as I said, don't expect me to believe your monopolistic conglomerate is better than the other just because you call yourself a union. And you can't actually believe that crap about this helping the people who are out of a job right now. The vast majority of non-writers/non-actors aren't in a union, and if they are it's an extremely weak one. This is about helping the big unions and that's it. Which is fine, but it's not the moral high ground.
And as to relative size, please. When each side can completely shut down the other, has absolutely control of an aspect of the industry, and can afford to pay as many consultants and wait as long as they feel like, size stops being relevant. The day the studios cow the guilds into accepting anything just by virtue of their size is the day I give a crap who has a bigger bank account. And of course, this is all leaving aside the fact just because you're bigger doesn't actually automatically make you wrong.
Sorry man, but it's completely unethical to outright not compensate someone for their work. Doubly so when you are making money off of their work.
I didn't say the writers are underpaid. All I'm saying is that they aren't getting a cut of the profits made off of their work. Which is a fact.
If only that was the case, this would be a lot easier. The complaint is they aren't getting compensated in a certain way, for a very specific type of work. Which is fine, it's a valid complaint. But when everyone agreed to the system before hand, and all we are talking about is who gets what under said system, there's no moral superiority in play.
That's all I'm saying. Unless one side is twisting the arm of the other, any agreement freely made between two parties is just an agreement, not some moral edict.
Sorry man, but it's completely unethical to outright not compensate someone for their work. Doubly so when you are making money off of their work.
I didn't say the writers are underpaid. All I'm saying is that they aren't getting a cut of the profits made off of their work. Which is a fact.
If only that was the case, this would be a lot easier. The complaint is they aren't getting compensated in a certain way, for a very specific type of work. Which is fine, it's a valid complaint. But when everyone agreed to the system before hand, and all we are talking about is who gets what under said system, there's no moral superiority in play.
That's all I'm saying. Unless one side is twisting the arm of the other, any agreement freely made between two parties is just an agreement, not some moral edict.
It's the internet, dude.
A) Using the internet as a major source of entertainment only started very recently.
In the next decade or so the internet could become the main source of entertainment for a lot of people. It already is for me.
The contracts need updating for modern technology.
The set crews are just a strawman. The writer's guild responsibility is to their members and future writers, they're under no obligation to work for shit pay so that another guild can keep working.
I'm sticking up for the WGA not because God said so, but because their requests seem fair and the AMPTP seem, well, fucking greedy as shit.
Absolutely, and you'll here not a breathe of argument from me on that. The writer's guild is absolutely free to look out for themselves, that's why they exist. But you can't do that and at the same time tell me you have the moral high ground because the other side is only looking out for themselves.
Do what you need to, but don't assume I'm stupid or that I care about you.
Sorry man, but it's completely unethical to outright not compensate someone for their work. Doubly so when you are making money off of their work.
I didn't say the writers are underpaid. All I'm saying is that they aren't getting a cut of the profits made off of their work. Which is a fact.
If only that was the case, this would be a lot easier. The complaint is they aren't getting compensated in a certain way, for a very specific type of work. Which is fine, it's a valid complaint. But when everyone agreed to the system before hand, and all we are talking about is who gets what under said system, there's no moral superiority in play.
That's all I'm saying. Unless one side is twisting the arm of the other, any agreement freely made between two parties is just an agreement, not some moral edict.
It's the internet, dude.
A) Using the internet as a major source of entertainment only started very recently.
In the next decade or so the internet could become the main source of entertainment for a lot of people. It already is for me.
The contracts need updating for modern technology.
And my point isn't at all that it's wrong for them to strike to get what they want, or that it's wrong to focus on this as important. My point is ONLY about the stance the writer's guild has taken (and the basis of most the arguments you hear in their favor) and how shitty I find the hypocracy on display to be.
The writer's guild is quite likely making the absolutely right move for them. If they left it there, I wouldn't care. It's when they argue their case as the moral stance, and make themselves out to be better than the studios, that I get annoyed. It's either aching cynicism or breathtaking self-righteousness, and neither makes me like them much on a personal level.
I don't see how things like "morals" become entirely irrelevant just because contracts get involved. It's entirely possible for groups of people, even profit-motivated ones, to take moral or immoral positions.
I don't see how things like "morals" become entirely irrelevant just because contracts get involved. It's entirely possible for groups of people, even profit-motivated ones, to take moral or immoral positions.
