Writers Guild Members Look to Internet Distribution

stevedcc writes "The Guardian is running an article about members of the Writer's Guild, still on strike, creating their own ventures to deliver content over the internet. The intention is to get their work to consumers while bypassing the movie studios. Their effort will include actors and directors, and it is not the first step they have taken to expand their interests during the strike. One particular project is said to include A-list talent, and will be released in roughly 50 daily segments before going to DVD. This is also relevant to the strike because, as the article states, 'at the core of the current dispute is the question of how to reimburse writers for work that is distributed on the internet.'"

Comments

The internet and control

[stevedcc]

"The internet is a place where they can't maintain control," he said. "They are trying to introduce an old-school control-orientated way of thinking into a system that rejects and repels that tradition of control."

Thank god this writer understands - the studios really donät seem to

Re:The internet and control

[Original Replica]

The idea that they have a union is absurd

Perhaps the idea that the writers wouldn't get the same percentage of compensation for an internet release of their work as they would get for a DVD release of their work, is absurd. You would have never heard about this, except that they do have a union. People who know that their company is heavily dependent on them and yet do not feel treated well at that company, and talk about "screw this I'm gonna go somewhere else" in the breakroom but never do it; they are absurd. One singular worker thinking that their protest march of one is going to change the bottom line hunting of dozens of executive level managers; that is absurd.
That you think that an industry halting is "ludicrous" and that this is something that the studio heads "allow" tells me that you are either: a)wealthy and powerful enough that you actually consider yourself better that those who work for you. b)operate under such a surf's mentality that you think it is wrong to publicly disobey Master.

Re:The internet and control

[hedwards]

I hate unions, I think they're by and large full of selfish, greedy people that don't give a damn about anybody not in a union. But in this case the union is pretty much dead on. So no, it isn't just "leftist Hollywood limo-liberal crowd" or even mostly, it is just people that believe that doing an honest days work should come with some sort of benefit. I'm sorry if your brand of "conservativism" is lacking in compassion; I'll be sure to lend you some of mine.

The belief that they shouldn't be compensated for any use of their work for which their bosses are being paid is just absurd. The average screen writer makes very little money in the first place, then to deny them any of the profits from redistribution in a digital form on the internet is just stealing.

The media conglomerates make such a big deal about how people distributing copyright works without paying are hurting the artists but guess what, the writers are some of the artists, and the suggestion that I shouldn't download a movie so that the corporations can steal from the writers instead of me is just plain ludicrous.

The average screenwriter makes so little anyways, I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that they'll get a piece of any additional revenues that are made just because they felt like writing for the movies/TV or whatever. Because it's awfully hard to come up with quality programming if nobody writes it. I for one would not want to watch only improv and reality programming all day everyday, I'd cancel my satellite, sell my tv and never watch the idiot box again.

Studios arent obsolete

[jorghis]

Hmm, so all the writers need is actors, stagehands, a set, and all the other stuff required to produce a movie and they can make it and distribute it online. Maybe they could organize all these things together and call it a "production company". Thatll show those studios!

This isnt the end of studios, those amatuerish videos on YouTube may be entertaining but you will still need large organizations to produce anything complex. The only thing that will change is that some of the marketing and sales may be different.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, writers could feasibly bypass the studios by doing Red-vs-Blue type movies (forget the name for that type of animation). Presumably there's a software package more specifically tailored for this kind of movie-making so you don't have to use all kinds of workarounds?

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[bahwi]

You are 100% correct. But the new studios will not have the ownership, perception of power, and complacency of the old studios. Or at least not as great.

Lots of small indie films that have hit it big have been from small studios or even just groups of people coming together to do it(still takes 10-50 people) but it's doable and has been done before.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[Rie Beam]

The thing is, though, is that while all of those people are necessary for the production of a high-quality product, they are all offshots of the kernel that is the writer's idea. A producer crafts it, the crew helps create it, and distributors help get it out to others, but without that original idea to bloom off of, you're essentially churning out a fake product.

Mind you, this hasn't stopped studios from producing this crap, but still, writers are the heart of the industry. The whole point of this strike is reimbursement for what it is they actually do, whereas the studios apparently seem to feel that, despite being little more than the shiny wrapping for the actual product, the writer's cut isn't as significant.

