Say goodbye to new TV...

[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.

[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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Absolutely. Every time a show fails, all the writers lose their jobs. 43% of writers are out of work at any given time. During those times they are living off the residuals of their previous successes. If there were no residuals, you would have to pay writers a lot more to ensure they made it through the down times and didn't decide to take a guaranteed salary in a cubicle somewhere instead.

Should every computer consultant be paid double what they are worth because they might be unemployed later? Should they get a check in the mail time someone logs onto a computer network they built even though they were already paid very well to build it? As a business owner, that makes no sense. If they were better writers, they might have less failed shows and find themselves unemployed less.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by BigV

Baloney. It depends ENTIRELY upon the deal you strike at the outset. Owning a business is irrelevant.

It *could* wind up the way you describe, it *could*, just as easily, wind up differently. Are you entirely ignorant of the concept of licensing, or are you ignoring it to make your absolutist statements appear less absurd?

Writers aren't licensing their scripts to the studios. They are SELLING their scripts. In fact staff writers are paid regardless of whether the scripts they are writing are very good. When the studio buys the script, they own it.

If I buy a painting, should I send a check to the artist every time I look at it? Of course not. Could I make a deal like that? I could, but I'd be an idiot to do that and I shouldn't be forced or coerced into doing it by a bunch of painters picketing outside my house.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And sometimes it does work out that way. But those types of writers make a lot more for their one-time work than a typical writing contract that includes residuals. Residuals in fact ensure that a producer doesn't have to pay the writer as much if the show flops.

Some book authors sell their works outright to the publishing company as well. But most publishers prefer a residuals scheme in case the book turns out to be a failure. It's the same situation, because most shows have to have several episodes created before any producer or network picks them up. Producers are not hiring laborers, they are purchasing a product from the writers, and they know exactly what they are buying beforehand.

Any number of contracts can be written up, but does it make sense for someone to make a stupid deal like that? Obviously not. Writers are paid VERY WELL for their work before a single copy of their work is sold either to television studios to advertise over, or to book publishing companies. In many cases they are paid up front before they write a single word.

The studios are gambling on the talent of the writers and paying them handsomely up front. They aren't making residual deals in case the show is a flop. Every single producer in Hollywood would jump at the chance to pay the writer once up front and never give them a cut of residual income.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

When you bother to address the points in posts 36-38 and 41-42, maybe someone will care what you think.

Most of those weren't valid points other than the fact that people can write any contract they want. I responded to them though.

Happy?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Radar

Happy?

While slightly more useful than your initial post, I can't say your responses were particularly enjoyable, no. I understand how you routinely debate with people, however, so I know that discussing it with you is completely pointless. I will address a few points, and then I'm done talking about it with you.

Originally Posted by Radar

Writers are paid VERY WELL for their work before a single copy of their work is sold either to television studios to advertise over, or to book publishing companies... The writers are paid handsomely initially for their script... The studios are gambling on the talent of the writers and paying them handsomely up front.

Feel free to cite your salary sources at any time.

Writers are not paid well. From here: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual salary of a scriptwriter is $44,350." (Keep in mind that these are Los Angeles and New York salaries.)

Originally Posted by Radar

In many cases they are paid up front before they write a single word.

This is also completely false. A pilot is created before the show is bought, that is how it's done. Often several more episodes are required before the producer is willing to commit. Only in extremely rare cases with famous, well-established writers are contracts drawn up based on pitch ideas alone.

Originally Posted by Radar

Should every computer consultant be paid double what they are worth because they might be unemployed later? ... If I buy a painting, should I send a check to the artist every time I look at it?

You're bringing in lots of irrelevant industries, and avoiding the most pertinent one: should the author of a novel be expected to sell their book outright to the publishers? Hint--novel authors do not actually receive any outright purchase price for their books; the money they receive up front is called an "advance," and is taken out of the first chunk of royalty revenue they are owed from the first batch of sales. If by some gross error on the estimating skills of the publisher, the book does not sell even enough copies to cover the advance, the book author has to give back the difference.

But to answer your questions: If a company expects there to be full-time computer consultants available for hire when they need them, then they must expect to pay them what their time is worth, including the downtime during which they are unable to do other jobs because they are remaining available to be computer consultants. An industry can demand the salaries it requires to stay functioning as an industry, just as an individual business demands the prices it requires to be able to pay the rent and continue selling items at all.

Meanwhile, the painting analogy is completely off-base unless you are charging other people to view your copy of the painting. In which case, the painter will undoubtedly charge you much more money for it up front, because the painting is by definition worth more as a revenue stream.

Originally Posted by Radar

Any number of contracts can be written up, but does it make sense for someone to make a stupid deal like that? Obviously not... Every single producer in Hollywood would jump at the chance to pay the writer once up front and never give them a cut of residual income.

There are in fact plenty of writers available who do not belong to the union. The producers are not in any way coerced into writing residual contracts with them, and yet they do. You may continue to insist on 'what obviously makes sense' and 'what producers really want' (and I'm certain you will,) but their actions speak louder than your words.

Originally Posted by Radar

...especially considering the lack of talent in Hollywood.

This is ironic, considering you were eager to jump in with a whole list of shows you are worried about missing new episodes of. The fact that several on your list will not even be affected by the strike just serves to highlight again the fact that you are completely uninformed about the situation. Like every other argument you get into here, your unwavering opinions are based entirely on your political ideals, and have nothing to do with the reality at hand.

[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.

[Radar]

The biggest pool of writing talent can't come up with anything more original than remakes of crappy 70s tv shows?

The best writers don't write for television at all. They write novels.

As far as missing the shows I like goes, for every show that is good, there are 100 that suck hairy balls

[monster]

Originally Posted by Radar

The best writers don't write for television at all. They write novels.

Bollocks.

[Flint]

Log in as Terminator and tell us "how Terminator feels" about this.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

During the 2004-5 NHL hockey lockout, ESPN looked for other things to broadcast. They decided to show the World Series of Poker. Thus began a whole new form of entertainment and a whole new industry.

People found other things to be interested in. Hockey is still trying to recover. ESPN gave up its hockey contract and the NHL is now broadast on Versus. What? I don't even know if i GET Versus.

What will replace written TV? If this lasts any length of time, the people will find alternatives. The last time the writers went on strike there was no public Internet. Hmmm.

I believe that ESPN covered WSOP since 1978. Not as a weekly program, for sure.

[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.

[Radar]

The shovel is the product someone was paid to design. They don't own the shovel factory. They don't own the design for the shovel. They were paid to design a shovel. Even assuming they do own the design for the shovel and license it to the company, they would be paid once for each shovel sold. Digging a hole is the use of the shovel.

It's unreasonable for the shovel designer to expect to be paid while designing the shovel, then paid again for each shovel sold, and again for each use of the shovel.

The writers are paid WELL to write the script, and they are paid residuals for each time it is aired on television, now they want to be paid each time someone looks at it on the internet. It's unreasonable.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

The writers are paid WELL to write the script, and they are paid residuals for each time it is aired on television, now they want to be paid each time someone looks at it on the internet. It's unreasonable.

Someone gets paid each time it's downloaded (from a legit site, at least). Why not the authors?

And why are television airings and DVDs shovels, while a download is a hole?