Strike out

Ezra Klein points me to this interview with the folks from the Writer's Guild on the strike:

They sat there and camped at that point, waiting for us to bargain against ourselves and come back with "Please, sir, may I have another?" which is the way our bargaining had gone on for 20 years, when both our unions had chief negotiators that were much more simpatico with the other side and were willing to make a behind-the-scenes deal and make the process a lot less contentious. This time we have a union organizer in charge of our union [David Young, formerly of the Garment Workers, the Carpenters and other unions], they (SAG) have a linebacker [Doug Allen, a onetime member of the Buffalo Bills]. We've got a militancy that we didn't have previously, and that has made for a refusal to play by rules that don't help us win and don't help us get what we think is fair.

I find it interesting that the union is getting more militant just as their bargaining position gets weaker. There's competition from the web, and from DVDs of their old programs; frankly, I haven't watched television since I left the US, and haven't missed it. Yet the union's strategy is to become more militant. My sense is that this is a common pattern--that unions are often the most aggressive right before they expire. But I don't have any rigorous study to back this up.

Not that I think the writer's union will expire. But I should expect its power to wane over the next 20 years, as newer non-unionized outlets take up more and more space in peoples' lives. I wonder what they expect?

Comments

There's competition from the web, and from DVDs of their old programs; frankly, I haven't watched television since I left the US, and haven't missed it.

Uh, think it through, for a second. The entire point of the strike is for them to be better renumerated for their appearances on the web, and in DVDs of their old work. You're acting as though this is a zero sum game between TV writers and web writers; the whole point is that they are becoming both. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see web-specific writers joining the WGA. Besides, while you may not be watching movies in the theatre and TV on a set schedule, it's not like those things are in any danger of dying off. They are just being distributed in different models-- models that, as of now, are grossly unfair for the writers. Hence the strike.

Also, the notion that the union is going expire seems like fantasy to me. Where is your evidence?

Posted by Freddie | November 18, 2007 7:50 PM

Freddie said it. For a clear explanation of exactly why the dying of traditional theater and TV presentation of writers' work necessitates the strike, see a "Lost" co-creator and writer's take.

Also, the notion that the union is going expire seems like fantasy to me.

On the one hand, the belief that any particular union will expire is a fantasy common to economic conservatives. On the other hand, union members as a percentage of American workers has been declining steadily since the mid-20th century, due to the shift of our economy from the heavily-unionized industrial to the less-unionized service sector, and the shift of population and jobs to the right-to-work states of the South and West.

I have no reason to think Megan is right about the writers' union specifically. She seems to have the mistaken impression that writing for movies and especially television is not an incredibly cooperative endeavor -- kind of the opposite of blogging. Part of the reason scabbing is difficult is that it's too dangerous to become persona-non-grata. Kinda like the guys working construction don't want to have bad blood between them and the guys they're trusting not to let heavy things fall on them, the writer who relies on other writers' teamwork can't afford to screw them.

Posted by PG | November 18, 2007 8:24 PM

Freddie: "Also, the notion that the union is going expire seems like fantasy to me. Where is your evidence?"

Your answer, taken directly from Ms. McArdle's post: "Not that I think the writer's union will expire."

Posted by TWL | November 18, 2007 8:55 PM

Actually the non studio generated content weakens the whole studio system, which means the WGA and the Producers are both weakened by a more democratized media environment.

So the studios will be hurt as the strike goes on as well as the writers. The question of "who will blink first" is still up in the air.

Posted by Shawn Levasseur | November 18, 2007 9:12 PM

My sense is that this is a common pattern--that unions are often the most aggressive right before they expire.

This was the case with the meatpackers in Austin, MN in 1985:

http://www.austindailyherald.com/articles/2005/08/23/news/news4.txt

Posted by Dennis | November 18, 2007 9:28 PM

"I haven't watched television since I left the US, and haven't missed it."

MM, any chance you'll remember this after your regress to the U.S.?

Cable--The tie that binds.

Posted by MEH | November 18, 2007 9:40 PM

Your answer, taken directly from Ms. McArdle's post: "Not that I think the writer's union will expire."

You're being obtuse, and deliberately so.