Certainly. Child labor, horrible (but legal) work conditions, being forced to waive certain rights (like the right to trial in an arbitrage agreement); these are all things that one side could demand and the other could rightly call them immoral for. Who gets how much money beyond a poverty or living wage isn't, and to claim it is belittles all the real immoral things in the world.
Not that I think the writer's aren't free to do what they want. But don't feed me crap about how they're on the right side of this just because they happen to be a union.
Then how about looking at the fucking facts.
When home video was just staring out in the 80s, the studios convinced the WGA to take a temporary cut of 80% "to grow the business". They never gave that money back, even after home video exploded. Even considering that, the writers are only seeking for a doubling of their extant residual rate for home video.
When the WGA put forth a basic residual rate structure for streaming video based on the TV structure, the AMPTP responded with an offer of $200/year, and the option to declare it a promo, meaning they don't have to pay. Consider that top shows like Lost will only rerun online, and you'll realize that this isn't an offer, it's an extended middle finger, as one earlier poster put it. And the pending implementation of IPTV makes this even more crucial.
When the AMPTP walked out of negotiations, they had a press release ready immediately that stated that the unions were the result of the breakdown. This is a clear sign that they were not negotiating in good faith.
Oh, and I forgot - the studios are claiming to the unions that streaming video is untested and nobody's sure how much money's there - but when they talk to Wall Street, they're gushing over how this is an untapped market worth billions. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, start there.
Seriously, if you can't see that the WGA is in the fucking right here, then the only explanation I can think of is that you're biased against unions. Which, considering the poster, is a pretty safe assumption to make.
I don't see how things like "morals" become entirely irrelevant just because contracts get involved. It's entirely possible for groups of people, even profit-motivated ones, to take moral or immoral positions.
Certainly. Child labor, horrible (but legal) work conditions, being forced to waive certain rights (like the right to trial in an arbitrage agreement); these are all things that one side could demand and the other could rightly call them immoral for. Who gets how much money beyond a poverty or living wage isn't, and to claim it is belittles all the real immoral things in the world.
That's the thing, though. If the WGA doesn't get a share of the internet revenue, it will very quickly become so that a writer cannot support a family off of their writing income. This while the studio's profits climb higher and higher.
If that doesn't strike you as immoral, well, I'm not surprised you see hypocrisy.
Who gets how much money beyond a poverty or living wage isn't.
That's the difference between us. I consider a "fair" wage to be a moral/ethical issue, beyond just the poverty line. And I consider the WGA stance to be far closer to "fair", therefore, WGA appears to me to have the moral high ground.
I'd like to point out that the WGA has done me no favors. They're pretty insular and it's hard to break into the industry, which makes things harder for would-be writers. All the same, it's clear that they're in the right here. You can have a conflict where both parties aren't great but one is better than the other or is the lesser evil.
I think that the writers have the moral high ground here because they haven't been acting like unreasonable fucks like the AMPTP has. They stated reasonable percentage-based demands that will put a slightly larger dent in the enormous profits that the studios see, and ensure that new technology is accounted for, and the studios counter with a static yearly offer that won't even buy an XBox 360.
The studios won't even go to the negotiation table... how can they claim the high ground if they won't even show up or bring a new offer to mediation?
The ironic thing is that the strike has already cost the studios four to five times more than what they would be paying out in royalties each year, by the WGA's calculations. Now, I don't want to 100% buy into one side's statistics (as both of them are incredibly biased), but we're talking ballparks here.
I stand by what I read about the entire thing being a tactic of the AMPTP heavyweights to work against the smaller production companies: If they can keep the strike going for long enough (and Fox can sure last a long time just shitting out American Idol and the like), the smaller companies who rely on scripted drama will have to fold and be bought out.
If that's true, then it adds yet another dimension to the proceeding strike... can we trust business rivals to negotiate for the entirety honestly?
Not that I think the writer's aren't free to do what they want. But don't feed me crap about how they're on the right side of this just because they happen to be a union.
Then how about looking at the fucking facts.
When home video was just staring out in the 80s, the studios convinced the WGA to take a temporary cut of 80% "to grow the business". They never gave that money back, even after home video exploded. Even considering that, the writers are only seeking for a doubling of their extant residual rate for home video.
