Writers strike is a go

[Fast Learner]

Anyway, in stuff like this, the people who really get hurt are the consumers (since any increase in money the writer's guy won't come out of the studios pocket, but result in increased DVD prices) and the people who work on shows but aren't "talent".

They're asking for 4 cents more per DVD. I suppose I'll be "hurt" by that, but it's an incredibly mild wound.

EDIT: Sorry, I see that the 4 cent figure has already been mentioned. It's still a small amount of money, and is likely designed to be used as a starting point.

 

[Mark]

Is it certain that they sincerely were going for that, or were they just moving their position away from the status quo towards their ideal result in order to get more negotiating leeway?

Proposing zero residuals puts their starting position equally distant from the status quo as the writers, putting them in a much, much better negotiating position (a neutral negotiating space) than creating a situation where they defend the status quo and the writers wants more (a highly writer-sqewed negotiating space).

It seems that this is a sound negotiating tactic, so long as they don't get too much backlash over it.

If the writers went in the opposite direction and asked for all of the money, would that have been sound? Some positions just amount to negotiating in bad faith. It is probably inevitable that the writers will get more of the pie. The longer the delay, the more the other side can get in the meantime. I wonder how many millions of dollars they get for each day they can delay negotiating in earnest?

 

[Pyrex]

The whole thing basically comes down to one simple question - do you think that the writers (and the directors, and the actors) should get paid less (or, in many cases, nothing at all) because their work gets shown on the internet rather than on TV?

While I agree that they should be paid, I can't reasonably comment on *how much* they should be paid.

 

[Pyrex]

Calling a payment of four cents on a $20 DVD unfair isn't biased, it's just common sense.

Really? Then what would be 'fair'?

If I go to Costco, and spend $20 to buy season N of Funny Sitcom, how much of that $20 should each of the writers who contributed to that season get?

 

[Relique du Madde]

Really? Then what would be 'fair'?

If I go to Costco, and spend $20 to buy season N of Funny Sitcom, how much of that $20 should each of the writers who contributed to that season get?

Compared to what amount? How much does everyone else who worked on the DVD or that show make?

 

[Pyrex]

Compared to what amount? How much does everyone else who worked on the DVD or that show make?

That's exactly my point.

I posted above that I had no idea if what the Writers were asking was reasonable.

Grog said he felt that $0.04 per $20 in DVD sales was "unfair" so I asked him to back it up.

 

[WayneLigon]

They're asking for 4 cents more per DVD. I suppose I'll be "hurt" by that, but it's an incredibly mild wound.

The only price I've seen quoted is that they currently get 1/3 of a cent per DVD and they want 2/3 of a cent. The other side to all this is not the DVD market but the Internet.

An interesting exerpt from Evanier's blog:

But so far, the mob that yells, "Take the offer and let's get back to work" has been pretty much non-existent. Why? Well, a huge reason is that the idea of agreeing to let the studios make as much money as they can off the Internet with us receiving bupkis is just too outrageous. Even those whose hearts are with Management have a hard time siding with that one. But there's an even bigger reason that no one in the WGA wants to take the offer and that is that there is no offer.

It struck me the other day that that's one thing that's different this time. My last four strikes, the Producers had presented us with a unilateral and rotten contract proposal — a few increases in minimums, generally below the cost-of-living rates...a few rollbacks, some of them quite large...and there's always one little item that we can celebrate as a "gain." Usually, these offers aren't even a product of two-way negotiations. Usually, the Producers just refuse to listen to anything we want to say and instead hand us a bad "take it or leave it" offer and to leave it means to go on strike. This time, there have been some talks — apparently fruitless — that have led to no offer. There is no piece of paper that the "Don't Strike" mob can wave about at the moment and insist is good enough.

As I understand it, the Producers' position at this moment is as follows: Take the two most important issues — DVDs and Internet delivery — off the table. Drop all your demands in those areas and then (and only then) we'll sit down with you and make a decent offer that covers the other stuff.

So if someone asks you why the WGA is striking...well, there it is. We haven't accepted the deal because there is no deal. All there is is a demand that we surrender before they'll discuss surrender terms. Matter of fact, given the Producers' long history of "negotiating" by dictating their terms and then walking out of the room, it's unlikely

From the NY Times:


The motivation for this drastic action — and a strike is drastic, a fact I grow more aware of every passing day — is the guild’s desire for a portion of revenues derived from the Internet. This is nothing new: for more than 50 years, writers have been entitled to a small cut of the studios’ profits from the reuse of our shows or movies; whenever something we created ends up in syndication or is sold on DVD, we receive royalties. But the studios refuse to apply the same rules to the Internet.

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.

Particularly telling is this, since all indications so far are that this will be a long strike:

If this strike lasts longer than three months, an entire season of television will end this December. No dramas. No comedies. No “Daily Show.” The strike will also prevent any pilots from being shot in the spring, so even if the strike is settled by then, you won’t see any new shows until the following January. As in 2009. Both the guild and the studios we are negotiating with do agree on one thing: this situation would be brutal.

 

[frankthedm]

Leno and Conan O'Brien have declined to cross picket lines now, sending studios scrambling for anyone stupid or desperate enough to host The Tonight Show etc. Joan Rivers is probably waiting by the phone right now.

Lets leave direct insults out of this.


Studios need to launch a "The SWG wants to stop free web content!" statement.

Personally I find it kind of funny since it sure seems writers are very quick to use Unions as transparent masks for organized crime...

 

[Relique du Madde]

Studios need to launch a "The SWG wants to stop free web content!" statement.

I'll think about that statement when I am forced to watch commercials while watching the my favorite NBC program on NBC.com.

No wait.. I already HAVE to do that. I guess that content isn't technically free then. At least I don't have to have a subscription.... YET. If I do, I'm pretty sure the SWG will not be the only culprits behind that decision.

 

[Grog]

Really? Then what would be 'fair'?

If I go to Costco, and spend $20 to buy season N of Funny Sitcom, how much of that $20 should each of the writers who contributed to that season get?

More than four cents, that's for sure.

Like I said, the studios' gross on a $20 DVD is about $9. What do you figure their profit is? $5-6 per disc? And the writers get four cents? Does that seem right to you?

And that's not even getting into the fact that total DVD sales figures are infamously untraceable in Hollywood, so the writers (and the directors, and the actors) have no idea if they're even getting paid what they should be under the terms of the current deal.