Posted by Freddie | November 18, 2007 10:27 PM

Megan said she doesn't expect the union to expire, Freddie thinks that this means she thinks the union will expire.

I think this whole communication-by-writing thing is over-rated. If a point that simple is easily misinterpretted then who can write an entire script and have it make sense?

Posted by doctorpat | November 18, 2007 10:43 PM

OK, here you guys go.

I find it interesting that the union is getting more militant just as their bargaining position gets weaker. There's competition from the web, and from DVDs of their old programs; frankly, I haven't watched television since I left the US, and haven't missed it. Yet the union's strategy is to become more militant. My sense is that this is a common pattern--that unions are often the most aggressive right before they expire.

Really, I don't ask for much. Just a little of the most elementary reading comprehension, really.

Who turned on the computer for you guys? Who helped you log on?

Posted by Freddie | November 18, 2007 10:55 PM

It would seem to me that when you go from 4 networks to 40 networks producing shows, and from 10 channels to 1000 channels to, ultimately, infinite channels of distribution, your demand for people to write the material to fill all those channels of distribution goes up, not down.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 18, 2007 11:59 PM

But I should expect its power to wane over the next 20 years, as newer non-unionized outlets take up more and more space in peoples' lives.

Me too. How would union representation help webcasts such as "Ask a Ninja" or zefrank's "The Show" or webcomics such as Questionable Content or Penny Arcade or Sluggy Freelance? The long tail is sufficiently diverse as to include people with talents that don't fit well with any studio system or have much interest in it.

Posted by Glen Raphael | November 19, 2007 12:52 AM

"She seems to have the mistaken impression that writing for movies and especially television is not an incredibly cooperative endeavor -- kind of the opposite of blogging."

And that may be part of the problem -- you can tell that these shows were written by committee.

Posted by markm | November 19, 2007 7:39 AM

I'm struggling with the notion that it's unfair for the studios to reuse material and not pay the employees who created it in the first place each time. The writers keep saying that it's "unfair" that the studio streams the shows that they wrote over the internet for $1.99 in iTunes without paying them for each use.

I am an engineer. I design systems that are used in the drilling for oil. The systems I design are built by others (just like the shows they write are actually performed and recorded by others). The systems I design are used for decades (20 years is their minimum design life, some older systems have been in use for much longer). My work, which is based on previous work, is then used as the basis for future work.

And yet, I doubt anyone thinks that it is unfair that I don't get paid each time my systems are used to drill for oil. (A single well can easily cost more than it costs to make a major movie.) I don't get paid each time my design is used as the basis for a new design. This is true even if I come up with a new invention that is patented. The patent is owned by my company (just like the copyright is owned by the studio). I get a plaque and a small check and that's it.

I understand that the writers want more money. I don't begrudge them that. But this strike is over a disagreement of terms. There is no inherently right way to pay a writer. There is no one true fair way to compensate them. It's all a matter of who can negotiate a better deal.

Does the costume designer get residuals? What about the set designer? The caterer? The lighting teams? Camera operators? The makeup team? If not, why not?

I'm not "sympathetic" to either side except insofar as I understand wanting to get paid as much as possible for one's work.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 19, 2007 10:47 AM

Freddie,

She is clearly stating what she thinks is the general relation of increasing union militancy and long-term union viability (a point that has a lot of support from the most recent past), then stating that she doesn't expect this to necessarily apply to the union in question (and it is clear to me, at least, that she believes they will avoid this pitfall because good writing isn't easy or widely available.

Posted by Yancey Ward | November 19, 2007 10:55 AM

From doctor pat:

I think this whole communication-by-writing thing is over-rated. If a point that simple is easily misinterpretted then who can write an entire script and have it make sense?

Definitely the funniest comment I have read in the last week.

Posted by Yancey Ward | November 19, 2007 10:57 AM

I fundamentally don't understand the writers' logic. I write software under work-for-hire contracts (the purchaser owns the copyright). I really don't give a damn how they sell it -- I certainly didn't expect to be paid more once software vendors started selling software over the internet instead of just boxes on shelves. I don't expect to be paid more for software that is rented on a per-use basis or supported only by advertising or given away as a promotional item or sold along with a piece of hardware or whatever.