When the WGA put forth a basic residual rate structure for streaming video based on the TV structure, the AMPTP responded with an offer of $200/year, and the option to declare it a promo, meaning they don't have to pay. Consider that top shows like Lost will only rerun online, and you'll realize that this isn't an offer, it's an extended middle finger, as one earlier poster put it. And the pending implementation of IPTV makes this even more crucial.
When the AMPTP walked out of negotiations, they had a press release ready immediately that stated that the unions were the result of the breakdown. This is a clear sign that they were not negotiating in good faith.
Oh, and I forgot - the studios are claiming to the unions that streaming video is untested and nobody's sure how much money's there - but when they talk to Wall Street, they're gushing over how this is an untapped market worth billions. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, start there.
Seriously, if you can't see that the WGA is in the fucking right here, then the only explanation I can think of is that you're biased against unions. Which, considering the poster, is a pretty safe assumption to make.
In order:
1) You stop having the moral after 30 years of negotiated settlements. This didn't suddenly become a grave injustice now. Leaving aside the fact I doubt anyone at the table now is still the same person that was there then, if you can't make your case 30 times trying that you deserve more money, I'm not sure I particularly care to be outraged for you now. Though this is the best argument you made, so there is that.
2) Oh no, one side offered something that isn't the same as everything they've done before. The studio clearly thinks they shouldn't be paying large sums of money indefinitely, the writers equally clearly feel differently. It's called a negotiation. Just because one side doesn't value the work of the other as much as they could (or have) doesn't make them evil.
3) This one is the most laughable. My god, those bastards were prepared for the possibility the negotiations would not work out, and had a press release ready. And shock of all shocks, one side claimed the other was the problem in a negotiation. Oh shit!
4) And again, surprise of surprises, a company is excited when talking about potential revenue sources to investors, but more pragmatic when putting money on the line.
I don't give a shit who's "right" because there is no right when two equal groups are coming to a consensus. One side wants something and plays to their strengths (spin in their favor), the other side wants something else and relies on their strengths (spin in their favor). The world moves on, don't try and sell me some epic moral struggle.
Everyone involved is out for themselves, and that's fine and the way it should be. No one is coercing anyone else, and that's all I care about.
I think it's totally fine to say that, like the RIAA and your favorite band, one group actually does something for me and the other group is a middle man who skims varying amounts off the top. Ain't nothing wrong with being a middle man, but there's nothing wrong with people 'picking a side' either. I want the writers to make more money, because I think they deserve it. I want studios to make incrementally less money, because fuck 'em.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
I don't see how things like "morals" become entirely irrelevant just because contracts get involved. It's entirely possible for groups of people, even profit-motivated ones, to take moral or immoral positions.
Certainly. Child labor, horrible (but legal) work conditions, being forced to waive certain rights (like the right to trial in an arbitrage agreement); these are all things that one side could demand and the other could rightly call them immoral for. Who gets how much money beyond a poverty or living wage isn't, and to claim it is belittles all the real immoral things in the world.
That's the thing, though. If the WGA doesn't get a share of the internet revenue, it will very quickly become so that a writer cannot support a family off of their writing income. This while the studio's profits climb higher and higher.
If that doesn't strike you as immoral, well, I'm not surprised you see hypocrisy.
I would certainly say this is debatable, which is why we're having a strike in the first place.
Writer's may very well not be able to support their families purely or primarily off of residuals, which I think is a very different thing (especially on the moral scale) than not being able to support your family at all.
The whole system is purely a negotiated one, and if the studio thinks it can prosper without giving more than it has offered, that's their business. As long as there are enough people who freely (and I'd even say eagerly) want to work for what the studio is offering, and the studio is happy enough with the results they get, it's not immoral to offer any agreed upon amount.
It's a matter of opinion, and I'm perfectly willing to get to this point and have you feel one way and I the other. This right here is a decidedly different point that "the writer's are right and the studios are wrong" as a categorical and unsupported position.
werehippy on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Not that I think the writer's aren't free to do what they want. But don't feed me crap about how they're on the right side of this just because they happen to be a union.
Then how about looking at the fucking facts.
When home video was just staring out in the 80s, the studios convinced the WGA to take a temporary cut of 80% "to grow the business". They never gave that money back, even after home video exploded. Even considering that, the writers are only seeking for a doubling of their extant residual rate for home video.
