Writers Strike (Reloaded)

[nathan]

using that same logic the people who run this board should be taking in money hand over fist, after all there are a lot of ads here

I have 3682 posts (some of which aren't that bad). Where are my royalties? I'm thinking .037% of all site revenue would be a fair royalty.
3682/1,492,953*100*.15=.037%

 

[D-Dogg]

Didn't you reset your posts with a name change?

 

[Heucrazy]

it was as free as the cost of mainting a webpage, formating the program to be streamed and actually hosting it and running it.................

using that same logic the people who run this board should be taking in money hand over fist, after all there are a lot of ads here

Yeah there are a lot of ads here. I wonder how many hits there are? I also wonder if "ASFN" is really the name of a publicily traded multi-billion dollar company and can demand the kind of revenue that NBC can? And I also wonder if ASFN is the kind of company that would go out of it's way to shaft anyone who helps with ASFN?

For some reason I don't think the answers to all of those questions are going to fit in your arguement.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

no - but then again it doesn't cost a fraction as much to provide a message board as it does to produce a streaming video interface put together with a well paid technical web staff and support team

just because money is charged doesn't mean anyone is making a profit and to immediately make that jump is a bit simplistic

 

[Chaplin]

no - but then again it doesn't cost a fraction as much to provide a message board as it does to produce a streaming video interface put together with a well paid technical web staff and support team

just because money is charged doesn't mean anyone is making a profit and to immediately make that jump is a bit simplistic

Exactly.

 

[Gaddabout]

no - but then again it doesn't cost a fraction as much to provide a message board as it does to produce a streaming video interface put together with a well paid technical web staff and support team

Just a guess, but I bet it costs less to provide the hardware and software to deliver multimedia and pay the entire multimedia staff for one year than it does for one episode of one primetime hour-long drama. That's just my guess, though.

 

[Cheesebeef]

The AMPTP (Producers) broke off talks yesterday. One big mess... again.

read all the mess from both sides here:

www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com

 

[Chaplin]

The AMPTP (Producers) broke off talks yesterday. One big mess... again.

read all the mess from both sides here:

www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com

Both sides are looking to be unbendable, unfortunately. Call it stubbornness, call it whatever, but it doesn't look good. All we can do is cross our fingers and hope both sides start taking a look at reality and not changing things over and over again like they are doing now. (The Writers adding new items and the producers not prepared for it)

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Just a guess, but I bet it costs less to provide the hardware and software to deliver multimedia and pay the entire multimedia staff for one year than it does for one episode of one primetime hour-long drama. That's just my guess, though.

i'm sure that's true as well - but it really isn't relevant

with TV i'm sure it takes a lot of money and expertise to get a program up - but once you have it set to broadcast then you can reach millions of homes for little additional cost

if you have a popular show you can demand a ransom for advertising and the bonus is that the cost between 500k and 5M people watching the program isn't going to be that much of a swing

with online distribution there would be a huge cost difference in bandwith, tech support etc to jump from 10k views to 100k views

it's not as easy as saying TV is profitable and it's an expensive media or you can get advertising so there has to be profit or just guarantee a cut regardless of how you have to invest

I read a decent article the other day in the journal about how the various members of the producers side could start fracturing pending on how hard of line stance they want to present - not every studio has the ability to play hardball - this could help them bend a little

 

[Chaplin]

i'm sure that's true as well - but it really isn't relevant

with TV i'm sure it takes a lot of money and expertise to get a program up - but once you have it set to broadcast then you can reach millions of homes for little additional cost

if you have a popular show you can demand a ransom for advertising and the bonus is that the cost between 500k and 5M people watching the program isn't going to be that much of a swing

with online distribution there would be a huge cost difference in bandwith, tech support etc to jump from 10k views to 100k views

it's not as easy as saying TV is profitable and it's an expensive media or you can get advertising so there has to be profit or just guarantee a cut regardless of how you have to invest

I read a decent article the other day in the journal about how the various members of the producers side could start fracturing pending on how hard of line stance they want to present - not every studio has the ability to play hardball - this could help them bend a little

BANDWIDTH is the absolute keyword in any of these negotiations regarding new media.

 

[Gaddabout]

BANDWIDTH is the absolute keyword in any of these negotiations regarding new media.

You need to explain this to me. Bandwidth is cheap from my perspective because it doesn't require excessive real estate or manpower. It's one of the most fixed costs in an online business -- assuming you have a clue about the kind of traffic you're going to get.

 

[Chaplin]

You need to explain this to me. Bandwidth is cheap from my perspective because it doesn't require excessive real estate or manpower. It's one of the most fixed costs in an online business -- assuming you have a clue about the kind of traffic you're going to get.

