One of the big sticking points in the writer dispute is that the writers want paying when their work appears in digital media content. The NY Times describes the issues:
The guild said the companies had dug in their heels by, among other things, refusing to grant the unions jurisdiction over most writing directly for new media, and insisting on the right to offer promotional showings of movies and television shows in new media and elsewhere without paying an additional fee.
The companies have also insisted on pegging residuals payments for downloaded movies and shows at the same rate historically used for DVDs and videocassettes — a formula writers have regretted almost since the moment they negotiated it two decades ago. In effect, the sides finally got down to what they were really fighting about: who will get what from the media of the future.
Whether you agree or not, the bigger problem here is that the writers are fighting an industry struggling to create an economic model for this new era for content. They’re demanding money for content that may never make money. Let’s face it: it’s likely that in the future the majority of content will be shared for free – just like we share music content today.
There’s also another problem – a billion online creators already blogging or making video for free.
So, how does the industry make money from content – and how does the industry pay the old-school creators. Ironically, probably the only area PSFK thinks people will pay for in the future is live content – content like sports – where there is less need for writers… The economics of TV and film are about to be questioned. Even if they win, will the strike cause a bigger problem for the creative industries than the writers expect?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
You are missing the point: they are simply saying “in the past we got X percent of the profits from the sale of widgets (videos, dvds, whatever) and we would like to make X percent of whatever uncertain amount you make in the future from online”.
it’s a reasonable argument. they are aware that lots of content online won’t make money… they are just saying that *IF* it does they want a cut. what’s the argument against that exactly?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Although I agree with you that people have come to expect free services from the internet, at some point people will have to be paid for their services. Even though google’s search service is absolutely free – they are still pulling in money.
You are correct in saying that people put up video content for free but there is a difference between content and a story. Perhaps if writers are writing things that people do not want then the marketplace will tell them. But if they create something of value then they will be reimbursed for their efforts.
People pay for things they find to be of value for them.
Putting Mentos in a bottle of Coca-Cola well although amusing is ultimately – value-less making it free content.
The bottom line is that there is plenty of money in the global marketplace and especially the online marketplace for everyone to be paid when either goods or services are exchanged.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:56 am
It seems completely reasonable for the writers to want a share of whatever revenue stream exists in the future.
Until the industry finds a way to exist without creators of content, writers should be fairly compensated for their contributions.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Free rarely substitutes quality content. I feel people will continue to pay for content as long as there is value to be had. Let me narrate an experience I had sometime back.
In a countryside fair there were 2 pavilions a little apart from one another, both offering magic shows. One was free, the other costing an entry fee.
Guess which one drew most crowds! It was the paid magic show. The reason is obvious.
People knew they were going to see quality program in the paid show.
It is a fallacy to think people won’t pay for quality content. Which is why the present strike by the writers’ guild is justified.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Music is not free. If it is, is it legal? It is comments like this that make people think it is free.
I have never downloaded an illegal file or burnt my own discs. It may appear to be given away to the public for free in some instances but perhaps the licenses for that content were paid for by different means ie, the provider paid, using advertising revenue or blanket subscription. Nothing should be free. Hear it, see it, like it? Then BUY IT! Support creators, encourage development.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:46 am