When the WGA put forth a basic residual rate structure for streaming video based on the TV structure, the AMPTP responded with an offer of $200/year, and the option to declare it a promo, meaning they don't have to pay. Consider that top shows like Lost will only rerun online, and you'll realize that this isn't an offer, it's an extended middle finger, as one earlier poster put it. And the pending implementation of IPTV makes this even more crucial.
When the AMPTP walked out of negotiations, they had a press release ready immediately that stated that the unions were the result of the breakdown. This is a clear sign that they were not negotiating in good faith.
Oh, and I forgot - the studios are claiming to the unions that streaming video is untested and nobody's sure how much money's there - but when they talk to Wall Street, they're gushing over how this is an untapped market worth billions. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, start there.
Seriously, if you can't see that the WGA is in the fucking right here, then the only explanation I can think of is that you're biased against unions. Which, considering the poster, is a pretty safe assumption to make.
In order:
1) You stop having the moral after 30 years of negotiated settlements. This didn't suddenly become a grave injustice now. Leaving aside the fact I doubt anyone at the table now is still the same person that was there then, if you can't make your case 30 times trying that you deserve more money, I'm not sure I particularly care to be outraged for you now. Though this is the best argument you made, so there is that.
2) Oh no, one side offered something that isn't the same as everything they've done before. The studio clearly thinks they shouldn't be paying large sums of money indefinitely, the writers equally clearly feel differently. It's called a negotiation. Just because one side doesn't value the work of the other as much as they could (or have) doesn't make them evil.
3) This one is the most laughable. My god, those bastards were prepared for the possibility the negotiations would not work out, and had a press release ready. And shock of all shocks, one side claimed the other was the problem in a negotiation. Oh shit!
4) And again, surprise of surprises, a company is excited when talking about potential revenue sources to investors, but more pragmatic when putting money on the line.
I don't give a shit who's "right" because there is no right when two equal groups are coming to a consensus. One side wants something and plays to their strengths (spin in their favor), the other side wants something else and relies on their strengths (spin in their favor). The world moves on, don't try and sell me some epic moral struggle.
Everyone involved is out for themselves, and that's fine and the way it should be. No one is coercing anyone else, and that's all I care about.
I'll agree with all of this, but I do think the studios are going to win this. Someone posted something along the lines of "oh, it would be so great if the writers could just start their own network..."
two things...
1) This would never happen, because the writers don't have the money. The studios do, and the writers need to play ball if they want to write for a living, or go work at starbucks and give someone who'se head isn't up their ass a shot.
2) If they did do this, how long do you think it would take for your "good and true" WGA heads to become no different than the studio execs you chastise now?
Who gets how much money beyond a poverty or living wage isn't.
That's the difference between us. I consider a "fair" wage to be a moral/ethical issue, beyond just the poverty line. And I consider the WGA stance to be far closer to "fair", therefore, WGA appears to me to have the moral high ground.
That was poorly worded on my part, because living wage is kind of vague. By living wage, I meant some amount, higher than the poverty line, where you make enough to get by comfortable but not luxuriously. Basically, any amount beyond what you need to maintain a reasonable standard of living is, to my mind at least, not controlled by any sort of moral imperative and is just what you can convince someone else to give you.
werehippy on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I think it's totally fine to say that, like the RIAA and your favorite band, one group actually does something for me and the other group is a middle man who skims varying amounts off the top. Ain't nothing wrong with being a middle man, but there's nothing wrong with people 'picking a side' either. I want the writers to make more money, because I think they deserve it. I want studios to make incrementally less money, because fuck 'em.
The problem is that unless you've got the cash to bankroll that opinion it's useless. The studios are the only way to actually distribute this material to the masses on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but there's plenty of people out there willing to write for entertainment, and do it on the current salary system. MORE than Plenty of them.... .there isn't some big backlog of millionaire and billionaire investors willing to bankroll if the studios don't want to. It's pretty simple at that point. They need to take a deal and get back to work, or let someone else do it who'se willing to.
I don't give a shit who's "right" because there is no right when two equal groups are coming to a consensus.
Er, they're not very equal. Did you not read my mongoose vs. Quetzalcoatl metaphor?
One wealthy guild vs. 350 companies, including 8 or so of the largest corporations in the world. The WGA had one card to play, and they played it. The AMPTP has a whole deck they can shuffle from. I personally think that a good number of the posters on message boards that are pro-studios (Ain't It Cool News in particular) are the product of viral marketing strategies designed to weaken the internet stranglehold the WGA has on public relations: it's the same strategy Bush used against John Kerry in the 2004 election... attack the opponent's strengths with believable bullshit.