It's just not my problem -- they pay me to write software and they sell it however they like. To the extent that they make more money selling it, great--that increases the demand for my kind of service and people like me tend to get paid more, but I don't worry about the details. The idea of belonging to a software authors union where we collectively bargain over all these minutiae seems beyond absurd.

Even traditional unions don't care about these things. The UAW expects to be paid more when GM sells more cars and earns more money, but it doesn't dicker over percentages of traditional dealer sales vs fleet sales vs internet sales.

Posted by Slocum | November 19, 2007 10:58 AM

brooksfoe: are all of those shows being created by production companies whose writers are being represented by the WGA?

Posted by Sam, | November 19, 2007 11:01 AM

brooksfoe, yes, the demand for writers is going to go up. But the Writers Guild's power is entirely tied to the studio system. As the number of distribution channels goes way up, the cost of producing shows goes way down, and the profitability of shows goes way down, those studios are going to become drastically less significant.

Where the music industry is today, the film and TV studios will be in ten years. Distributing HD movies over the net will be trivial, with the ensuing piracy and calls for the studios to be realistic and just give away the product. Today no one would think it particularly notable if a bunch of high school friends got together and recorded a CD. In ten years, no one's going to think it particularly exceptional if a bunch of high school friends get together and make a feature-length movie.

And in an environment where it's that easy to produce content, the studios are going to have a lot less power. Writers -- good writers, at any rate -- will probably have more power. But the WGA is going to have a lot less power, because what gives them power now is the threat of making sure scab writers can never work again in the industry. That's just not going to be possible when filming and distributing is so cheap it is open to almost everyone.

Posted by Sol | November 19, 2007 11:12 AM

EI and Slocum ask:
Why residuals, instead of paying a flat rate for your labor or your production, like with engineers or car manufacturers?

It's because the car that is produced is a known object, with known value. If you don't want an $80k Mercedes, don't buy it. Buy a $20k Camry instead. The decision is up to you, as the person who will be consuming the product, how much you value it and are willing to spend on it.

But the movie producer doesn't know the true value of a good script. Sure, better movie producers will have a better idea, and being able to recognize good writing would be an important skill in their profession, but the real consumer of that script isn't present at its sale. The millions of viewer of Lost weren't there when the decision was made how much to pay the writers, and the script itself basically represents a gamble for both the writers and the studio.

So they've created a structure where the writers are actually compensated for the true value of their script - the amount of demand and enjoyment that exists amongst its consumers. But because that value isn't known up front, it can't be negotiated and paid up front.

Posted by Geoff | November 19, 2007 12:04 PM

EI, Slocum,

The reason writers (and, for that matter studios) use the residual system is that shows are very hit-or-miss. Writers bear some of the risk for flops (because their salaries are lower than they would be in the absence of residuals) and also get some of the benefit for runaway hits.

Oil rigs, cars, and software are produced for less volatile markets, so the employer takes on all of the risk on your behalf.

Posted by Rob Lyman | November 19, 2007 12:07 PM

"write software under work-for-hire contracts (the purchaser owns the copyright). I really don't give a damn how they sell it"

The industry the writers function in works differently than yours. They get money for each time the show airs. They are saying whether the show airs on TV/DVD/Internet they deserve some money.

Posted by JordanT | November 19, 2007 12:07 PM

"The industry the writers function in works differently than yours. They get money for each time the show airs. They are saying whether the show airs on TV/DVD/Internet they deserve some money."

I think that is the crux of it. I agree that writers don't have any inherent right to an ongoing revenue stream from whatever projects they were involved in. But that is the compensation model previously agreed to by both sides. My understanding is now that distribution channels are moving more towards DVD, internet, etc, the studios are saying that these are not covered under existing agreements, so the writers get squat. The writers are saying that distribution is distribution - compensation should not be based on medium.

It's not like me to side with unions in any labour dispute, but I think the writers do have the better argument here.

Posted by Sean E | November 19, 2007 12:30 PM

"Where the music industry is today, the film and TV studios will be in ten years. Distributing HD movies over the net will be trivial, with the ensuing piracy and calls for the studios to be realistic and just give away the product."

