This is an aside, but I cannot believe how successful the media companies have been in training the average person to call what they sell "content", as though it is a widget that just about any person can make with enough training.

I lump that into what I was talking about. I have no ill will against them for bargaining collectively. I just don't like this talk about what they "deserve", as though they hold some special status.

I just recycled Jay's terminology. These folks are writers to me. I respect that they bring a skill to the table, but that skill is still only worth what people will pay for it.

I do think anyone can write. Not everyone can write well. If the writers assembled to vote on a contract in an arena or something and a meteor fell on it, I don't think the era of writing for television and film would end. It would suffer, though.

I agree. I just think there is a qualitative difference between making cars, which I could be trained to do as well as anyone currently working an assembly line, with writing a primetime drama, which I could not do very well, no matter how long I was trained.

From the perspective of the media companies it makes sense. Their goal is to get you to think of TV, DVDs, etc. as boxes with have to be filled with "content". Who creates it and what it is doesn't really matter to them as long as they can make a profit on it.

I also think the writers are pretty shortsighted. They could totally bypass the current distribution model and try to develop a business on the internet. Hell, they should be doing it now- it's the perfect time. They're not working, and shows are running out of episodes.

The issue at hand though is precisely what has been mentioned before... people (aka consumers) have shown they are willing to pay for the product in ways the studios claimed 20 years ago that they wouldn't and as a result the writers have been short changed on DVDs, especially for TV writers - no one predicted that market would boom as it did. The studios have refused to change the formula for 20 years despite the initial formula being a concession since no one knew how home video would take off. Now we know and they refuse to change. The writers and studios aren't sure how the internet streaming/downloads will take off, but seeing as how the studios will likely hold them to whatever they agree to now, they have to get the best deal. This is not about what people will pay for product... people will pay, they've proven it, this is now about not trying to reduce the formula for writers a second time.

Does anyone know if the final season of The Wire is still going to air on time?

Thankfully The Wire is unaffected and is ready to air.

Yeah, they finished shooting the final episode of The Wire months before the strike.

Thanks guys that is great news.

The people don't buy writing directly from the writers at this point because the writers have, for whatever reason, established that they prefer working for a middle man (the studios). What the people will pay is therefore quite simply not a factor in this equation. It's what the studio will pay that counts.

As Tracer Bullet indicated, one interesting wrinkle that I hope will be explored involves writers working with others who have talent to bring us non-studio productions via the Internet (or possibly via DVD). If they're not getting their due from the studios (and they might not be), the best way to at least make a short term point is to give us content outside that system to give the studios something to worry about. If it can't be done, perhaps the value of the writers is being overstated. They're not the ones who buy ideas (like The Office for the US) for development by a writing staff. They're not the ones who arrange promotion. They're not the ones that own the network. If it's not so simple to just start something up on the 'net, perhaps those other things are so important that the writers should be relegated to a small slice of the pie. I don't know the answer there. I do know that if it's criminal how writers are being underpaid, they need to do something about it. Striking for a few weeks and making some week web videos with Holly Hunter and Sean Penn doesn't cut it.

It sounds to me like they're just asking for a small slice of the pie. They're getting no slice for online revenue right now.

No where in my post did I indicate we buy from writers; that is a significant misstatement. I pointed out, accurately, that the writers were told that the home video market wouldn't pan out or it was too unpredictable to give writer's the standard residual. This is something the studios said. Now that the home video market is huge, no change has been made. So, again, we, the consumers, have shown we will pay for the product in a way that the studios initially claimed we wouldn't and the writers have not received their compensation accordingly. Now they must act in a manner that assumes if the internet market ever becomes a big deal, they will get a cut that is acceptable 10 or even 20 years down the line.

It's not just the WGA and SAG... the DGA's contract expires in a few months as well.

DGA already agreed to a new 3-year contract last month.

The DGA's sports and news members (IIRC) signed a contract. It has always been a separate deal for them from the one we're talking about for directors of feature films and television. With news and sports, DVD is not an issue. Even online isn't much of an issue at this juncture.

The question is really how small the slice should be. As I understand it, the latest offer includes some payment for online use of content (except when it's deemed "promotional", which IS a bunch of bull, I'll agree).

That's not what I was getting from your argument at all. Sorry for misinterpreting what you were going for.

Home video didn't really pan out until DVD came along, particularly for television. I think that makes a big difference in how you take what the studios said because it did indeed take the creation of a whole new format to motivate the sort of sales we're seeing now. This is, to my knowledge, the first time the WGA deal has been up for renewal since DVD -- they should absolutely contest that area if they feel they're being treated unfairly. I don't think the answer is to insist on a large amount of revenue from Internet, though. I think the promotional position the studios take is clearly BS, but I don't believe for a moment that full residual for Internet makes the least bit of sense. If the studios won't pay full residual for DVD, they're being unreasonable. That market is proven and lucrative. If the writers insist on full residual for Internet, they're the ones being unreasonable. They should get some pay, but it shouldn't be the full amount until that market is proven.

What exactly do you mean by "full residual"? There's no such thing; residuals work off a percentage.

The contract is up every three years and the writers have asked for an increase since the advent of DVD.

I question why they haven't chosen to strike before now, then. Perhaps the DVD residual rate is actually acceptable. If it isn't, they have only themselves to blame.

As I understand it, whatever the rate is, it was slashed for home video on the premise that it wasn't a mature market. What I mean by "full residual" is the rate that was in force prior to the writers accepting this reduced rate. That's what I'm considering the "full" rate.

http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-bo...,6801445.story

Chris

Any new news on how the talks are going?

They are talking today, however there is a news blackout.

What about Carson Daly crossing the picket line?