Script Writers' Strike

[doug osborne]

 

Well, they weren't, for a while. Well, actually, I guess it was a deal to pay royalties for iTunes downloads that made iTunes possible. And it's a pretty small royalty payment. The only reason why it's worth while at all is because there's such a huge volume of sales. I don't know what they're doing with on-line TV. Will people be able to download CSI episodes for 99 cents? No, but it's a page-for-page copy of the print issue including the advertising (the ads are even listed in the table of contents!) so I assume that the advertising rate reflects the on-line distribution. Still, as far as "certification" it's the print distribution (only) that counts, at least thus far. Work for hire in the magazine business is kind of tricky. I'm glad that we don't have any "issues" to take to court. Articles written by the editorial staff are indeed work-for-hire, but articles by free-lancers like me haven't been, in the past anyway. We own the copyright, but we give up the publishing rights, at least for a reasonable period of time. Ty Ford puts microphone reviews on his personal web site that he writes for PAR and they know it. But it's not taking money out of their pocket so it's not worth suing for. But then Ty doesn't make any extra money by putting them on his web site either. It's a convenience for people who ask about a microphone that he reviewed in a long out-of-print issue. But if a magazine on the Internet never goes out of print, the circulation (which is ultimately what determines what everyone gets paid, and what the advertisers pay) can grow indefinitely. It gets harder to count though. You know that you mail out 31,267 issues in a month and that's it. But 20 people a month might look up that issue on line for the next ten years. I don't really care to get an extra five bucks for that, but the publisher has taken the risk to establish the on-line magazine and pays to keep it available, so he's entitled to make money on it. Same goes for TV shows on line or on DVD.

 

 

There are some network shows available for advertising-supported streaming, and some for sale (cbs.com, nbc.com, abc.com, iTunes.com, etc. for various examples. Each derives, supposedly some profit however tiny right now. Since the writers have some residual or royalty agreement for distribution on other media, sooner or later a piece of the pie will have to be redistributed to writers for new media.

 

They went through this already when networks started making money from showing reruns, and then again when home video happened. In each case, the producers kicked and screamed and delayed until they gave away a crumb, and everyone left the table until the next round of technological change. Nothing new here.

 

Yes, your writing (and the few articles I have written) are works for hire. (John Gatski is a nice guy, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise) I imagine you would be free to quote from or display an image of your article as long as you are not reclaiming rights.

 

---

 

Just for the record, my experience as a union member was piss poor. My dad, however, is alive today because he was represented by the Communications Workers of America for the 42 years he worked for Ma Bell.

[Geoff Grace]

On LA talk radio yesterday I heard a good sound bite from one of the union spokespersons... Our mantra is "If they make money, we make money." That makes sense to me.

 

+1

 

I watched an NBC show on the Internet last night. I had to sit through a half dozen ads for Dove soap -- one before each segment -- with no ability to fast forward. $$$Ka-ching!$$$

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[alphajerk]

Google revenue: 10.604 Billion USD (2006) Google net income: 3.077 Billion USD (2006) Over three BILLION dollars in profits last year alone. There are, as it turns out, profits to be made on the Internet.

 

i mistyped that, i meant to say i dont see HOW profits are made on the internet from places like google... im curious to see where the money comes in from.

[MikeRivers]

Google revenue: 10.604 Billion USD (2006) Google net income: 3.077 Billion USD (2006) Over three BILLION dollars in profits last year alone. There are, as it turns out, profits to be made on the Internet.

Obviously there is some money to be made, but is it made from the content (that they essentially get for free) or is it made from the advertisers? Without content, there would be no reason to advertise, so, yes, the content has some value to Google. How soon do you think they'll start sending me a nickel for every one of my on-line posts that can be found through Google?

 

And congrats on your 2000th post here. I just hit 10,000 on the Mackie forum yesterday. And not a dime of income from any of them (well, maybe a few dimes from mentioning The Last Mackie Hard Disk Recorder Manual).

[Jeff da Weasel]

And congrats on your 2000th post here.

 

Thank you. I'd had no idea until you pointed it out. I had to scroll up to one of my posts to see if you were referring to me.

 

I just hit 10,000 on the Mackie forum yesterday. And not a dime of income from any of them (well, maybe a few dimes from mentioning The Last Mackie Hard Disk Recorder Manual ).

 

I'm a strong believer in balance. I contribute where I can for free to forums (both of us have for a long time, going back to our rec.audio.pro days), but never give away content that's going to be for sale down the line. So I try and keep that balance of giving and taking. Call it some subset of karma, I suppose. It's always worked for me.

 

And, personally, I would NOT be a free support resource on a manufacturer's site for the reason above, but that's your call and if you find enjoyment in it, then by all means keep doing it.