Posts
To use your programming analogy:
Development studio pays you minimum wage for a high skilled job, but promises you a portion of box sales. Contract does not include direct download purchases such as Steam as part of box sales.
You refuse to work until direct download purchases are considered part of box sales.
The network can air a rerun on Cable / Satellite TV and pays the writers $1000 per episode per airing.
The network can air an episode on their website, complete with ad revenue, and not pay the writers anything.
Writers go on strike demanding fair compensation for use of their IP.
Studios offer writers $250 per episode per year.
It really shouldnt be that difficult to work out an honest compromise, judging by expected viewers of a TV airing and apply that to page views or something.
Also that doesnt even get into how the writers make less money off DVD sales than the people who shrink wrap the cases.
MWO: Adamski
yeah, that's the same whiney crap the writers are babbling about, but you know what. I can see joss whedon wanting more money for episodes of buffy or firefly, because he created it, but some guy that got hired to write ten episodes of dawson's creek doesn't have any rights to the intellectual property, and doesn't deserve to keep getting paid for something he wrote once.
Also, it is fair the studios keep getting paid. They're the reason it all exists. They bankroll everything from start to finish, own the land, the rights, and the properties, of course they get a bigger share.
If you want to argue that the original creators get a little bit more of the pie that's one thing, but like I said before, not every writer that did five episodes of a show he/she didn't even create deserves to keep getting paid for them over and over.
I think $250 is low, but you can't offer per airing with the internet, because it's almost impossible to regulate. a thousand per year would be more reasonable, I'll give you that.
When the five episodes they wrote keep generating ad revenue years down the line in syndication, I disagree.
And if the writers didn't write the shows, then they wouldn't exist either. Kind of like what is going on now.
If a small group of people is continually making money off of the efforts of another group, why is the second group not being compensated for their efforts? So what if they aren't the original creators of the show. They put in the work to get the show produced, just like anyone else.
Essentially studio managers are just looking for handouts from writers. If they want to make money off of someone's work, that's fine. But they can't reasonably expect to not give those people their cut of the profit.
I think it should be plainly obvious by this point that without the writers, nothing exists either.
Edit: as for the offers the studios have made, have you seen how absolutely horrible they are? Their offer is basically one giant loophole to continue letting them not pay the writers anything.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Well, reality shows do. Damnit.
I know it's probably horrendously illegal given current labor laws, but a part of me would love to see the WGA just say "screw it" and start their own damn studio. Sure, they couldn't legally make another season of "Lost", but I'd rather take original written material over "Choirs Wars" any day.
When you write code for a company you are paid for the entire time you are there, and you usually have another job waiting just around the corner. The market for coders is gigantic in comparison to writers (and odds are you aren't coding something that will make millions of dollars. If you are, you are part of a large group of people). It's a different model. Apples. Oranges.
If you are a writer you get paid per script. In the case of a feature writer, you have NO IDEA when you will sell a script again, if you will. TV writers are a little more stable, but if the show goes under you are left in the same boat. Writing is NOT STEADY WORK. It never has been, it never will be unless you are one of a very, very small number of people. The same goes for acting and directing. If everyone who could not make a living as a writer went to paint houses there would only be 3 new TV shows a year and a dozen movies.
BOTH SIDES have made offers that the other has rejected. The WGA is trying to make fair offers whereas the AMPTP is making offers that are WORSE than what the writers are currently getting and, frankly, are insulting. Take, for example, the only ground they offered on the web market: $250 a year for a show that streams online, IF it plays for more than six weeks and IS NOT marked as promotional (i.e., "a loophole that means we don't have to pay anyone shit. ever.). This is versus $20,000 for a year's reruns on TV. The writers have released a lot of details on their proposals, including a breakdown of how much it will cost each major studio. It amounts to one less really, really shitty movie that won't make a profit anyway per studio. The AMPTP apparently does not even know what "negotiate" means, as they aren't giving any ground at all and walked out like babies because their deceptive, poorly planned PR tactics have all backfired.
You are complaining about the writers wanting to be part of HOW THE FUCKING SYSTEM WORKS. Residuals are part of it, directors get them, actors get them, writers get them. Laborers in Hollywood benefit from it (see the DVD sale breakdown a few pages back). And you can be damn sure that if the AMPTP pulls the same shit they are pulling on writers on the DGA in a few months or SAG this summer, those groups will strike as well.
