Sat, November 3, 2007
WGA Strike
The WGA has announced that movie and TV writers will be on strike beginning Monday. I just don't understand how there can even be a debate about this.
From what I've skimmed, it seems the writers are asking for a greater percentage of the profits that content distributors (movie studios, TV networks, etc.) make from re-distributing their work on DVD or the Internet. They currently receive a small share of home video (DVD) profits, and see absolutely no compensation from Internet and "new media" distribution. How can the distributors argue against this with a straight face?
It seems like there are two ways to buy a script from someone: a single up-front payment, or a share-the-wealth scenario. In the up-front model, the studio would have to pay a higher fee for the work because the writer only has one chance to profit from it, and he knows the studio can keep profiting from it forever. The studio assumes a greater risk, because if the product fails, they're unable to realize as much profit from ancillary markets, but they've already paid the writer all the money. In the sharing model (the framework for the current system), it's easier to sell the work at a fair price, because the risk is shared and the profits are shared. Nobody at the initial pitch meeting has to try to predict what the DVD sales for the sequel are likely to be.
Of course both sides would be insane to abandon the sharing model, and of course they don't want to; they just need to fix the way it works. I don't see why there should be different rates of compensation for different channels of distribution. A theatrical release dollar is the same as a DVD dollar or an iTunes dollar or an Amazon Unbox dollar or a premium cable dollar or a network TV dollar or an airline dollar or a cell phone dollar. Each incoming dollar is worth the same amount, so why should they share two-and-a-half cents from one, but only a third of a cent from another? It's widely known that today studios make more profit from DVD sales than box office receipts. A movie's theatrical release is little more than an extended promotion for the eventual DVD. As long as studios share a smaller percentage of the DVD profits than box office profits, they would be crazy not to continue in this direction. With HDTV and broadband adoption soaring, there's no reason to expect that home video and Internet profits won't continue to represent a larger and larger share of the pie.
Sequels, spin-offs, and remakes are a different thing. But repurposing the same work in a new medium is the same work no matter what the medium is. So why shouldn't the percentage be the same? I'm genuinely curious to understand how the AMPTP defends their stance on this one.
© onebee · all rights reserved
Bee Boy — Thu, 11/8/07 11:09pm
If there were any justice in the universe, the AMPTP and the WGA would be hammering out an agreement right now. The producers would have caved on every issue – the mere airing of yet another genius episode of 30 Rock having motivated them to drop everything and scurry back to the negotiating table.
There are people out there who will keep writing this show if we let them! There isn't a moment to lose!
Brandon — Fri, 11/9/07 3:34pm
They better or they're going to get Greenzo'd!!
Also, I heard the girl from Heroes is going to take a shower!
Joe Mulder — Sat, 11/10/07 12:42am
It's almost a shame... that "The Best Show On TV" thing I was doing on my site was fun. But, it's not looking like that title is going to change hands anytime soon.
I might have to change the rules to where you can't hold the title if your show is put on hiatus due to a strike, if I ever want to write another Best Show On TV blog entry.
Bee Boy — Sat, 11/10/07 10:06am
Yeah, although that penalizes Tina Fey and her clan for standing up for their rights. But The Amazing Race would be a shoo-in, and I can't argue with that!