Dave might know a thing or two about tech (although that is debatable) but he doesn’t know a thing about the entertainment industry.
[I]n this case, the execs, the nemesis of the Internet, seem to be taking the side of the Internet. They can’t promise the writers a share of the money they make on the Internet because they don’t see how they’re going to make money on the Internet. How can you share something that doesn’t exist??
I have a sneaking suspicion that Dave was trying to see how many absurdly ignorant statements he could cram into two sentences. If, in fact, the entertainment industry didn’t know how to make money off of the internet, and wasn’t making money now, they would gladly give the writers a larger share of nothing to get them back in their cubes. The execs would be getting something for nothing. What’s more likely is that the execs are making money on the internet and have a plan for how to make more, and they want to keep it for themselves.
For another thing, it’s not just the “new media” (which is a catch-all provision that tends to cover everything less common than DVD sales) contract clauses which are up for debate. So, too, is the DVD residual rate and calculation clauses… surely Dave doesn’t think that people aren’t making money on DVDs right now.
When we talk with people from the entertainment industry they explain how they can’t just release stuff on the Internet, because they have agreements with the rights holders that assume the realities of the old more restrictive distribution system. Those are the writers.
One of two things are going on here, Dave. Either a) they’re lying to you or b) you don’t really understand what they’re saying. Possibly both. While it’s theoretically possible for a writer to retain the rights to their works, that’s just not the way the contracts are laid out. Typically WGA members engage in works for hire and (as a safeguard) assign all rights in their work to the production company, which means that the only “rights” they have are the rights granted to them in their contracts. Typically, the right to royalties or other forms of payment.
It may be that Dave’s post is using the writer’s strike as something of a parable, but having any experience with entertainment law makes the premises laughably inaccurate.
The rest of the post is just bizarre. His “I’m not going on strike, even though I am a writer” line makes me wonder if Dave even understands what the Writers Guild of America is. He’s probably offended that he’s never been invited to join. He then goes on to compare, oddly, writing software to writing screenplays.
Wha?
I don’t hold on to a principle that I must be paid for what I do. I look at money as separate from my living. I live through my work. Some of it pays, and it’s unfortunately unpredictable what that is. Welcome to the net, welcome to the 21st century.
I think Dave just forgot to take his meds today. I’m sure we’ll get a post tomorrow telling us how we just didn’t get it, and what he really meant was something else entirely. Keep an eye out for “Writer’s Strike Day 2″ or something similar.
I’m afraid you’re wrong here. The point you’re missing is that the WGA is demanding a percentage of the GROSS not the NET revenue. I also disagree with the idea that writing a sitcom is somehow more creative than being a software developer (or for that matter an architect or engineer).
The truth is I really have no side in this but I’m more than a little fed up with the WGA at this point. The fact that that someone like Damon Lindelof would dare say “this is a fight for the livelihoods of a future generation of writers” when talking about residuals shows just how dishonet their position is. Writers are already making more than most Americans in base salary alone and they certainly make more than the poor stage hands that they’re putting out of business with this strike.
Anyway, rant aside, Dave’s right here. Were the writers asking for a percentage of the net profit I’d be on a whole different side of this but that’s not what they’re doing and so they get no sympathy from me.
That last paragraph you quoted is Dave Winer’s oft-repeated, completely ludicrous sentiment that people should create things for free to promote themselves and will make money through other means. He uses it against people who make money with their blogs.
Like many of his other principles, it’s just his attempt to elevate the way he does things into the way everyone should do them. If Dave crapped on his lawn, he’d call it composting.
The writer’s strike has nothing to do with net profits vs. gross profits. Writers receive nothing on Internet viewing of their shows and only four cents per DVD. They want a share of Internet profits and eight cents a DVD. These seem like reasonable requests to me.
What’s the point of comparing them to software developers or “most Americans”? Are we supposed to resent writers for wanting their fair share of the massive profits that TV shows and movies generate?
“The writer’s strike has nothing to do with net profits vs. gross profits. “
Honestly, this might be the stupidest statement ever typed on the internet. Read my digital lips: The WGA asked for 2.5% of the GROSS PROFITS on new media. Which means they’d get money even if the Studios were losing money. So do you just being stupid or do you not know what net and gross means?
I thought about replying to the rest of your post but honestly it was just too stupid to waste my time on. If you don’t see the point of comparing the writers to “most americans” when they’re saying they’re being treated unfairly than your just a fool.
I’m sorry to be so harsh but this was just the dumbest message I think I’ve ever read. Also, for the record, writers do get a percentage of digital media that is sold for a price (like iTunes purchases) and saying that someone just wants “their fair share of” anything to prove your point is idiotic when the debate surrounds what their “fair share” is.
For the record, the reason I got so annoyed above is because the post above does exactly what Dave does all the time which is to abandon logic in favor of pure emotion.
To say that it’s perfectly reasonable for an employee (the writers) to demand their pay be doubled (8 cents vs 4 cents on DVDs) is just preposterous. If you went to your boss and asked for double the money you make now you’d be laughed out of the building.