It's a contract between two willing and at least comparably powerful entities. There is no "deserves" or "right to" anything, there's just what one side is willing to give the other. Maybe the studios deserve a bigger share fro fronting the money and providing the infrastructure, maybe the writers deserve more for doing the writing. The one thing that is for certain is no of this is dictated from on high by way of divine right.
No side is superior to the other, and each side deserves exactly what it can convince the other to give it.
We'll leave aside the hypocracy of "sticking it to the man" by siding with the writers when the writers fight for ever more money is screwing every single other person that works on those shows out of their livelihood. You want to stick up for the little guy who's getting bossed around by people willing to outright screw them for an extra buck? Speak up for the makeup artists, the stage hands, and all the rest of the crew. Anything else is just you buying into one faceless entities bargaining tactics against another.
The guy who wrote 5 episodes of Dawson's Creek played his part in the creation of the episode as much as the producers or actors did. Sure, they could have had soemone else write it, but then that nameless writer should get the credit (and money).
The studios are NOT the reason it all exists. People make independant movies on their own nickel all the time, and sometimes they're really good (Clerks, May, and El Mariachi, for example). Many are in it because they love making movies, not because they're getting paid. The studios facilitate everything because they see money in it, but that doesn't mean that they should be the sole inheritors of the product's worth.
I really don't understand you now. So you ARE siding with labor here, in that you think the studios aren't offering a fair deal? How do you even get your thousand dollar figure? How does that apply to a fluctuating economy where a thousand dollars per episode per year could become relatively meaningless (necessitating another negotiation and probably another strike)? Wouldn't a reasonable percentage make more sense?
The studios will always take the lion's share of the profits. That much will always be the case. But you're saying that they shouldn't share their profits pretty much at all with the writers... and if they do that, then it's pure capitalism that the quality of the writing will go down because good writers won't have encouragement to do it for the money. I think we can all safely agree that, with all the poorly written crap that's already on TV and in movies (See: Alien vs. Predator: Requiem), we really can't afford to tell writers to fuck off if we expect to continue to enjoy filmed shows.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that the studio execs should have seen this coming, and could have given the writers a fair cut of the profits, thereby negating the need for a strike.
I don't think anyone would reasonably deny the fact that innocent people are being caught in the middle of this whole thing, and that it takes two to tango. But the fact still remains that one group isn't fairly compensating another group for profits made off of their work.
Except in most cases, they are not getting paid "tons of money". Sure, they might get $200,000 for a screenplay. But when they can't sell another screenplay for three or four years, that doesn't go very far - especially in L.A.
A percentage of profits is exactly what the WGA is requesting. And, given how Hollywood accountants handle profit, still isn't really a fair deal for them.
This bit of AMPTP rhetoric seems to be making the rounds rather well.
The writers aren't screwing the set crews. The studio can keep those people in work, they just often choose not to. Some responsible show runners (the aforementioned O'Brian, Leno, etc) accept the hobbling of a lack of writing and soldier on because they take their responsabilties to their employees seriously.
If the writer's strike succeeds, the set crews are actually in a better position for their own labor relations.
Yes, the WGA is a wealthy and reasonably powerful American union.
The AMPTP is made up of some of the largest corporations in the world. In comparison, the WGA is the little guy "sticking it to the man." It's like a mongoose vs. Quetzalcoatl.
So your response to "it's just a negotiation between two powerful entities" is that one of the groups (who are both exactly the same, ie fighting for what they want at the cost of anyone not strong enough to also fight for a spot at the table) should have pre-emptively caved to the other?
There is no such this as fair share of profits in a labor contract. It's all a negotiation. I hate to harp on this crap, but it's absolutely maddening to see people fall for this bullshit. There is no "greedy studio" screwing the "underpaid and noble writers". It's all bullshit, and if you want to be pissed at anyone it should be the writers for poisoning the well of public sympathy for ACTUAL underpaid groups just to pad their own pockets.
Not that I think the writer's aren't free to do what they want. But don't feed me crap about how they're on the right side of this just because they happen to be a union.
I totally don't buy the idea that All the Other Unions will be in a better position if the writers don't come out on top of this. I mean, seriously.
I'm sticking up for the WGA not because God said so, but because their requests seem fair and the AMPTP seem, well, fucking greedy as shit.