This is a battle over content versus packaging. I'm not saying that a writer alone can produce something we'd change the channel or file into the theater to see, but that without their help, there's really no chance we'd end up there, anyway.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[wizardforce]

but you will still need large organizations to produce anything complex.

nonsense. the only thing big companies are capable of doing is creating a movie that costs 200 million to produce, that doesn't mean it's any more "complex" or even "good" all it means is that it is "expensive." granted most of the videos on you tube are crude to say the least but there are also a good number that are at or better than a lot of what hollywood and big studios produce [which as of late isnt all that hard]

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[The Master Control P]

You mean machinima?

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[Rie Beam]

You honestly expect me to believe that the issue here is that the studios aren't make enough money?

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably there's a software package more specifically tailored for this kind of movie-making so you don't have to use all kinds of workarounds? Yea, it's called "let the game studio do all the CGI animation work for you, so you just have to write the plot and do the voice acting." Also known as Machinima.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[wizardforce]

You cant produce something like Lord of the Rings with a webcam and a youtube account

I dont care how much money they throw at the problem, if their storyline/plot are bad the movie is BAD. no amount of eye candy and pretty shots are going to fix it. LOTR did well because of the plot not so much because of the effects. take the plot away and you've got a mediocre movie that really isnt worth watching. that being said, money can improve a plot but it can not in its self make a good movie. then there's the motivation for creating the film in the first place, when your loyalty is to the almighty dollar sign, its that much easier to create boat loads of half baked movies.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[chromatic]

You cannot substantially increase everyone's pay without going above X. Therefore you either have to reduce someone else's compensation in order to give someone (the writers) a raise or pass the cost onto consumers.

... or find new markets or sources of income, such as DVD sales and Internet distribution.

This raises three questions. First, if (as the argument goes) a DVD boxed set with commentary from the writers and producers and showrunner is worth more than a DVD boxed set without that commentary, why does the studio ask the writers and producers and showrunner to contribute their work in making that commentary for free?

Second, if Internet distribution really isn't making any money, why are the studios doing it?

Third, if Internet distribution is an investment which the studios hope will make money, what's the harm in giving writers residuals as a percentage of revenue? If it doesn't work, the studios aren't out anything. If it does work, it's the same recompense system as any other form of distribution: small screen, rentals, DVD sales, big screen, syndication, etc.

The problem is that there's now a system in which creators can bypass all of the middlemen (studios, distributors) and reach their audiences directly. The studios don't like that and want to bypass everyone else (creators, distributors).

good

[superwiz]

This is how it's supposed to work. If they don't like the business terms offered to them, they should work on their own terms.

Hollywood learns from Agrentina

[RevWaldo]

If you can't get an agreement with the bosses, just take over the damn factory and run it yourself! http://www.thetake.org/index.cfm?page_name=synopsis It looks like the strike will be settled one deal at a time, like they just did with David Letterman. ( http://gothamist.com/2007/12/29/wga_update_real.php ). The power of the AMPTP has been seriously underminded. The writers will get deals eventually. After all, without writers, how will they make reality TV shows?

This is not about the Internet.

[SanityInAnarchy]

There are MANY subtitle formats, and MANY container formats. As for "getting paid enough", you obviously haven't been following the story. It's not that they're not getting paid enough, it's that they're not getting paid fairly. This is an industry where individual actors can be paid millions of dollars, so there is absolutely no excuse to cut the writers out. But your credibility goes away when we remember that the writers are "whining" about not getting paid, and you're whining about not being entertained -- I wonder which is more important? But back to the issue at hand... I can put SRT, SSA, ASS, even VOBSUB, combined with pretty much any audio/video format (personal favorite is h.264 for video, and one of vorbis/aac/ac3 or even FLAC for audio), into a Matroska (MKV) file. Or, I can download any container format, even an AVI, if someone is willing to distribute subtitles with it -- I've currently been watching Battlestar Galactica in XVid and AC3 in an AVI container, and I hear well enough not to need subtitles, but it also came with Danish, English, Finnish, Norwegian, and Swedish subtiles, all in separate SRT files. There's also the stupid fansubs which embed subtitles in the video itself, but the reason I mention these other formats is, they allow subtitles to be easily distributed with every file. No one's going to bother to strip subtitles out of the mkv, which means that even if 99% of us don't turn them on, you'll be able to, no matter where you get the file from. So, if you're going to complain about a lack of closed-captioning, don't do it here on Slashdot. Take it to the projects which are planning to do this online distribution. Tell them about formats like Matroska, or at least SRT. But to pretend that the Internet is less "accessible" just because most people are lazy and only throw things on YouTube is a bit insulting to anyone who works on these formats.

