Have you read Andreessen’s take on this? http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/11/suicide-by-stri.html

Clearly everyone in the “big industrial content” world still has a long way to go to figure this stuff out from a commercial perspective (in terms of books, music, tv, film, photography, everything), but Andreessen has a point - if studios do want to carve out a persistent and commercial slice of all of this, they’re going to need the writers to do it.

You’re right as well - the writers are painting too broad a brush and conflating things like YouTube views with iTunes paid downloads. Everyone always seems to think that getting issues down to their simplest components is the way to get your message across, but this is one area in which a little nuance on the writers’ part would go a long way to convincing us that they in fact do understand the scope of the issues at hand.

One last thing - this is exactly the same fight that was fought about a decade ago in local arts weeklies. Writers’ contracts were changed pretty much unilaterally to give the publishers the right to collect and sell their archives electronically without any additional fees to the writers (who originally had signed away only the right of first publication). Of course it was a moot point, because those archives aren’t exactly a hot commodity as a retail item - eventually they all went on the net for free.

– Michael on 9 November 2007 @ 2am

Geeky but brilliant. ;)

– myla on 9 November 2007 @ 5am

Do you think the oversimplification in the first video is because of a lack of understanding on the part of the WGA, or are they simplifying their message for an audience that perhaps hasn’t considered these topics before? I had assumed the latter, but perhaps I’m being too charitable.

– mkh on 9 November 2007 @ 6am

Derek, you’re a smart guy and I have all the respect in the world for you. But are we really going to use YouTube as the standard for whether professional writers/actors/filmmakers get compensated for the ways the owners of the stuff they create choose to make money from their work? Really?

Wouldn’t you agree that there’s a useful distinction between “user generated” content — which is published on a volunteer basis, with the user fully aware that the website they’re submitting to might run ads — and what comes out of Hollywood? The writers’ deal with the studios includes revenue-sharing via the residuals system, owing to the fact that movie/TV content can have a very, very long tail. It shouldn’t matter how people are getting the content or how it’s being paid for — the residuals are tied to distribution media, but they’re paying for the work and the (gag, yes) intellectual property the studios need to make the Hollywood magic, which they then turn around and sell for lots and lots of money.

I agree with Michael above that a little nuance in the writers’ chants, pithy remarks and PowerPoint shows would go a long way to making the issues clearer. But on the other hand, in this situation it behooves the artists to at least indicate that they know streaming episodes on [insert network website] or downloads on iTunes are not the end of the story. As such, they’ve chosen to pretend they’re stupid about nomenclature.

– David Demaree on 9 November 2007 @ 6am

I think it’s only fair to tell you that I called you wrong in a post of my own at http://fortheloveofcomics.com

– Dustin on 9 November 2007 @ 8am

I wrote a satirical piece that peeks into the negotiations between the writers and the producers the other day. Not to be too cliché, but the Internet changes everything. It’s true, no one has really figured out how to “monetize the content” (blech!), but I am firmly of the opinion that the writers are getting screwed with their pants on.

http://tinyurl.com/yw5se9 since my URL ends up being 17 feet long. :-/

– jon deal on 9 November 2007 @ 10am

Thanks for your interest in the strike. I’m a WGA memeber. A few things to consider: first, many writers are very net savvy. Even the oldtimers have blogs. UNITEDHOLLYWOOD is a blog started by the writers/personalities on BEST WEEK EVER. Check it out.

It is the studio owners with whom we struggle who are trying to monetize the internet. However, hypocritically, as they carefully track downloads, build their own sites (HULU) to control ad revenue, fight against YOUTUBE, etc., they are tells US that we CAN’T get paid if YOU PAY to see it off iTUNES, but we CAN get paid if you watch it for FREE on TV. HUH?

All we are saying is if THE STUDIOS make money off our work on the internet, we should make the same 2.5% residual for whatever money the studios manage to squeeze out of advertisers or the consumers directly.

This is all about using the internet to roll back a hard-won tenet of Hollywood — with success, comes money.

It is brutally hard to get something produced, much less have a hit. It’s nearly impossible to have a career of hits. Residuals even out the ride and make it possible for the few who can to be full-time professional writers.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Best,

Kevin

– Kevin on 9 November 2007 @ 10am

Because the kids love him, Joss Whedon’s excellent take.

– Adam Rakunas on 9 November 2007 @ 11am

Also, as far as YOUTUBE, they are monetizing content. In an emerging deal, if copywritten content is discovered, they are giving studios the choice to either pull the content from YOUTUBE or SPLIT AD REVENUE GENERATED BY THE CONTENT.