Sorry man, but it's completely unethical to outright not compensate someone for their work. Doubly so when you are making money off of their work.
I didn't say the writers are underpaid. All I'm saying is that they aren't getting a cut of the profits made off of their work. Which is a fact.
Yeah, I'm the one buying into rhetoric. Our opponent could keep the hundreds of other people involved in our business employed, if only they weren't so worried about money. Now excuse us while we shut down an industry so we can get some more money.
Again, I don't give a crap. Good for them they want more money. But as I said, don't expect me to believe your monopolistic conglomerate is better than the other just because you call yourself a union. And you can't actually believe that crap about this helping the people who are out of a job right now. The vast majority of non-writers/non-actors aren't in a union, and if they are it's an extremely weak one. This is about helping the big unions and that's it. Which is fine, but it's not the moral high ground.
And as to relative size, please. When each side can completely shut down the other, has absolutely control of an aspect of the industry, and can afford to pay as many consultants and wait as long as they feel like, size stops being relevant. The day the studios cow the guilds into accepting anything just by virtue of their size is the day I give a crap who has a bigger bank account. And of course, this is all leaving aside the fact just because you're bigger doesn't actually automatically make you wrong.
If only that was the case, this would be a lot easier. The complaint is they aren't getting compensated in a certain way, for a very specific type of work. Which is fine, it's a valid complaint. But when everyone agreed to the system before hand, and all we are talking about is who gets what under said system, there's no moral superiority in play.
That's all I'm saying. Unless one side is twisting the arm of the other, any agreement freely made between two parties is just an agreement, not some moral edict.
It's the internet, dude.
A) Using the internet as a major source of entertainment only started very recently.
The contracts need updating for modern technology.
Absolutely, and you'll here not a breathe of argument from me on that. The writer's guild is absolutely free to look out for themselves, that's why they exist. But you can't do that and at the same time tell me you have the moral high ground because the other side is only looking out for themselves.
Do what you need to, but don't assume I'm stupid or that I care about you.
And my point isn't at all that it's wrong for them to strike to get what they want, or that it's wrong to focus on this as important. My point is ONLY about the stance the writer's guild has taken (and the basis of most the arguments you hear in their favor) and how shitty I find the hypocracy on display to be.
The writer's guild is quite likely making the absolutely right move for them. If they left it there, I wouldn't care. It's when they argue their case as the moral stance, and make themselves out to be better than the studios, that I get annoyed. It's either aching cynicism or breathtaking self-righteousness, and neither makes me like them much on a personal level.
Certainly. Child labor, horrible (but legal) work conditions, being forced to waive certain rights (like the right to trial in an arbitrage agreement); these are all things that one side could demand and the other could rightly call them immoral for. Who gets how much money beyond a poverty or living wage isn't, and to claim it is belittles all the real immoral things in the world.
Then how about looking at the fucking facts.
Seriously, if you can't see that the WGA is in the fucking right here, then the only explanation I can think of is that you're biased against unions. Which, considering the poster, is a pretty safe assumption to make.
That's the thing, though. If the WGA doesn't get a share of the internet revenue, it will very quickly become so that a writer cannot support a family off of their writing income. This while the studio's profits climb higher and higher.
If that doesn't strike you as immoral, well, I'm not surprised you see hypocrisy.
That's the difference between us. I consider a "fair" wage to be a moral/ethical issue, beyond just the poverty line. And I consider the WGA stance to be far closer to "fair", therefore, WGA appears to me to have the moral high ground.
I think that the writers have the moral high ground here because they haven't been acting like unreasonable fucks like the AMPTP has. They stated reasonable percentage-based demands that will put a slightly larger dent in the enormous profits that the studios see, and ensure that new technology is accounted for, and the studios counter with a static yearly offer that won't even buy an XBox 360.
The studios won't even go to the negotiation table... how can they claim the high ground if they won't even show up or bring a new offer to mediation?
The ironic thing is that the strike has already cost the studios four to five times more than what they would be paying out in royalties each year, by the WGA's calculations. Now, I don't want to 100% buy into one side's statistics (as both of them are incredibly biased), but we're talking ballparks here.
I stand by what I read about the entire thing being a tactic of the AMPTP heavyweights to work against the smaller production companies: If they can keep the strike going for long enough (and Fox can sure last a long time just shitting out American Idol and the like), the smaller companies who rely on scripted drama will have to fold and be bought out.
