I'm going to propose a number of counterpoints in this message. Perhaps I am stirring up an ant-hill and am about to get bitten by ants... but I sort of doubt it, somehow.
AS a business development executive in interactive and digital media, I have been dealing with the WGA strike. My office is in Hollywood proper
the writers do not have a right to these residuals they demand. The
You seem to have a very clear-cut position and some contextually-driven reasons for thinking in the fashion that you do. Pretty strident, to my ear, though...
beauty of this strike, is that they are just making themselves appear more out of touch and opening the door even wider for digital content and talent that we see on the likes of you tube, and user generated content sites.
I have been hearing a lot about writer-operated startups that are currently in development. They are not planning to cut the major studios in on those deals: the expertise that it takes to set up and run the next YouTube or iTunes isn't 'owned' by Hollywood. [More like Palo Alto and Mountain View, really...] I think that there won't be another "you can see our movies only in these X theaters" technological monopoly allowed by folks; Hollywood's practices from the 1920s and 1930s simply aren't going to get replicated. This history has all been played out before. Hollywood lost, then, too. Putting together content distribution startups (to replace the current, inflexible, failing system) is far from out of touch, to my eye.
I have noticed that the EFF consistently takes a position opposite to the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB), which is the final say in ethical business practice for on line commerce and advertising, so even if the EFF had a position I would bet my next Cost Per Click commission check that it would be anti business, just like their stance on behavioral targeting or the FTC proposed Do Not Tag list for Internet Ad vertising.
The EFF isn't generally anti-business, but they *are* generally advocates of fair play. $0.04 cents for a DVD sale isn't much of a cut for the writers, particularly when the thing the studios are selling "costs" them a 25-cent blank disc (less in volume, naturally) and some chintzy packaging, in volume, or far less if the content is digitally distributed. Since the studios aren't contributing a whole lot creatively to the content, and have simply been raking in BILLIONS in profits over the last 70 years or so, the writers certainly SHOULD be trying to get a slice of it. We should have had digital content distribution of movies and mp3 files 10+ years ago. The tech was there. Just not evenly distributed yet. Some folks have been blocking further developments because they want to hold onto their profits.
Long story short, the Writers are just grabbing on to the nearest gravy train, I mean they havent had anything to do with the world of online Entertainment until they've been dragged into it?
I would think that the 'gravy train' metaphor would be more aptly applied to something like a Miramax or a Sony or a Viacom -- facilitators of connectivity between consumers and writer-actor-producers. If the cost of that facilitative communication drops to near-zero -- as it is doing -- why should any of us give the studios a dime? *PEOPLE WANT TO PAY FOR THINGS THEY LIKE*. THEY WILL PAY. Shout it from the rooftops! They are just getting more particular about what they're willing to pay for, and how many times they will do so. "1" seems fair to me. ;-)
Where were they when the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was being drafted, where were they when the FTC investigated the Lead Generation Practice of ValueClick one of the biggest advertising brokers on line, and where were they when the IAB made audience measurement regulation mandatory? They dont care about the Web or the Internet or monetizing it in a sustainable way, so their strike is boring.
I think that it is critical that we draw distinctions between past events and present situations: it was far less obvious to anyone in the general public that the DMCA was going to have the ramifications that it has had, ten years ago. A ton of us *did* protest it, way back then, but seemingly to very little effect. [Remember that the DMCA predated Napster, much less such things as YouTube and Facebook and blogging. We had mp3 technology from about 1993/1994 onward, but the popular consciousness took quite some time to catch up with what a few geeks were doing at home.] Certainly, today, it is far more obvious to everyone that 'new media' and media transformations are worthy of attention and caution from all potentially interested parties. I think it will be entertaining to see whether the studios think that they can retain any degree of creative or managerial control over the people who are producing their content. And to see which studios go bust in the next few years because they *didn't* figure out how to evolve. :-) --elijah