Official WGA Writers Strike thread.

[Sickboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Mourning TV" an op-ed in the NY Times today by Lost co-creator/writer Damon Lindelof.
excerpts:
[ QUOTE ]
My show, “Lost,” has been streamed hundreds of millions of times since it was made available on ABC’s Web site. The downloads require the viewer to first watch an advertisement, from which the network obviously generates some income. The writers of the episodes get nothing. We’re also a hit on iTunes (where shows are sold for $1.99 each). Again, we get nothing.
[...]
I am angry because I am accused of being greedy by studios that are being greedy. I am angry because my greed is fair and reasonable: if money is made off of my product through the Internet, then I am entitled to a small piece. The studios’ greed, on the other hand, is hidden behind cynical, disingenuous claims that they make nothing on the Web — that the streaming and downloading of our shows is purely “promotional.” Seriously?
[...]
But I am willing to hold firm for considerably longer than three months because this is a fight for the livelihoods of a future generation of writers, whose work will never “air,” but instead be streamed, beamed or zapped onto a tiny chip.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

For all we know, networks might lose money on streaming TV shows because of the bandwidth, with the ads only partially making up for the loss or making it break-even.

And he's "entitled" to whatever the contract that he signed says he's entitled to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but that contract for all writers expired. Hence the strike given the last time they signed a contract the internet was just exploding in terms of television shows and movies.

in 4-6 years there won't be a DVD market...you'll buy crap thru yr tv or trhu yr computer.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
For all we know, networks might lose money on streaming TV shows because of the bandwidth, with the ads only partially making up for the loss or making it break-even.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Seriously, this 'they (say they) aren't making money on the webcasts' argument makes no sense, how do people not see that??

If TV broadcasts of LOST were losing ABC money, are they justified in not paying their writers? No of course not, they are perfectly entitled to cancel the show, but if they keep playing it, even if they are losing money in the process, they have to pay the writers.

No one is striking demanding that ABC put the episodes online (with ads or for purchase) and pay the writers. The writers are only demanding that if ABC decides to do so they pay the people who created that good they are now selling for 1.99/attention to ads.

If things are really how the networks say they are they are entirely justified in promptly canceling the web broadcasts.

Edit to add: BTW, people arguing for the networks, ask yourself why they haven't canceled the webcasts yet. Why, instead, do they expand them all the time, offering more and more shows and advertising the service endlessly? Obviously, they aren't just burning money or altruistically sacrificing revenue in the name of supporting new technology or making sure information is as free as possible. No, they are doing it because they are gaining from it. What they are gaining I don't know - maybe it isn't money directly, maybe it's higher ratings for their tv broadcasts, maybe it's great promotion, maybe it's investing in being as good as possible at what they recognize to be the future of the medium, I don't know.
In any case, they are gaining from the ad supported web broadcasts of episodes online, and the people who created those episodes are being left out in the cold.

[kipin]

Aint no way in hell the cost of bandwidth exceeds the revenue generated by the commercials played before the broadcast begins.

Not to mention the flash ads, banner ads, ad words, etc ad revenue.

[suzzer99]

I'm starting to have serious Daily Show and Colbert Report withdrawal. Just for this, when those shows do come back on, I vow to FF past all the commercials. Oh wait...

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
Entourage?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sickboy]

good article--why the writers are right
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20159387,00.html

Oddly, the same executives who speak with absolute authority about the horrifying injustice of paying residuals seem to turn into bewildered children, lost in a fogbound forest and helpless to see even two feet ahead, when they confront the other big issue: income from streaming video, new media, and the Internet. Writers, like everybody else with a brain and a computer, have figured out that this is where a large chunk of the future of movie and TV revenue resides, and they want a piece of it. To which the producers have essentially responded: What's this newfangled Interweb you're talking about? We don't know how it works! Are you sure there's a way we can make money from it? What a silly thing to even talk about! What next, flying cars?

Never mind that these same executives have, for years, vigorously pursued deals to put their content on the Internet, acquire websites, and sell advertising for both original and repurposed programming. (Why? To make money, in case anyone is unclear.) Suddenly, when the people who write that material ask for a share, they go all fuzzyheaded. One of AMPTP's demands has been a three-year period to study the economic viability of new media. You read that right: three years. If any studio honcho can keep a straight face while uttering the phrase ''three-year study,'' I'll fork over...at least two-thirds of a penny. What's the breakdown — one year to figure out the cash flow, one year to count the money, and one year to decide which lie to tell the writers?

The problem with this position is that writers deserve a share of revenue for material they help to create. Not a share only if the revenue is really, really a lot. A share, period. If it turns out that streaming video is a goldmine, then both sides will get a lot of money. If it turns out not to be, they'll get less. Corporations are fond of reminding their employees that they're all a ''family'' during tough times. But when families sit down to dinner, Dad doesn't get to say, ''I'm gonna eat until I decide I'm full, and then we'll see if there's anything left for the rest of you.'' The right of a writer to earn money from work that continues to generate revenue cannot be dependent on how comfy studio and network heads are with the fullness of their own coffers.

[golfnutt]

What is the purpose of unions? Usually to have their people earn artificially above free-market wages I presume and keep people from being . Why aren't there unions for accountants, lawyers, secretaries, etc.?

Studios should be able to hire whomever they want. If a good script comes in from a kid in Canada or Illinois or Romania, so be it.

I am sure the so-called product would be just as comparable to 95% of the junk on TV. And the writers of the few good shows would still have considerable bargaining power with the producers.

[Sickboy]

and from John August

* Writers get royalties: for books, for songs, for literary works.
* For legal reasons, studios want to be considered the “author” of a movie. So screenwriters transfer “authorship” to the studios, in exchange for a bunch of rights, and residuals.
* The studios and the WGA disagree about what rate is fair for work distributed over the internet.
* Since internet distribution will eventually replace DVDs, a bad rate would result in a pay cut for writers.
* That’s why there’s a strike.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the purpose of unions? Usually to have their people earn artificially above free-market wages I presume and keep people from being . Why aren't there unions for accountants, lawyers, secretaries, etc.?

Studios should be able to hire whomever they want. If a good script comes in from a kid in Canada or Illinois or Romania, so be it.

I am sure the so-called product would be just as comparable to 95% of the junk on TV. And the writers of the few good shows would still have considerable bargaining power with the producers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The studios CAN hire whoever they want to

and no the product wouldn't be comparable. not even close.

[danspartan]

Is Dennis Miller's new show on Versus affected?