If that's true, then it adds yet another dimension to the proceeding strike... can we trust business rivals to negotiate for the entirety honestly?
Which is an excellent point. I think that at this point, it's not a matter of if someone will break ranks, but who and when.
In order:
1) You stop having the moral after 30 years of negotiated settlements. This didn't suddenly become a grave injustice now. Leaving aside the fact I doubt anyone at the table now is still the same person that was there then, if you can't make your case 30 times trying that you deserve more money, I'm not sure I particularly care to be outraged for you now. Though this is the best argument you made, so there is that.
2) Oh no, one side offered something that isn't the same as everything they've done before. The studio clearly thinks they shouldn't be paying large sums of money indefinitely, the writers equally clearly feel differently. It's called a negotiation. Just because one side doesn't value the work of the other as much as they could (or have) doesn't make them evil.
3) This one is the most laughable. My god, those bastards were prepared for the possibility the negotiations would not work out, and had a press release ready. And shock of all shocks, one side claimed the other was the problem in a negotiation. Oh shit!
4) And again, surprise of surprises, a company is excited when talking about potential revenue sources to investors, but more pragmatic when putting money on the line.
I don't give a shit who's "right" because there is no right when two equal groups are coming to a consensus. One side wants something and plays to their strengths (spin in their favor), the other side wants something else and relies on their strengths (spin in their favor). The world moves on, don't try and sell me some epic moral struggle.
Everyone involved is out for themselves, and that's fine and the way it should be. No one is coercing anyone else, and that's all I care about.
I think it's totally fine to say that, like the RIAA and your favorite band, one group actually does something for me and the other group is a middle man who skims varying amounts off the top. Ain't nothing wrong with being a middle man, but there's nothing wrong with people 'picking a side' either. I want the writers to make more money, because I think they deserve it. I want studios to make incrementally less money, because fuck 'em.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
I would certainly say this is debatable, which is why we're having a strike in the first place.
Writer's may very well not be able to support their families purely or primarily off of residuals, which I think is a very different thing (especially on the moral scale) than not being able to support your family at all.
The whole system is purely a negotiated one, and if the studio thinks it can prosper without giving more than it has offered, that's their business. As long as there are enough people who freely (and I'd even say eagerly) want to work for what the studio is offering, and the studio is happy enough with the results they get, it's not immoral to offer any agreed upon amount.
It's a matter of opinion, and I'm perfectly willing to get to this point and have you feel one way and I the other. This right here is a decidedly different point that "the writer's are right and the studios are wrong" as a categorical and unsupported position.
I'll agree with all of this, but I do think the studios are going to win this. Someone posted something along the lines of "oh, it would be so great if the writers could just start their own network..."
two things...
1) This would never happen, because the writers don't have the money. The studios do, and the writers need to play ball if they want to write for a living, or go work at starbucks and give someone who'se head isn't up their ass a shot.
2) If they did do this, how long do you think it would take for your "good and true" WGA heads to become no different than the studio execs you chastise now?
That was poorly worded on my part, because living wage is kind of vague. By living wage, I meant some amount, higher than the poverty line, where you make enough to get by comfortable but not luxuriously. Basically, any amount beyond what you need to maintain a reasonable standard of living is, to my mind at least, not controlled by any sort of moral imperative and is just what you can convince someone else to give you.
The problem is that unless you've got the cash to bankroll that opinion it's useless. The studios are the only way to actually distribute this material to the masses on a regular basis. I'm sorry, but there's plenty of people out there willing to write for entertainment, and do it on the current salary system. MORE than Plenty of them.... .there isn't some big backlog of millionaire and billionaire investors willing to bankroll if the studios don't want to. It's pretty simple at that point. They need to take a deal and get back to work, or let someone else do it who'se willing to.
Er, they're not very equal. Did you not read my mongoose vs. Quetzalcoatl metaphor?
One wealthy guild vs. 350 companies, including 8 or so of the largest corporations in the world. The WGA had one card to play, and they played it. The AMPTP has a whole deck they can shuffle from. I personally think that a good number of the posters on message boards that are pro-studios (Ain't It Cool News in particular) are the product of viral marketing strategies designed to weaken the internet stranglehold the WGA has on public relations: it's the same strategy Bush used against John Kerry in the 2004 election... attack the opponent's strengths with believable bullshit.