In article <4730c8c6$0$25669$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Nicole Massey" <nyyki@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:ANIM8Rfsk-E9E385.10523306112007@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Still not a good analogy. Let's say that he gets paid for every car
as
> >> long
> >> as they're sold through a dealer****p, but doesn't get paid for cars
sold
> >> direct to the consumer or through fleet sales. And for the analogy to
> >> work,
> >> you also have to add that people are increasingly starting to buy
direct
> >> and
> >> bypass the dealer****ps.
> >
> > Still not a good analogy. They want additional money for the SAME car
> > when it trades hands again, down the road, whether there's a profit
> > involved or not. They'd want money if you gave your old car to
charity.
> > Nobody's denying them money for any car; they still get paid for
> > building it, and the first sale, and a lot of other resales.
> >>
> >> On Demand and direct to DVD are going to become larger segments in
the
> >> next
> >> few years, and under the current model writers will lose their ****rts
> >> writing for those media.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > They get paid for writing the script, regardless of where it airs,
> > regardless of if it airs, *now*
> > They get paid for direct to DVD *now*
> > We're talking extra residuals from potential later dispersal of
product
> > that might not even have money changing hands, and they want twice
what
> > they get on a DVD for that.
>
> The analogy isn't perfect, of course. But here's the truth of it.
Royalties
> are a way of rewarding good work, work that has appeal past the creation
of
> the work.
In that case, the WGA clearly is for the vast most part not entitled.
>
> It's pretty simple to me. The writer was a fundamental part of the
creation
Varies case to case. Often their work must be rewritten by others to
the point that nothing is left.
> of the work. If it has appeal in other formats, it makes no sense to me
why
> the suits who did nothing creative at any point in the process should
get so
You're assuming the 'suits' do no creative and the 'writers' do it all.
In my experience, neither of these is true.
> much of the benefit and the creative people (remember, this is a big
issue
> in the DGA and SAG contracts coming up next summer) should get more
money.
> The amount given on DVD, On Demand, and Net Streaming distribution is a
> faint pittance, and as the networks become more and more meaningless in
time
> and more and more of the viewer traffic comes from these three (and
other
> emerging ) streams it will quickly reach a point where it's not
economically
> feasible for someone to try to make a living writing unless this is
> rectified.
--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
|
