Voices of Uncertainty

The TV and movie studios say writers can't get fairly compensated for internet-related revenues because there are no such revenues and never will be. Or sometimes it's because the revenues are so uncertain. Why, one wonders, are they so eager to hog all this money if there isn't actually any money at stake? Maybe it's because in other contexts they're actually quite confident that they'll make a lot of money off the web:

Nah, couldn't be.

Comments

meanwhile, millions of people are developing different viewing habits (or abandoning TV altogether), and who knows how many of them will return to watching their favorite shows?

Producers ought to cut the writers a fair deal and be done with it, or there will be a much smaller pie all around to be shared.

Posted by r€nato | November 20, 2007 9:33 AM

God, Les Moonves comes off as such a conceited dick.

Posted by Bill | November 20, 2007 9:53 AM

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Tubes.
Benjamin: Just how do you mean that, sir?

Posted by steve duncan | November 20, 2007 10:23 AM

The "no money online" argument doesn't hold water anyway -- the WGA is asking for a percentage, so if there's nothing there, the studios ought to be jumping to give them a percentage of it.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | November 20, 2007 11:00 AM

The writers want a percentage of revenues, not profits. That said, someone is buying shows from iTunes and Xbox Live for $1-2 a pop and that money is going somewhere.

Posted by Rob | November 20, 2007 11:04 AM

Plus I'm sure the networks charge for all those commercials they place in the free episodes and "webisodes" viewable at their web sites.

Posted by Gully | November 20, 2007 12:01 PM

Or sometimes it's because the revenues are so uncertain.

That's rich. Unlike TV, online you can track exactly what every viewer watches, how long they watch it and what they paid for it because ALL media is tracked individually.

Posted by tom.a | November 20, 2007 12:36 PM

As I see it, the problem is that in 10-20 years, nearly _all_ media will be distributed through one of the channels that the studios are excluding. If the studios have made a conscious decision to systematically eliminate writers' compensation over a certain timeframe, then the writers have to do something about it. Quite frankly I'm surprised this issue hasn't garnered more support from SAG and the other Hollywood unions. After all, if it works here, then it will be systematically applied to any union that's individually too weak to fight it.

Posted by MattNotYglesias | November 20, 2007 12:50 PM

MattNotY:

We have plenty of support from SAG; it's just that they have to cross the lines or get sued, unlike the Teamsters. SAG guys always show up at my gate, and you can tell they're SAG because their hair is perfect.

Otherwsie I agree with your analysis. It's hard for me not to think that the studios' attitude in this negotiation is driven by dreams of a union-free future, because we're not asking for a lot of money in absolute terms. Especially if we take DVD residuals off the table -- then we're basically trading actual money for theoretical money.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | November 20, 2007 1:31 PM

What Rob said. The question is whether the studios will really be receiving a big enough share of the advertising revenues in the future that measuring the writers' residuals on that basis won't result in the conglomerates paying out more than they receive.

So the contradiction in the studios' position Matt adverts to actually doesn't exist.

That said, Rob is also right that it is entirely possible that the conglomerates are nonetheless being greedy here.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 20, 2007 2:47 PM

In the decision for Victor Herbert against Shanley's Restaurant in 1917, ASCAP's first favorable USSC decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the following point:

“If the rights under the copyright are infringed only by a performance where money is taken in at the door, they are very imperfectly protected. … If music did not pay it would be given up. If it pays, it pays out of the public’s pocket. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit, and that is enough.”

Similarly, if putting the progams on the internet did not pay, it would be given up, period.

Posted by Randy Paul | November 20, 2007 10:54 PM

The writers want a percentage of revenues, not profits.

Well, that's only because TV (and movie) accounting is insanely corrupt. Their accountants can make anything look like it loses money. Who wouldn't insist on a percentage of the gross under those circumstances?

Posted by Eric | November 21, 2007 9:38 AM

Eric,

That raises a question I've always wondered. I'd understand the corrupt accounting if studios were family-owned businesses-- nobody but the IRS would care if the books were funny-- but the studios and networks are divisions of publicly traded companies.

How can they report obviously bogus numbers (e.g. blockbuster movies that lose money or intracompany sale of DVDs or TV rights that net far less money than an arms length transaction would generate) without facing SEC investigation, fraud charges or shareholder lawsuits? Ken Lay was in the wrong business.

Posted by beowulf | November 21, 2007 11:20 AM