Animal Farm anyone?

[EdIII]

Maybe I have just got so cynical over the years.. but the first thing I thought of when I heard this was the book by Orwell, Animal Farm. The writers are going to BECOME what they hate. They now have the impetus to form their own distribution channels. They are not bypassing the Movie Studios. They are BECOMING the Movie Studios. If they do actually pull it off, maybe they will have better compensation packages for the writers in the long term. I am still reminded though, that power corrupts and that the *new* Movie Studios may start abusing some other principal in the long chain of people and companies getting such fine works to our collective eyeballs. I hope that is just my cynicism acting up. Maybe if the writers were compensated more they would come up with better programming.

Salaried professionals

[markjhood2003]

It's my understanding that these writers are on staff, earning regular salaries. How are they in principal different from professional software developers working for Silicon Valley companies? If their pay is miserably low, sure, striking for better pay is reasonable, but why should they get paid residuals every time the product of their work brings in income for their employers?

Re:The other side...

[spellcheckur]

As someone close to the situation, I'll bite:

First of all, an increase of costs (writers fees) will do either one or both of the following: increase prices of content and decrease the budget of other areas of production. You can damn well guarantee that even if the Studios and the writers do make a deal, that extra money is definitely not coming out of the Studios' pockets.

Well, this is silly. If the studios have the capability to magically cut production costs or increase the prices to consumers, why have they not already? They are in the business of making money; it would seem that either or both of these would be in their best interests, whether or not the writers get a new contract. Since the last writers' contract, which gave them an (albeit much smaller) increase in compensation, production companies profits have gone UP, not DOWN. The overall cost of television and film has increased, and yet the price of movies on DVD and Video (studios' primary source of income) has dropped.

Second, the average writer in the WGA makes about US$200,000 (I don't have a link to back it up, though I heard this figure from a big expose on the WGA). These striking writers are forcing many crew (cameramen, makeup artists, set construction, actors, assistant, etc) out of work. None of these other crew get royalties, and the writers are striking to get *more* royalties. Sure you can say that without writers, you won't get a show. But without everyone else you won't get a show either, it's all a big chain. These writers are acting selfishly by essentially screwing over everyone else that relies on week to week paychecks. Do the writers actually think that the crew they work with are in support of their strike? The crew will get nothing out of it but late fees on their bills.

This is one of the most offensive inaccuracies stated by the studios. The average working writer, extrapolating their salary to an annualized figure would make more than $200,000. The problem is this: the "average" writer spends most of his/her time not working. It is the nature of the industry that, at any given time, only about 40% of WGA members are working. The rest of the time, they are hustling for work, or doing non-writing employment so they can make ends meet. For those whose primary source of income is writing, the annual figure is much closer to $60,000. For a skilled job, in a city like Los Angeles, that's not exactly gluttony.

Secondly, as to the issue of the writers "screwing" the rest of the crew:

• IATSE, who represents grips (people that move things) and gaffers (electricians), receives 4.5 times the amount of residuals as the writers. It is paid directly into their health and pension fund.
• SAG (representing the actors) receives 3x the amount, and
• The DGA (who represent the Directors and Assistant Directors) get the same as the writers do.

Clearly, your assertion that the writers are the only ones who receive residuals is a lie. But it's also beside the point. Every one of these crew members is also a member of a union. They also have the right to strike. Many have used it. To say that the writers are "screwing over" these people is simply misguided. In such a heavily unionized industry, the writers are exercising their rights, just like any of the other (as you call them "screwed") unions would if they were not offered a reasonable contract.

Third, all unions eventually turn into a self serving, bloated, top heavy organisations, much like...movie studios! The unions want their members to strike, to show their members that the union is important. While the writers are not working and not getting paid, you can be damn sure those union bosses are sitting pretty on union fees, maintaining their extravagant lifestyle.

Wrong. While many members of the WGA Board of Directors or the Negotiating Committee are wealthy due to professional succe