So, even on YOUTUBE, the studios have monetized their content, whereas user-generated content serves only to enrich YOUTUBE.

Kevin

– Kevin on 9 November 2007 @ 11am

David asked: But are we really going to use YouTube as the standard for whether professional writers/actors/filmmakers get compensated for the ways the owners of the stuff they create choose to make money from their work?

Of course not. I’m only bringing ‘em up because the writers keep bringing it up. Did you see the woman with the “DOWNLOAD THIS!” t-shirt on the picket line? As if online viewers were now the enemy.

YouTube is a good example in one respect: In spite of their billion dollar valuation, they are still a money-losing venture. Catch that? It costs them more money to stream all that video than they make. Same goes for Hulu or NBC.com.

A percent of nuthin is still nuthin.

David then asked: Wouldn’t you agree that there’s a useful distinction between “user generated” content — which is published on a volunteer basis, with the user fully aware that the website they’re submitting to might run ads — and what comes out of Hollywood?

No, I wouldn’t. And that’s exactly the rub. When Ze Frank was doing his show, on his own site, he was pulling in more viewers than most of the new shows on TV. Why should you get a deal that excludes people like him?

If anything, I hope this whole schism causes more writers to realize they don’t need the studios anymore, and strike out on their own - just like musicians have discovered about the labels.

If you don’t like the people who own your content, then be your own owner. THAT’s the real opportunity of the web.

– Derek Powazek on 9 November 2007 @ 1pm

Well, I pretty much agree with everything you say, so it almost feels superfluous to leave an actual comment.

As for the comments from WGA Member Kevin, I do have this response:

Kevin, I fully support the WGA in their quest to earn residuals on products where the studio makes money. But there’s an awful lot of assumption going on that the studio is making money RIGHT NOW on product distributed via the Internet.

I doubt that they are. As Derek says, no one really is. We’re all hoping and working hard to change that model, but the fact of the matter is that RIGHT NOW the Web is like a boat–a black hole into which you pour money.

So please feel free to fight for your eventual residuals, but realise that RIGHT NOW there’s not much money to be found on the web. Unless you’re into porn.

– Kat Coble on 9 November 2007 @ 4pm

I disagree that content hasn’t been monetized. This year, I’ve spent more on music online than offline, and I’ve spent more overall. If they sold tv shows, it’d be the same story, because I don’t own a tv. If I bought $10 worth of shows, that’s $10 more than advertising brings in for the networks. I visit blogs, and most ads on blogs are federated into content networks, and they produce revenues (and pay writers).

Look, in the newspaper, they don’t pay the writers of letters to the editor. They pay the reporters and columnists. The internet’s the same thing. Some people get paid, and others don’t, and some will want to get paid if they write something substantial.

I’ve given my writing away, but, it was my decision. I’ve also sold my writing. Again, my decision. Same for code. What’s the big deal? If anything, getting a standardized royalty rate on videos online will be GOOD for video on the internet. It’ll give the more ambitious more opportunities to earn a living online.

– jk on 9 November 2007 @ 4pm

A percent of nuthin is still nuthin.

Absolutely. Which is exactly why the writers should be entitled to a percentage of any revenue the studios generate online. The writers won’t actually see a pay out until the studios generate a profit. That’s the way these contracts work. I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

Are you arguing that the writers should accept 0% now and try to re-negotiate after the studios find the magic formula for making money online? That would be absurd. Anything the writers give up this time around will never be regained.

From the sound of it, quite a few of you believe that the studios will never make money online. That’s more or less what they thought in the early days of home video. Instead, home video turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to the studios.

The truth is, the studios that sell through iTunes are already doing quite well online, and they’re just getting started.

– Kirk on 9 November 2007 @ 7pm

OK, I get it now. The issue you were having was the depiction of the studios making tons of money NOW, not that the writers want a cut when they DO start making money.

Now I totally see what you’re getting at, I’m sorry.

I tend to think that the misinformation is not intentional, but I agree that it should be communicated more clearly. After all, they ARE writers.

– Dustin on 9 November 2007 @ 9pm

Your post is one of the more reasonable in the overwhelmingly hysterical pro-union scribblings I’ve seen on the web since the strike. The strike is a mistake, in my opinion. Nobody is irreplacable. Writers sometimes forget that. Now Carson Daly is crossing the picket line to keep his show on the air and to keep his staff paid who aren’t in the union. If this continues the strike will be broken and nothing but ill-will will have been gained. Well written piece, keep up the good work. It is the job of union leadership to be masters of negotiation. A strike is little more than an admission of failure on the part of union leadership. Dan

– daniel on 29 November 2007 @ 2pm