Selling music digitally came after digital piracy of music was popular. I think that the popularity of iTunes shows that many people just wanted a more convenient way of buying music, rather than wanting that music for free. If the studios make it more convenient/faster/more reliable to download and view the shows through their website people will pay for it, rather than grab the free stuff.

While it's not as popular right now the writers feel that DVD/Internet is going to be a large source of income so they want their piece.

Posted by JordanT | November 19, 2007 12:48 PM

Oil rigs, cars, and software are produced for less volatile markets

Not really. The risk is structured a bit differently, but all three of those markets can be (and have been) very volatile. The difference mainly in the type of employment contracts that have arisen -- the screenwriters are operating on something closer to an independent consulting model, whereas the software writer is more typically an hourly or salaried employee.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 12:52 PM

So is it common, after an oil rig or automobile has been designed and the first few have rolled off the assembly line, to discover that buyers hate it so much that there is no market and production should be stopped at once? I'm sure it has happened, but does it happen literally several times a year?

Posted by Rob Lyman | November 19, 2007 1:06 PM

"The reason writers (and, for that matter studios) use the residual system is that shows are very hit-or-miss. Writers bear some of the risk for flops (because their salaries are lower than they would be in the absence of residuals) and also get some of the benefit for runaway hits."

In the absence of residuals, a writer who accepted just the base salary would benefit from a runaway hit by the notoriety that his name achieved after said hit, thus placing him in a position to receive more offers, with more lucrative pay. This is often achieved as a result of individual negotiations that have nothing to do with guild scales, but based on the particular writer's proven abilities and demand as a commodity.

"She seems to have the mistaken impression that writing for movies and especially television is not an incredibly cooperative endeavor."

Writing in the context of the film industry is not a cooperative endeavor. It is one of the most competitive fields there is, and in it exists back-biting, betrayal, and about every manner of chicanery you could imagine in order to succeed. This is why the union is nothing more than a monopoly to make competition more difficult. There is no solidarity among writers generally speaking. Any rhetoric in service of such is purely that.

Posted by Peter | November 19, 2007 1:08 PM

Also, the notion that the union is going expire seems like fantasy to me. Where is your evidence?

1. The Web and the decrease in capital generally required to make a movie or reach entertainment audiences is increasing the diversity of entertainment and weakening the studio system.

2. Given 1., it is unsurprising that there is friction between the studios and the writers, for multiple reasons. The old contracts were based on remuneration for solely one type of performance, excluding another that is becoming significant, something that is particularly important because the residuals may not even be an accurate measure of the work's profitability or popularity if the consumption rates in different media differ. Also, there is always friction when it comes time to slice up a particular declining pie.

3. Unions are most common and strong in industries where there is little competition in some way; either in the industry as a whole or locally for the labor supply. The current studio system satisfies this; it is not clear that the future system will.

4. It is possible that the small number of large studios will continue to dominate even Internet-based entertainment; in that case, the guilds will likely survive.

5. OTOH, it is also possible that the lower costs of initial capital to start a show will lead to artist and writer-owned studios and production houses that greatly reduce the incentive for a union by co-opting the writers into the success of the show more efficiently, particularly the extremely talented and successful writers. See for example the original United Artists, or the many webcomic authors who run their own businesses. When the writer is part of management, there's much less call for a union.

6. Another alternative, of course, is a situation where the form of compensation changes-- such as fixed rates for a particular show, but rates for a particular writer based on the success of past work, rather than the current situation where there is a combination of fixed rates and residuals intended to be based on the success of the product. It is not, a priori, obvious that a switch to fixed rates would hurt writers, particularly the non-star writers, in the long run, though in the short run it definitely could.

Here's Marc Andressen's related thoughts.

Posted by John Thacker | November 19, 2007 1:21 PM

As for me, I am always a bit impressed at the ability of certain unions to stick together when it seems like there would be attempts (and proposed contracts) to split the stars from the less successful members. In this case, it would difficult to blame it even on all union members ganging up against non-members who wish to enter; my understanding is that the guilds are fairly open about membership and include quite a few people who practically never work in the industry itself and are writers in name only.

Posted by John Thacker | November 19, 2007 1:24 PM

While the customers may not decide they hate an oil rig so much that they don't buy it, sometimes hurricanes do sink them. Or something else happens. Or the oil company loses money because they drill a series of dry holes. In this case, the rig operator gets paid his day rate by the oil company even if all they find is sand.

