Solidarity

Fairly overwhelming support for the writers among Angelinos polled by Survey USA.

When you think about it, the rise of digital technology -- ways to make it dramatically cheaper and easier to disseminate video content at higher quality to more people -- is just a tremendous business opportunity for the studios who own the infrastructure and expertise to create video entertainment. It's pretty sad that, instead, they've decided to join their friends in the music industry as seeing it primarily as a menace requiring them to put all kinds of new burdens and legal threats on their customers and, secondarily, as a way of trying to screw their workforce out of the compensation they got using analog media.

Comments

Why don't you stop writing for the Atlantic out of solidarity for the WGA members, until the strike is resolved.

Posted by Harry | November 11, 2007 3:17 PM

Great idea, Harry! In fact, all journalists should stop writing, especially about the strike, until the strike end. Even better, everyone (whether or not they have any material interest in the outcome) should just quit writing--including signing checks-- until the strike is resolved. Anyone who doesn't is clearly a flaming hypocrite.

Posted by James Gary | November 11, 2007 3:28 PM

I'm having trouble thinking through this post.

In the case of the music industry, most artist under contract side with the major studios and see illegal downloading as a major threat.

In the case of television and film, the studios are increasingly eager to capitalize off new media opportunities now that protections are in place to protect against illegal downloads. Writers want a piece of the new media.

I don't understand Matt's claim that the studios are anti-internet.

Posted by thehova | November 11, 2007 3:52 PM

Matt, this is a really, really dumb post.

The WGA is acting exactly like the Players' Union in many different sports.

They are not "oppressed", they want, in Economics-terms, a share of the rents taken in by the studios.

Meanwhile, they see the new media is a revenue stream they haven't tapped into yet.

If the NFLPA wasn't such a useless organization, you'd see similar moves to tap into the massive shared revenue from broadcasting rights.

Posted by Greg | November 11, 2007 4:49 PM

A lot of screenwriters' sons would make sure, when writing about the WGA, to disclose what some people might perceive as a conflict of interest. Just sayin'.

Posted by John Tabin | November 11, 2007 5:36 PM

Meanwhile, they see the new media is a revenue stream they haven't tapped into yet.

Or, they reasonably assumed that if they're entitled to compensation for work delivered over one medium, there's no logical argument for not compensating them when the same work gets delivered over a slightly different medium.

An entirely reasonably proposition, given that in 10-20 years the vast majority if media will probably be distributed over something that falls into the latter category ("digital, network-based delivery"), even if-- to the end user-- it just arrives on the TV in their living room like analog TV does today. It's actually a pretty clever gambit on the studios' part. If the SAG has any brains, they'll strike in solidarity before the studios do it to them.

Posted by MattNotYglesias | November 11, 2007 9:14 PM

Meanwhile, they see the new media is a revenue stream they haven't tapped into yet.

Or, they reasonably assumed that if they're entitled to compensation for work delivered over one medium, there's no logical argument for not compensating them when the same work gets delivered over a slightly different medium.

An entirely reasonably proposition, given that in 10-20 years the vast majority if media will probably be distributed over something that falls into the latter category ("digital, network-based delivery"), even if-- to the end user-- it just arrives on the TV in their living room like analog TV does today. It's actually a pretty clever gambit on the studios' part. If the SAG has any brains, they'll strike in solidarity before the studios do it to them.

Posted by MattNotYglesias | November 11, 2007 9:14 PM

I agree with MattNotYglesias.

Posted by crack | November 11, 2007 9:42 PM

I agree with MattNotYglesias.

Posted by crack | November 11, 2007 9:43 PM

Wait a damn minute, I'm talking about how *they* are ripping *us* off. My point was that the execs have already tapped this revenue, and now the WGA wants to do so as well.

I'm ambivalent because it will still result in the consumer being screwed.

Posted by Greg | November 11, 2007 11:25 PM

Greg, I've having a hard time understanding your position. The WGA wants to be compensated for their work, regardless of the distribution mechanism. Why shouldn't they be? If all programming moves to new media then the writers are left uncompensated.

An anecdote given by the writers of The Office: they created some "webisodes" that aired only over the internet, and eventually won an Emmy for their efforts. However, they weren't paid a dime for that work, while NBC aired the webisodes with commercials and made money. How is that a good deal for the WGA?

Posted by eriks | November 12, 2007 8:47 AM

Posted by Greg | November 11, 2007 11:25 PM

Wait a damn minute, I'm talking about how *they* are ripping *us* off. My point was that the execs have already tapped this revenue, and now the WGA wants to do so as well.

I'm ambivalent because it will still result in the consumer being screwed.

If I like The Daily Show or Battlestar Galactica or ... uhhh, well I guess there are other good shows in TV, even if I don't catch them ... I don't feel like I'm getting screwed if the writers and performers get a share of the revenue.

I mean, its a percentage royalty ... if the studios give away content for free, x% of $0 is $0 out of my pocket.

Posted by BruceMcF | November 12, 2007 9:50 AM