the writer's strike revisted
Wait, wait, wait, stop the presses.
I was just reading the news and came across a column on the low down of the recent writer's strike. I really didn't pay much attention to the strike because very little of the programming I watch on TV was affected by it. However, to be perfectly honest, I generally don't like unions (a good idea that's been tragically executed) and a lot of the crap they pull on a regular basis. For starters, they often jerk around their workers as much as the big businesses do -- to quote the disenchanted laborers I grew up around living in a construction family, "nobody needs two bosses." Plus their strikes are hypocritical because the only workers who can afford to strike for more money logically must already be making enough money to begin with, but meanwhile new and struggling workers have to abandon their career for a new one because they can't afford to be unemployed for months on end. Hmmm, sacrificing the weak for so the wealthy can get wealthier... sounds a lot like how the corporations handle things. But anyway, now that you know how I feel...
So I knew this whole strike was about writer's getting a percentage of TV revenues in an area where producers and studios had been keeping 100% up until now. Now I may not like unions or strikes, but what's fair is fair and big business was totally in the wrong for forcing a strike instead of giving the writer's what they deserved. But now I find out that they were arguing over revenues for TV programming made available on the Internet which they believe is "the future of TV".
You've gotta be fuckin' kidding me.
Oh, TV on the Internet is the future, alright. But are you telling me that that they striked for 100 days to get 2-3% of revenues on something that almost NOBODY IS PAYING FOR?!?! Here's the reality folks: maybe 5% of TV programming downloaders actually go to sites like iTunes and pay for content whereas the other 95% simply download it from traditional fileshares. Why?
BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING FREE!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, do you pay to watch Lost or Grey's Anatomy or My Name Is Earl when it airs on network television? Then why would you pay for it online when people just take copies of the same programming off their DVR and share them on Bittorrent or elsewhere. It's not difficult and, no, it's not illegal either -- and it'd be impossible to stop even if it was. Take it from me, I have over 500 hours of TV programming on my computer and I'm not even what's considered a heavy downloader.
I'm happy that there's a fair deal on paper now for the writers, but for chrissake, know what you're fighting first, you retards.
I was just reading the news and came across a column on the low down of the recent writer's strike. I really didn't pay much attention to the strike because very little of the programming I watch on TV was affected by it. However, to be perfectly honest, I generally don't like unions (a good idea that's been tragically executed) and a lot of the crap they pull on a regular basis. For starters, they often jerk around their workers as much as the big businesses do -- to quote the disenchanted laborers I grew up around living in a construction family, "nobody needs two bosses." Plus their strikes are hypocritical because the only workers who can afford to strike for more money logically must already be making enough money to begin with, but meanwhile new and struggling workers have to abandon their career for a new one because they can't afford to be unemployed for months on end. Hmmm, sacrificing the weak for so the wealthy can get wealthier... sounds a lot like how the corporations handle things. But anyway, now that you know how I feel...
So I knew this whole strike was about writer's getting a percentage of TV revenues in an area where producers and studios had been keeping 100% up until now. Now I may not like unions or strikes, but what's fair is fair and big business was totally in the wrong for forcing a strike instead of giving the writer's what they deserved. But now I find out that they were arguing over revenues for TV programming made available on the Internet which they believe is "the future of TV".
You've gotta be fuckin' kidding me.
Oh, TV on the Internet is the future, alright. But are you telling me that that they striked for 100 days to get 2-3% of revenues on something that almost NOBODY IS PAYING FOR?!?! Here's the reality folks: maybe 5% of TV programming downloaders actually go to sites like iTunes and pay for content whereas the other 95% simply download it from traditional fileshares. Why?
BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING FREE!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, do you pay to watch Lost or Grey's Anatomy or My Name Is Earl when it airs on network television? Then why would you pay for it online when people just take copies of the same programming off their DVR and share them on Bittorrent or elsewhere. It's not difficult and, no, it's not illegal either -- and it'd be impossible to stop even if it was. Take it from me, I have over 500 hours of TV programming on my computer and I'm not even what's considered a heavy downloader.
I'm happy that there's a fair deal on paper now for the writers, but for chrissake, know what you're fighting first, you retards.