Those who support writer's strike

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the terms of their last contract expired on the 31st. This is an answer to a failed negotiation that has been in-progress for some time now and they have the right to stop working if they are at an impasse.

Perhaps the writers and producers can use this "downtime" to think up something clever for our favorite shows, many of which haven't been clever for a very long time. Except CSI. Horatio is always clever.

e
 
bosindy said:
And the studios are recharacterizing the online work product using different names like "promotions" to get away with not paying.

"The office" writers staff speak about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6hqP0c0_gw
Click to expand...

That's complete bullshit. Makes you wonder how the studio can even get away with that type of thing... I mean, they won an emmy for their webisode writing and they're selling ads and making revenue (the studios are) but the writer doesn't get anything for the script? I can see why they're on strike...
 
tommyinla said:
That's complete bullshi*. Makes you wonder how the studio can even get away with that type of thing... I mean, they won an emmy for their webisode writing and they're selling ads and making revenue (the studios are) but the writer doesn't get anything for the script? I can see why they're on strike...
Click to expand...

definitely. those guys are getting screwed.
 
Marshall Herskovitz, who wrote/produced Thirtysomething, recently wrote that broadcasters used to be PROHIBITED from owning the programs they aired, so they licensed them from producers like Herskovitz. In 95, those laws were overturned, so now they can own the programs they show and independent producers are now screwed out of syndication money, not to mention having to put up with notes from people who don't know anything about production.

If writers owned their scripts and licensed them out they probably wouldn't be in the position they are. The way it is now, corporations own it all, so you can't fault them for wanting all the profit from what's legally theirs.
 
Batutta said:
If writers owned their scripts and licensed them out they probably wouldn't be in the position they are. The way it is now, corporations own it all, so you can't fault them for wanting all the profit from what's legally theirs.
Click to expand...

Now this I'll agree with. To a degree anyway. On one hand, if writers had the rights to their own scripts, they could control how much they charge for licensing, and the quality of their work would dictate how much they could charge.

Of course what happens when more than one writer works on a script? And I'm not sure how one would handle a situation where a writer writes a script using characters to an existing TV show... he might have the rights to the script itself, but he wouldn't have the rights to use the script anywhere, since he wouldn't have the rights to the characters.

In any event, misrepresenting income for the purposes of avoiding paying your people what you promised them is wrong. I'm not going to defend that.

But saying that just because the actors get a piece of the pie that the writers should isn't sound logic. The guy who cleans the bathrooms that the crew uses is pretty important to the success of the project, but I don't think anyone would argue that he should get a percentage of the total sales. There are many people who are important in every company. But just being important doesn't mean you *deserve* a cut.
 
Can they just fire the writers who came up with the dreadful "Lions to Lambs"? One of the worst pics I have ever seen.
 
It is strange to me how the Nets can justify denying writers a portion of internet streaming profits. An ad is an ad. Bizarre. Can't the writers sue on that basis (unpaid use of intellectual property), seperate from the overall negotiations?
 
TwistedLincoln said:
Of course what happens when more than one writer works on a script? And I'm not sure how one would handle a situation where a writer writes a script using characters to an existing TV show... he might have the rights to the script itself, but he wouldn't have the rights to use the script anywhere, since he wouldn't have the rights to the characters.
Click to expand...

If two writers work on a script at the same time they would both own it. If a writer licensed out his work, and then someone came along and rewrote it, the original writer should still own it, even if it's changed considerably.
 
marketmd said:
It is strange to me how the Nets can justify denying writers a portion of internet streaming profits. An ad is an ad. Bizarre. Can't the writers sue on that basis (unpaid use of intellectual property), seperate from the overall negotiations?
Click to expand...

No, they can't sue, because the writers don't own the intellectual property. See above post...This is the reason writers have to resort to forming Unions and extortion to get residuals. And let's not mince words. This is extortion, however right it may or may not be.
 
TwistedLincoln said:
The guy who cleans the bathrooms that the crew uses is pretty important to the success of the project, but I don't think anyone would argue that he should get a percentage of the total sales.
Click to expand...

That's pretty deep, you're comparing the work the writer does to that of a janitor, not that there's anything wrong with being a janitor, but I'm pretty sure the janitor has nothing to do with creating a page of a script for a show that airs on nbc, and if he does and yes he deserves a profit also, but I doubt he does.
 
