Just who are THEY to be calling people PIRATES?
Aka: I guess it takes one to know one.
Now, I don't know if these numbers are real, but if they're even close to the truth, then those nets and film companies crying about 'pirates' just don't want the competition.
http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2007/11/teamster-member-breaks-down-amptp.html
I mean, Blackbeard would be proud. $20,000 down to $250/year? Admittedly that $20,000 is approximately my yearly salary (and, if you didn't click the link, that's the residual paid for first rerun of a show) -- which is why I don't buy all the shows I'd love to, so the writers can have their measly 2 cents per dollar -- but that's not the point. The point is that do you really think networks are going to pay $20,000 to re-run a show when they can put it online and stream it as much as they want (with embedded ads, no less!) for a mere $250 a year! Unless, of course, it's 'promotional' at which point they don't have to pay a cent.
And yet the nets and such constantly spin it that whenever you or I (hypothetically of course!) illegally download a TV show or movie, we're stealing cash from those poor writers' mouths. Yes, as a matter of fact, that is the case, but not nearly as much as they'd -- the companies -- like you to believe. Unless, of course, you buy the story that those losses to the corps mean belt-tightening all around. As with any business, that generally means the least-paid, lowest down people get the axe. Because, y'know, money needs to be saved and those salaries eat up a whole bunch.
I'm not a rabid, left-wing 'unions are always right' kind of girl, but they ain't always wrong, either.
It's amazing, too, how the media co.s hedge about the 'viability' of the internet. Yeah, it's iffy alright. That's why your average person can't afford Google stock. That's why the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules which change once about every 500 years has a section on 'Electronic Resources.' Trust me, if you can get committees of obsessive-compulsive people from four countries (Australia, Britain, Canada and USA) and six different organisations to agree on something, it has viability. If libraries are going to take the time it takes to catalogue something, it isn't going away any time soon.
As for the legal downloads? Well, the residuals are that cute 2cents on the dollar, same as for video and DVD sales. If you're willing to buy the argument that it costs the media companies just as much to provide a download as a DVD (or that they're passing all those savings along to you), then boy do I have some things that I'd like to sell you. After all, my income needs supplementing. Yes, server space and bandwith cost money, but they more than make it back or Steve Jobs wouldn't be selling music as well as players.
And anyone who thinks the writers shouldn't get more, has never seriously sat down and tried to write something. That old saying about needing to eat? Writing takes time, and the outcome is never guaranteed. Yeah, I only make about $20,000 (before taxes) a year. I also know I'm going to get that -- or something close to it -- every year. I only have to put in my eight hours, and then I go home, and I know (barring banking screw-ups) that my paycheque will be waiting for me.
Now imagine putting that time in, and then having to wonder if and when you get paid. You still need to cover the costs on your computer, phone, internet and rent. You still need food (and I think I'm in a good position to state that it isn't getting cheaper, no matter what the flyers in your paper say), your kids still need new pants, because the ones you got two weeks ago don't fit anymore.
In other words, that $20,000 might be a writer's yearly salary, too.
People have snarked that it looks like a cushy picket line with Starbucks and Krispy Kremes (yes, I have heard this). Well, I can guarantee you that if my union goes on strike, the only difference will be that Krispy Kreme is replaced with Tim Hortons. (Plus, it'll be winter or early spring to start, so we'll need more umbrellas).
And yes, those numbers are for the re-runs and the money for the original episode comes in on top of that. But face a risky paycheque, and see how quick you are to grab the cash when it comes. Of course you will, because in our economy, money equals food.
Look at ourselves. When we post online, we want credit. We may ask for no more, but in most cases, nobody's making money off our content (mostly because you can't give it away. Face it... ain't none of us that interesting). Networks and studios are making money from the content that they post, simply because they aren't in the business of losing money. They've been at it a few years, now. If it was so dodgy, they wouldn't have stuck with it.
I know it's all been said louder and better by other people. It's just... reading that breakdown made me just want to scream. I mean there's corporate greed and then there's... GAH!
I like my TV. I don't want to see my shows go dark (okay, Corner Gas is safe, but that's only 1/2 hour a week), but when it comes down to it, we gain a lot more from those writers than we acknowledge. After all, we can all name the actors in our favourite shows, but how many of us can list all the writers? All the people that make the show 'watchable'? We're quite willing to prey on them, too, using their work for our amusement.