That said, if you can off the top of your head prove that you even know how much money you are talking about by giving me the sales numbers for the top 10 selling DVDs last year I’ll rescind the above statement.
Same with the new media profits, to demand a percentage of the gross and expect the studio to pay you regardless of whether they can make money off it is just unreasonable. Again, if they were asking for a percentage of the net that would be different. The bottom line here is that there’s absolutely no logic to supporting the writers other than “The studios make a bunch of money and I don’t like them”. Pure emotion.
Which is exactly, EXACTLY what Dave is raked over the coals for on this site (among other things).
“If you went to your boss and asked for double the money you make now you’d be laughed out of the building.”
And you say I’m being emotional here. Do you really live in a world where indispensable employees don’t use that leverage to get raises? I think the writers on Everybody Loves Raymond are worth a four-cent raise on the $40 Season One DVD. What a lunatic I must be. Oh my God! That’s a 100 percent raise! A coal miner doesn’t get a 100 percent raise until he contracts black lung! And even then he has to waive his disability benefits!
When I said the issue had nothing to do with net vs. gross, what I meant was that it isn’t the reason the writers walked. The reason they’re putting their livelihoods in jeopardy is because (a) the producers claim all Internet broadcasts of the shows is promotional, which is disingenous bullshit, and (b) the producers think four cents a DVD is all they can afford to pay the writers, which is laughable.
I know people who are suffering actual financial hardship and putting their future at risk because of this strike, and they’re walking the picket because they have to get a cut of Internet profits or they’ll be screwed when all the content is delivered that way, just as they’ve been screwed by such a small cut of video/DVD sales. Your ill-informed condescension about how their position is dishonest is wasted on me. Just admit you’re one of those people who never thinks striking workers are right to walk off a job.
Tom:
For the record, calling people stupid is sort of a poor rhetorical tactic.
Points on net profits are generally known in the entertainment industry as “sucker points,” because films and television rarely net money, and budgets are designed with this as an intention – everyone who is going to get paid for real gets paid as much as they can on the front end.
Folks:
Winer got around to reading the one page interview with Eisner in the Times magazine a from a couple of weeks ago, in which Eisner calls the writers greedy and stupid for asking for a share of something that they haven’t figured out how to monetize it. Then he interpreted it as relevant to his own life, when it isn’t.
BTW, this is why people use entertainment projects as tax shelters – they generate loss. It’s how they’re structured.
Sorry, Tom, but adding that minor detail (which I’m well aware of BTW, but I didn’t think this post needed to be a complete memo on the current state of affairs) doesn’t really change anything.
The sentence “How can you share something that doesn’t exist??” is one of the most ludicrous he’s made in a while. People buy shares of ventures that flop all the time and, in the industry, the difference between getting your royalties from gross or net is a contractual one and it varies. Getting a percentage of gross is simply not unheard of. Further, the two sides are posturing in advance of, and during, negotiations, so what they say now is probably not the bare minimum they’ll accept.
The key point here, though, is that getting royalties as a percentage of gross happens all the time in music, film, and TV. Typically it’s reserved for those with clout and bargaining power. The WGA has both of those things.
What it really sounds like, Tom, is that you’ve got a principled stand here, but it doesn’t comport with the reality of the entertainment industry.
Also, nobody ever said that writing code was less creative than writing a sitcom. They’re just different things, going on in different markets, that are only abstractly related to one another.
It’s also ironic that you’re accusing people of arguing with “pure emotion”. Take a few days off and come back and read your insults and vitriol — you’re the most emotional one here right now.
Not taking a side in this thread but it’s great point-counterpoint. best of all, it’s HONEST. the uber opposite of the garbage i read on winer’s site. keep it up, guys.
Hollywood accounting has long been derided as a cynical attempt by movie studios to cheat individual authors out of royalty payments. The accounting formulas used by the studios have allegedly been designed specifically to ensure that it is almost mathematically impossible for any movie to show a net profit. Specifically, the net profit formula in authors’ contracts does not correspond to the net profit formula of generally accepted accounting principles that the movie studios use when creating their financial statements that are reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and to the investing public. The “unconscionable” formula in the authors’ contracts effectively double-counts many costs borne by the movie studio. – Buchwald v. Paramount
I think you guys are missing the essential value of Dave’s post: it’s a lesson in “Winerian Economics”. For me it reads like the techno version of “The Secret”. Dave’s bogging leverages the new age promise of “The Attraction Principle”.
Dave states:
“I don’t ask to be paid for my writing… but I keep doing it.”
“I look in my bank account, and somehow the balance keeps going up. “
Well, I have two kids graduating from college and they would love to know Dave’s secrets for making money but somethings tells me the truth behind his increasing bank account is tied to some old fashion economic practices based upon the idea of “deposits”.
He just isn’t documenting the sources of income in posts like this one – he’s just hinting there’s a paradigm shift at work:
“Creative work won’t be directly paid for in the future.”
The nature of the “indirect payments” are “The Secret” yet to be revealed as Dave continues to document “Winerian Economics”. Frankly, it seems like monetizing reputation, influence and yields from investing… but your guess is as good as mine.