TwistedLincoln said:
But saying that just because the actors get a piece of the pie that the writers should isn't sound logic. The guy who cleans the bathrooms that the crew uses is pretty important to the success of the project, but I don't think anyone would argue that he should get a percentage of the total sales. There are many people who are important in every company. But just being important doesn't mean you *deserve* a cut.
Click to expand...
If the janitor was contractually obligated to get a cut and the powers that be were trying to split hairs and/or doing everything they could to weasel around the language of the contract in order to get more money for themselves then I'd support the janitor striking if management balked at agreeing to language that would make it more difficult for management to screw over the janitor.

Batutta said:
This is the reason writers have to resort to forming Unions and extortion to get residuals. And let's not mince words. This is extortion, however right it may or may not be.
Click to expand...
The reason people resort to unionizing is typically because of gross mistreatment by management. I also think calling it "extortion" is a bit melodramatic, don't you?
The way it is now, corporations own it all, so you can't fault them for wanting all the profit from what's legally theirs.
Click to expand...
And you can't fault the writers for wanting the corporations to honor their contracts w/the WGA.


-A
 
TwistedLincoln said:
The guy who cleans the bathrooms that the crew uses is pretty important to the success of the project, but I don't think anyone would argue that he should get a percentage of the total sales. There are many people who are important in every company. But just being important doesn't mean you *deserve* a cut.
Click to expand...
But the janitor is doing nothing in the creative process, which is generally what you are getting from writers, actors and director.
 
adkimery said:
And you can't fault the writers for wanting the corporations to honor their contracts w/the WGA.
-A
Click to expand...

The problem wasn't the corporations honoring their contracts. The contracts expired, and the writers wanted new terms.
 
shawneous said:
The writers are 110% in the right on this. It's the writers who give birth to the idea, everyone else is adding to or simply implementing it.
Click to expand...

Exactly why writers should own their material. Unfortunately the system is rigged so whoever puts up the money immediately gets all rights to the writers intellectual property. Paul McCartney is a rich bastard because he owned the rights to his music, until Michael Jackson bought them, but Jackson bought them from him, not a media conglomerate. Until writers change the laws in their favor they will always get screwed. What they are doing is not changing the laws, they are negotiating a contract and using the threat of being organized to achieve their ends, when they should be going to court.
 
Alright, bad analogy, but publishing rights as they apply to music is what writers should look to as a model for how they should treat their scripts.
 
Batutta said:
Exactly why writers should own their material.
Click to expand...

Well, yes it would be nice. The studios don't want that, though. They don't want to have to somehow share huge profits with a writer who owns the idea and the script. They also don't want to shell out $1 million for a script when they don't know how much it can make them, though big prices are sometimes paid for scripts if they think it is a money maker, as was the case with Evan Almighty.

Studios argue that they can't afford to shell out big bucks blindly...unless it is for useless execs or things of that nature. So the Guild says "ok....pay a fair price up front, and work out a profit sharing system. If the films makes money, you pay the writer, if not, you haven't lost as much up front." The studio says "Sure!" Then they fudge the numbers or inflate the budget to show a loss, no matter what the film makes, and they get away with not paying many people that way. Do they try and screw Steven Spielberg that way? No. Steven Screenwriter? Yes.

Paul McCartney is a rich bastard because he owned the rights to his music, until Michael Jackson bought them, but Jackson bought them from him, not a media conglomerate.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. I believe he is rich because he made some money with The Beatles, and a whole heap with Wings, plus some more from the duets he did with Jackson. Jackson bought the rights to The Beatles music from whomever by bidding against McCartney, after Paul had told him how lucrative a field it was. That is what ended the friendship.

Until writers change the laws in their favor they will always get screwed. What they are doing is not changing the laws, they are negotiating a contract and using the threat of being organized to achieve their ends, when they should be going to court
Click to expand...
The contract is the law. The guild feels the spirit of the new contract does not match the old one, in that semantics are being used to keep from paying them a portion of the monies they helped generate.

Offering a percentage of DVD income but not of other forms of out-of-theatre delivery leaves a hole for exploitation. It makes for incentive to increase delivery in the forms that don't require paying the writer, plus it anticipates a gradual decline in DVD revenues without addressing what replaces it. The guild is just looking out for it's members now and in the future.

Would you sign a contract today that only offered you a share of VHS sales and rentals on your film after it leaves the theatres....?
 
Last edited:
DeSica said:
Would you sign a contract today that only offered you a share of VHS sales and rentals on your film after it leaves the theatres....?
Click to expand...

they would be suckers if they did. unfortunately, i didn't get a share of the dvd sales on my recent contract, but i do get like 90% of betamax sales. i'm not real familiar with the technology, but the distributor has been hyping this betamax as the next big thing. :happy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top