My point was that residuals aren't inherently more fair or somehow the "right" way to compensate writers. I understand why they might choose to use that model and have no problem with it. But the whole studio v. writers conflict is that of two parties dividing up the revenue from their product.

And if the studios have really redefined the contract after the fact to unfairly exclude streaming video, then that's something that should be corrected. But that should be a contract issue that could be settled in court or through arbitration. It doesn't sound like an issue for negotiation. Does the current contract say that writers get residuals for internet downloads or not? The fact that the writers haven't sued makes me wonder if the problem is really the contract...

I still wonder if make up artists, set designers, costume designers, etc... are all paid residuals, too. Seems like they have as much of a right to it as the writers.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 19, 2007 1:52 PM

"The difference mainly in the type of employment contracts that have arisen -- the screenwriters are operating on something closer to an independent consulting model, whereas the software writer is more typically an hourly or salaried employee."

I work solely as an independent consultant, but I don't bear the risk of a failed project (nor reap the reward of a huge success). Many times I have done work for startups which is not, it seems to me, unlike working on a film. The entrepreneur raises capital, uses the capital to hire people (software or script writers) to produce a product (a film or an application) and then markets and sells it. And, in fact, when software developers do end up with a share in the company, they are invariably employees rather than independent consultants (employees who trade stock options for lower salaries).

Also there is considerable overlap in the film and software markets. So computer games depend heavily on the work of software types, but they also many of the same folks that Hollywood uses (script writers, actors, set designers, etc). And many films, of course, use CGI, which is strongly related to computer game graphics.

Why does it make sense for script writers work on residuals (and argue about the details of distribution channels) but not the CGI people?

Posted by Slocum | November 19, 2007 1:52 PM

There's competition from the web

Practically all of whom would kill for a TV gig. I have a friend who makes $3-400k per year from web stuff and he tells me he would dump it all in a second for a cable show. This guy is in the top 1% of people doing entertainment online.

Posted by Derek SCruggs | November 19, 2007 2:01 PM

EI

And yet, I doubt anyone thinks that it is unfair that I don't get paid each time my systems are used to drill for oil.

Ever hear of Microsoft? They've built a jillion dollar company by selling, not software, but licenses to use their software.

The Rolling Stones have a pretty good thing going on that front, too, though that industry is rapidly imploding.

Heck, many architects sell licenses for their designs, so they do get paid every time someone builds a house using their design.

Just because it hasn't happened in your industry doesn't mean it's a bad model.

"Fair" or "unfair" is irrelevant. It's what the market will bear, right?

Posted by Derek Scruggs | November 19, 2007 2:08 PM

Derek,

That's my point, exactly. I have read rhetoric that states that the writers are being treated unfairly and deserve residuals. They only "deserve" residuals if their contract says they do. Otherwise, it's all a negotiation between two parties. The "fairness" rhetoric is just silly.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 19, 2007 2:21 PM

EI,

As I understand it, their contract, written many years ago, states that they receive a moderate residual for conventional airing of their work, and a very small residual for DVD sales (because at the time the contract was written, DVD was still a new, uncertain distribution media). It does not mention any residuals for Internet.

It's also up. That contract is expired, done, over. So it's not really relevant to any discussion of legal fairness. They're now ready to negotiate a new contract, and they want higher residuals for DVD and more than zero for Internet. The studios are offering neither. Hence the strike.

If all you care about is what the market will bear, then there's not much of a discussion to be had here. Just sit back and wait, and see what it will. But for those of us who care about the product which is not being produced due to the strike, and for those who are interested in other issues here, there is much to discuss and much to ponder.

Posted by Geoff | November 19, 2007 2:48 PM

"I have read rhetoric that states that the writers are being treated unfairly and deserve residuals."

The writer model is based on a salary + residuals related to the show. This is so writers can make a lot of money for a successful show, but if the show flops they make less. There are many jobs that use a base salary + commission method of compensation and this happens to be one of them.

