Say goodbye to new TV...

[Radar]

I believe the dispute is over digital media over the internet. The writers were screwed by the studios on DVD sales. They want residuals for internet viewings of material they wrote for, and in my opinion they are way out of line.

I don't like the idea of residuals to begin with. If I hire you to do something for me and I pay you, why should I pay you every time I use it to make money? It's like a shovel maker wanting a dollar every time someone digs a hole with their shovel.

If I risk my money to hire people to write a program for me. Should I be forced to pay them money for each copy that sells? I already paid them to come in everyday and write the program for a year or two. I shelled out that money with no guarantee that I would get any money back.

The same is true of tv shows. These people risk millions of dollars on a product that is unlikely to make any money for them. Most shows tank. If their investment pays off, why should they be forced to pay someone for work they did years ago that they were already paid for when the show wasn't making any money?

Should I have to send money to Toyota ever ytime I drive my car, even though I've already paid for the car?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

I don't like the idea of residuals to begin with. If I hire you to do something for me and I pay you, why should I pay you every time I use it to make money? It's like a shovel maker wanting a dollar every time someone digs a hole with their shovel.

No, it's like a shovel inventor wanting money every time someone sells their shovel. Or an author wanting money for each copy of their book that is sold.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No, it's like a shovel inventor wanting money every time someone sells their shovel. Or an author wanting money for each copy of their book that is sold.

No, it's like a business hiring a contractor to create a shovel and paying him regardless of whether or not they will be successful in selling that shovel. After the business has paid him every penny of what he has earned while working for them, he leaves he wants money for every shovel sold and now he is fighting to get more money for every hole dug using one of those shovels.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

No, it's like a business hiring a contractor to create a shovel and paying him regardless of whether or not they will be successful in selling that shovel. After the business has paid him every penny of what he has earned while working for them, he leaves he wants money for every shovel sold and now he is fighting to get more money for every hole dug using one of those shovels.

What is the shovel and what is the hole in your analogy? It looks to me like they have a contract to get paid a pittance for every shovel sold, with a promise to get back pay for all the past shovels that they were underpaid on when the shovel market matures, and now the company is saying that not only will they not get the back pay, but any future shovels won't even count as shovels, and the authors will get nothing.

And your argument is that, contracts be damned, they shouldn't have even gotten that pittance.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Radar

The same is true of tv shows. These people risk millions of dollars on a product that is unlikely to make any money for them. Most shows tank. If their investment pays off, why should they be forced to pay someone for work they did years ago that they were already paid for when the show wasn't making any money?

That makes no sense. In fact I'd wager that producers would prefer to increase residuals payments and eliminate the initial wage they pay. Then they would only be paying the writers if the shows were a hit. It would eliminate some of the risk for the producers. "I'll only pay you if the show is a hit, but I will pay you handsomely."

Seems to me this hybrid system gives the writers a little stability up front and a lot of incentive to produce a good show for a big payoff down the line. If they were to eliminate the residuals, then the initial writer's wage would likely go up, and so would the risk to the producers.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by glatt

That makes no sense. In fact I'd wager that producers would prefer to increase residuals payments and eliminate the initial wage they pay. Then they would only be paying the writers if the shows were a hit. It would eliminate some of the risk for the producers. "I'll only pay you if the show is a hit, but I will pay you handsomely."

Seems to me this hybrid system gives the writers a little stability up front and a lot of incentive to produce a good show for a big payoff down the line. If they were to eliminate the residuals, then the initial writer's wage would likely go up, and so would the risk to the producers.

The writers are paid handsomely initially for their script. They are paid far more than most other writers, especially considering the lack of talent in Hollywood. They are paid handsomely regardless of whether or not the show succeeds. It's not a hybrid system. They are paid fairly for the script they were hired to write. Now they want more money above and beyond what they have actually earned.

[ElBandito]

Originally Posted by Radar

The writers are paid handsomely initially for their script. They are paid far more than most other writers, especially considering the lack of talent in Hollywood. They are paid handsomely regardless of whether or not the show succeeds. It's not a hybrid system. They are paid fairly for the script they were hired to write. Now they want more money above and beyond what they have actually earned.

"Lack Of Talent In Hollywood"... interesting as I'd think that Hollywood was the biggest magnet for writing talent in The World.