Why shouldn't they get paid for it?
Now, I don't know if these numbers are real, but if they're even close to the truth, then those nets and film companies crying about 'pirates' just don't want the competition.
http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2007/11/teamster-member-breaks-down-amptp.html
I mean, Blackbeard would be proud. $20,000 down to $250/year? Admittedly that $20,000 is approximately my yearly salary (and, if you didn't click the link, that's the residual paid for first rerun of a show) -- which is why I don't buy all the shows I'd love to, so the writers can have their measly 2 cents per dollar -- but that's not the point. The point is that do you really think networks are going to pay $20,000 to re-run a show when they can put it online and stream it as much as they want (with embedded ads, no less!) for a mere $250 a year! Unless, of course, it's 'promotional' at which point they don't have to pay a cent.
And yet the nets and such constantly spin it that whenever you or I (hypothetically of course!) illegally download a TV show or movie, we're stealing cash from those poor writers' mouths. Yes, as a matter of fact, that is the case, but not nearly as much as they'd -- the companies -- like you to believe. Unless, of course, you buy the story that those losses to the corps mean belt-tightening all around. As with any business, that generally means the least-paid, lowest down people get the axe. Because, y'know, money needs to be saved and those salaries eat up a whole bunch.
I'm not a rabid, left-wing 'unions are always right' kind of girl, but they ain't always wrong, either.
It's amazing, too, how the media co.s hedge about the 'viability' of the internet. Yeah, it's iffy alright. That's why your average person can't afford Google stock. That's why the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules which change once about every 500 years has a section on 'Electronic Resources.' Trust me, if you can get committees of obsessive-compulsive people from four countries (Australia, Britain, Canada and USA) and six different organisations to agree on something, it has viability. If libraries are going to take the time it takes to catalogue something, it isn't going away any time soon.
As for the legal downloads? Well, the residuals are that cute 2cents on the dollar, same as for video and DVD sales. If you're willing to buy the argument that it costs the media companies just as much to provide a download as a DVD (or that they're passing all those savings along to you), then boy do I have some things that I'd like to sell you. After all, my income needs supplementing. Yes, server space and bandwith cost money, but they more than make it back or Steve Jobs wouldn't be selling music as well as players.
And anyone who thinks the writers shouldn't get more, has never seriously sat down and tried to write something. That old saying about needing to eat? Writing takes time, and the outcome is never guaranteed. Yeah, I only make about $20,000 (before taxes) a year. I also know I'm going to get that -- or something close to it -- every year. I only have to put in my eight hours, and then I go home, and I know (barring banking screw-ups) that my paycheque will be waiting for me.
Now imagine putting that time in, and then having to wonder if and when you get paid. You still need to cover the costs on your computer, phone, internet and rent. You still need food (and I think I'm in a good position to state that it isn't getting cheaper, no matter what the flyers in your paper say), your kids still need new pants, because the ones you got two weeks ago don't fit anymore.
In other words, that $20,000 might be a writer's yearly salary, too.
People have snarked that it looks like a cushy picket line with Starbucks and Krispy Kremes (yes, I have heard this). Well, I can guarantee you that if my union goes on strike, the only difference will be that Krispy Kreme is replaced with Tim Hortons. (Plus, it'll be winter or early spring to start, so we'll need more umbrellas).
And yes, those numbers are for the re-runs and the money for the original episode comes in on top of that. But face a risky paycheque, and see how quick you are to grab the cash when it comes. Of course you will, because in our economy, money equals food.
Look at ourselves. When we post online, we want credit. We may ask for no more, but in most cases, nobody's making money off our content (mostly because you can't give it away. Face it... ain't none of us that interesting). Networks and studios are making money from the content that they post, simply because they aren't in the business of losing money. They've been at it a few years, now. If it was so dodgy, they wouldn't have stuck with it.
I know it's all been said louder and better by other people. It's just... reading that breakdown made me just want to scream. I mean there's corporate greed and then there's... GAH!
I like my TV. I don't want to see my shows go dark (okay, Corner Gas is safe, but that's only 1/2 hour a week), but when it comes down to it, we gain a lot more from those writers than we acknowledge. After all, we can all name the actors in our favourite shows, but how many of us can list all the writers? All the people that make the show 'watchable'? We're quite willing to prey on them, too, using their work for our amusement.
Why shouldn't they get paid for it?