They aren't trying to get residuals when they previously didn't, they are trying to get residuals from internet sales like they get from TV and DVD. They are also trying to increase the residuals from DVD sales. The internet sales is big for them, because they took very little from DVD sales in the last contract because it wasn't "known" if it would make money. We now see the same situation with the internet sales, and the writers don't want a fast one pulled over on them again.

This situation is far different than trying to get residuals if that method of compensation was not currently used.

Posted by JordanT | November 19, 2007 3:20 PM

An industry that seems to be facing a lot of changes is probably one that needs a lot of flexibility.

Having the same union-negotiated contract for everyone seems like an imperfect way of maximising flexibility.

Posted by ad | November 19, 2007 3:23 PM

I like watching TV shows and movies, too. I would like to be able to watch some new, quality programming. I hope the writers and the producers settle their differences and sign a contract. I just don't see the writers as being wronged by not being offered higher residuals.

I'm sure they want more money. And more power to them if they can get it. But the producers want to pay them less money. More power to them if they can get it.

I just don't want to read about the poor, exploited writers and the greedy, evil studios for the next six months while they fight it out.

If someone wants to discuss the technical and legal issues surrounding determining residuals for internet downloads, that might be an interesting discussion.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | November 19, 2007 4:31 PM

Rob Lyman wrote: So is it common, after an oil rig or automobile has been designed and the first few have rolled off the assembly line, to discover that buyers hate it so much that there is no market and production should be stopped at once? I'm sure it has happened, but does it happen literally several times a year?

You really think oil rigs roll off an assembly line? Small 1-truck rigs and support equipment do, but even then it will be on the basis of contracted lots, just like when someone is buying refuse trucks, sewage pumpers, and other specialized vehicles. Almost everything in the oil industry -- as well as the power systems industry that I work in -- is done through consultants and contractors (both individuals and firms). Virtually every major project has unique elements and will be a unique design, even when using a standard variety of the customer's preferred equipment. This involves an enormous network of designers, suppliers, builders, etc. intermingled through contracts. And yes, multi-million dollar projects can be halted or cancelled at a moment's notice if the customer's luck or economic forecasts change, and those consultants and contractors hired to work on the project are out of luck if they don't have a cash reserve or other clients to fall back upon.

Cars -- Yes, now we have assembly lines with large scheduled product roll-outs, but you're invalidating the analogy by narrowing it down too far. This industry also has enormous networks of contractors and suppliers, and the fan-out effect is enormous. A significant sales slump in any given quarter won't kill GM (or for that matter Exxon, or for that matter Vivendi Universal), but a third-party supplier designing and contracting the construction of, say, air conditioning compressors and support fittings, may have to lay off a dozen people the day after GM notifies them that it is oversupplied and predicting lowered demand in the next two quarters, and is therefore renegotiating for 50k fewer units of each part and a sizable cut in the per-unit price.

Posted by anony-mouse | November 19, 2007 4:40 PM

Uh, think it through, for a second. The entire point of the strike is for them to be better renumerated for their appearances on the web, and in DVDs of their old work. You're acting as though this is a zero sum game between TV writers and web writers; the whole point is that they are becoming both.

You're missing the point, Freddie.

Right now, if you want to write for Hollywood or television, you pretty much need to join a union. To create content for the web, you don't. The reason the union's power will fade is the same reason ALL unions' power fades: competition from nonunion workers. I fully understand why screenwriters want to lock in minimum fees and residuals and so on. But going forward, most web content producers aren't going to pay it and most web content writers aren't going to demand it.

There are just too many talented people out there. The current system allows the chosen few -- and the Writers' Guild members are among those few -- to make a lot of money by controlling the means of production. But the means of production are increasingly available to everybody, and we're realizing that we don't need all of the accumulated cruft of the entertainment industry to produce good entertainment.

Posted by Dan | November 19, 2007 4:47 PM

I didn't come up with the car/oil rig/software analogy, I just pointed out that those items are not the same as TV shows in the precarious balance between cancelled after one episode and massive worldwide sensation. By the time a car (or software) rolls out, it has been focus-grouped and marketing departmented to death; you have a halfway decent idea what it will make. And, of course, your engineering work can be reused later in a way that writing creativity cannot even in the event of failure. Thus it is easier to put a value on an engineer's work than a writer's. Besides, engineers are prudent people, so low-risk low-return probably appeals to them more than the emotional artistic types.