I should have said streaming bandwidth. I've explained it earlier in this thread, but it's basically when you are watching an episode of Lost or Supernatural or Desperate Housewives or whatever online, the process of taking that episode, wherever it is housed, and streaming it on your computer, regardless of the connection speed, is extremely robust and extremely expensive. It's the necessary evil of streaming. In fact, we had to actually leave a company because they were charging us too much, and funny enough, that company was a subsidiary of the parent company of my employer!

A lot of people will mention progressive downloading of stuff, but most if not all the major networks don't use it.

 

[Gee!]

This is still going on? Im guessing it is.. Sorry, Im not following it all and I guess I havent been affected by it somehow..

 

[Cheesebeef]

This is still going on? Im guessing it is.. Sorry, Im not following it all and I guess I havent been affected by it somehow..

yup, still going on and there's no end in sight.

 

[Heucrazy]

no - but then again it doesn't cost a fraction as much to provide a message board as it does to produce a streaming video interface put together with a well paid technical web staff and support team

just because money is charged doesn't mean anyone is making a profit and to immediately make that jump is a bit simplistic

And to make the jump that the writer's should get nothing is greedy. I fail to see why promising the writer's a % of the profits is so hard to do. If there are no profits then what does it hurt the broadcasters to give the writers nothing?

The producers don't want to have to share once it does become profitable and that's were this whole thing breaks down.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

to give nothing would be greedy

but you have to factor in the sunk costs when factoring in who gets how much of a share - it would be easy if the issue were in a vacuum - however it is not and there are a ton of legitimate business concerns on both end

if it were easy it would be done

 

[Chaplin]

And to make the jump that the writer's should get nothing is greedy. I fail to see why promising the writer's a % of the profits is so hard to do. If there are no profits then what does it hurt the broadcasters to give the writers nothing?

The producers don't want to have to share once it does become profitable and that's were this whole thing breaks down.

I believe there are legal ramifications to such a deal.

 

[Cheesebeef]

there's an old adage about everything in hollywood that applies to why something gets made, why someone gets a job, why someone gets an agent and it basically applies to this as well:

no one knows anything.

 

[Cheesebeef]

straight from the AMPTP's mouth:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

"We will also continue to emphasize what we believe: writers
should be compensated from the revenues created by new media and we have backed this up with several new proposals in this area."

Irregardless of the WGA's stance on jurisdictional issues (which I'm not totally down with), I'd like to ask Chap or Migrating Osprey how the above coincides with the notions repeated ad naseum that the writers demands in new media are "ridiculous" and that the AMPTP couldn't give anything even if they wanted to from new media.

 

[Chaplin]

straight from the AMPTP's mouth:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

"We will also continue to emphasize what we believe: writers
should be compensated from the revenues created by new media and we have backed this up with several new proposals in this area."

Irregardless of the WGA's stance on jurisdictional issues (which I'm not totally down with), I'd like to ask Chap or Migrating Osprey how the above coincides with the notions repeated ad naseum that the writers demands in new media are "ridiculous" and that the AMPTP couldn't give anything even if they wanted to from new media.

It doesn't matter because anything we say is going to be considered a lie to you, or at least something that doesn't jive with any sort of opinion you would give.

In this area, I support my employers, but even I can recognize lip service. That statement by the Producers is tantamount to the writers bringing their kids out on the picket lines to get sympathy.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Cheesebeef]

It doesn't matter because anything we say is going to be considered a lie to you, or at least something that doesn't jive with any sort of opinion you would give.

Chap, where have I said you've lied about anything? I've certainly questioned some of your statements given information out there that IMO refutes a lot of your claims (like the quote I posted above), but that doesn't mean I think you're a liar. I just think you misunderstand the situation.

In this area, I support my employers, but even I can recognize lip service. That statement by the Producers is tantamount to the writers bringing their kids out on the picket lines to get sympathy.

so, you think that quote is just lip service? I'm asking an honest question here.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

straight from the AMPTP's mouth:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

"We will also continue to emphasize what we believe: writers
should be compensated from the revenues created by new media and we have backed this up with several new proposals in this area."

Irregardless of the WGA's stance on jurisdictional issues (which I'm not totally down with), I'd like to ask Chap or Migrating Osprey how the above coincides with the notions repeated ad naseum that the writers demands in new media are "ridiculous" and that the AMPTP couldn't give anything even if they wanted to from new media.

kablooey

 

[Linderbee]

kablooey

your uppidy, obnoxious & annoying.

 

[Chaplin]

so, you think that quote is just lip service? I'm asking an honest question here.

Yep. This is getting worse before it gets better and there is nobody to blame except the higher-ups on BOTH sides of the fence. Both of them will say anything to garner sympathy on both sides of the aisle--it's not really even about what is offered/turned down. It's about who gets the public's sympathy. The writers have it right now regardless of whoever is right, and the producer's are trying to get some support on their side. I still believe the writers' demands are unrealistic, (especially now since they decided to start adding more things to their demands last week) but that's just me.