To the extent that oil rigs or anything else don't roll of assembly lines, then the notion of residuals for repeats of the same work is meaningless.

Posted by Rob Lyman | November 19, 2007 5:13 PM

And if the studios have really redefined the contract after the fact to unfairly exclude streaming video, then that's something that should be corrected. But that should be a contract issue that could be settled in court or through arbitration. It doesn't sound like an issue for negotiation. Does the current contract say that writers get residuals for internet downloads or not? The fact that the writers haven't sued makes me wonder if the problem is really the contract.

I think you're confused, here. The question isn't what the current contract says, it's what the new contract will say -- this strike is a negotiation tactic. The prior contract included residuals for rebroadcast, but didn't address web content because it didn't meaningfully exist when the prior contract was negotiated. The writers are striking for a new contract with terms relating to residuals relating to web content (and other things) that they find acceptable.

Posted by LizardBreath | November 19, 2007 5:20 PM

The obvious model for the writers strike is professional sports. Lots of people write, lots of people play baseball. Obviously ARod commands a lot of money as do a handful of writers because a large number of people appreciate their level of skill.

But there is room for those in the minors in both to earn a living, be they the players for the Round Rock Express or the writers on '24'. (Just a little joke there.)

And there is a very low market for some product. I suspect ARod supports the players union. Tiger Woods supports the PGA. Perhaps some people feel those two make too much money and their corporate masters (e.g. George Steinbrenner) make too little. IMO the entertainment business is screwing up big time not settling. Baseball and football strikes have been disasters for the game.

And yes, golf has a little bit different structure. I think all PGA players are essentially independent contractors. I think a great deal of it is the upper class origin of the game that is still present today.

But the question is still the same whether is is golf, baseball or writing: is the talent such that the industry can easily replace it? Meatpackers are a dime a dozen in Mexico. I doubt that is the case for screen writers, especially given the amount of money lavished on the product.

Posted by Nat | November 19, 2007 6:27 PM

"I wonder what they expect?"

Gosh if only there were a machine you could type into that might answer that for you? Oh wait, there is. And presumably you used it to write this feeble post. So I guess the answer you couldn't find that is...just sheer laziness.

Really, are you proud of this post? So. Incredibly. Lazy. If you can't bother to get off your ass and spend five minutes looking into an issue, don't bother posting about it. There's actually quite a bit out there that might tell you what we want. But you're laziness just got in the way.

Instead, we get this hackey, lazy, excuse for a post. Don't bother doing any research, just put it through the liberatarian 2.0 news filter! Works for John Tierney.

The bigger question might be what does the Atlantic want with such a lazy, lazy writer.

Posted by maddox | November 19, 2007 8:13 PM

Everyone on this list should read Jaron Lanier's editorial today in the NY Times. I was in seminars with Lanier back in the '90s when he was an information-wants-to-be-free utopian. In today's piece Lanier confesses he was wrong, and says it's time for web architects to grow up. As it turns out, free-information utopianism was silly because 99% of the stuff people make for the Web sucks, and continues to suck. The other 1% is stuff that people would like to charge money for. Currently, the way they charge money for it is to get a contract with an ad agency or a TV channel. Ze Frank is pretty funny; that's why he's going to be on TV. His free web material was the equivalent of a prolonged spec script or a few seasons on the standup circuit. He will now move on to distribution channels for which one can charge money.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 20, 2007 4:41 AM

Maddox:

"There's actually quite a bit out there that might tell you what we want. But you're laziness just got in the way.

Instead, we get this hackey, lazy, excuse for a post. Don't bother doing any research, just put it through the liberatarian 2.0 news filter! Works for John Tierney.

The bigger question might be what does the Atlantic want with such a lazy, lazy writer."

I think you're tyring to imply you're a professional writer Maddox, but your post argues otherwise.

Posted by Sean E | November 20, 2007 12:01 PM

Information wants to be free.

Doesn't mean we should give it what it wants.

This is the whole "is doesn't mean ought" argument all over again.

Cows want to be free, but I'd rather they were sliced up and on a barbeque.

I

Posted by doctorpat | November 26, 2007 1:36 AM