The sorry state of streaming residuals shows why SAG and the WGA are striking.

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m a former musician and record label employee who’s been screaming “told you so” for years. I stopped paying attention to the pittance I get in streaming revenue because it impacts my life that little.

    I hope the writers get what they’re owed, but don’t hold your fucking breath

    • Freeman@lemmy.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand how streaming isn’t just considered syndication. It seems like a dictionary definition of what it was, even if it didn’t exist when syndication agreements were made.

      It’s a rerun of a show on a separate channel/platform. And the writers/actors should get the agreed revenue for it the same as if it were on TMC, nick at night or Netflix b

      • Alex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indeed. an impartial judge wouldn’t let studios split hairs over words like this but as long as they’re appointed by politicians, they will side with whoever has the deeper pockets, because that’s what’s required for a continuing bright career.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      61
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t get any money from the systems I setup at work as an IT worker years ago, even if they are used every day in perpetuity and make the company billions.

      Where’s my income in perpetuity for creative problem solving?

      • kboy101222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It should be in your bank account instead of the pockets of investors that do 0 work and generate 0 value

        • whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If investors do 0 work and generate 0 value, why are they included at all?

          Writers and actors should cut out investors and make their content independently. If they need money, they could borrow some under the condition that they share the profits if their content makes money. Wait a second…

        • persolb@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok… but then why would they pay to have it done in the first place?

          I’ve solved issues that have saved transit riders hundreds of thousands of hours of time… but so have other people. I don’t know how such an accounting of the return for investment I made would work.

          When my solutions stop working as well, due to misc design/need drift, how do we decide how much I lose and the next me gets?.

      • 1847953620@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This just in: different payment structures are different. Different valuation of output is different. Unfair under-valuations are unfair. What a discovery.

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you not get paid hourly or salary for the work? Your compensation package was different. Did you not have a steady job? Did you not know you were going in there next week?

        • lemmyman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think the latent question here is - how were expectations and/or contracts for writers any different from hourly workers who have never expected royalties?

          • QHC@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The previous comment did most of the work for you. Writers, actors, crew, and generally everyone involved in the entertainment industry does not have a salary gig like office workers. They aren’t working consistently–which has only gotten worse in the streaming era–and thus rely on royalties as part of their total compensation.

            So, in summary, they are completely different situations that cannot be directly compared.

            • lemmyman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t think I’m ignorant of the gig-work nature of these things - I am, by choice, a contractor, but in a different field (engineering services). But my contracts specify that the deliverables are “works for hire” and that the client owns all IP, and I am not entitled to residuals or royalties or any other income from the work I’ve done under such contracts.

              I just genuinely don’t know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?Because there are plenty of analogous (i.e. IP-generating) jobs that don’t have such arrangements.

              • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Works-for-hire” is exactly the key point here.

                This is about who holds the IP. Sometimes, depending on the employer and contract, an engineer will get to share in a patent created in the course of the job. Or might have incentives such as Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or options.

                So it’s not true that the IT folks are exclusively paid salary. Many share in the risk as well as the returns of their firms.

                Let’s unpack that.

                Yes, there are ‘writers for hire’ in licenced tie-in fiction and comics. These authors get a flat advance BUT they still get royalties based on the number of books or comics sold. That is - base payment and then returns based on success if the product.

                Film and television writers are compensated by residuals in addition to salary. The studio owns the IP but the creators have a stake. It’s a risk and return sharing relationship with the studio. That’s the standard arrangement.

                How is this different from an ESOP or options as an incentive remuneration?

                How would an IT employee feel if a firm licenced the IP and then excluded its value from the calculation of ESOPs and options due, or the dividends on the nonvoting shares issued to employees?

              • QHC@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I just genuinely don’t know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?

                What do you mean by “more”, and relative to what? The main complaint from writers are that in recent years the trend has been them all getting paid significantly less. Not just a few percentage points, more like 1-10% of what they used to get.

                So, they want to get paid the same as they used to, which is more than currently but not “more” when looked at from a longer time frame.

              • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s different with writers, because if their contracts worked like ours did they would have no hope of retiring. So when a fat fish like Suits comes along everyone who has a hand in making it is hoping to swing that either into money or more lucrative work.

                That’s the way I’ve come to see it. Actual writers may disagree

            • whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There are freelance/gig workers in other industries. Programming has had a massive freelance market for ages. It’s practically unheard of for them to receive royalties, so it seems like you don’t need to rely on royalties.

              And writers do have a salary gig in the vast majority of cases. It’s just usually not a long term position. They are hired for the duration of the project, and then need to find something new.

              That’s not unique to writers or Hollywood at all. Many people are hired for the duration of a project, including managers, engineers, construction workers and so on. None of them receive royalties.

        • just_change_it@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Did you not get paid hourly or salary for the work?

          Writing as a profession gets this too in many scenarios.

          Your compensation package was different.

          Almost everyone’s is. It’s all based on what you can convince people to pay you and the real winners are the ones who are friends and family of the ownership and/or executives, always.

          Did you not have a steady job?

          Can good writers not land steady jobs? Of course they can! Have I always had a steady job? Of course not!

          Did you not know you were going in there next week?

          I have had many roles in IT that you never know when something can or would happen to terminate employment. I’ve had an entire department let go so they could shift the work to another group. I’ve had acquisitions happen where getting a pitiful severance is commonplace (and severance only ever comes when you give up all rights to sue anyone at all ever who worked for said entity giving you said pittance. You’re paid for your SILENCE.) I’ve seen MANY contract roles where a hiring manager on a whim can choose to terminate employment and you’re left holding the bag. As an employee you NEVER know if you’re going in there next week, you just hope that you are. After all, you are an employee at-will. This is most roles as very few have duration contracts overall.

          I wish IT workers would unionize and demand better pay - but then outsourcing would be even more prevalent than it is. Show business isn’t known for meritocracy in high paying roles anyway.

          Paying people in perpetuity for doing one role for a small period of time is aligned with permanent ownership and dividends of something. Why writers wouldn’t just ask for stock or buy stock with earnings like everybody else is puzzling. There are so many stories about abuse with contract negotiation by people at all levels of showbusiness that i’d argue the whole thing should be overhauled but any disruption causes some to win and some to lose… and we couldn’t have anyone brought down to the same level of anyone else, could we? Let’s just keep those executive pay and bonus structures the same as they’ve always been too while we’re at it, wouldn’t want to stop their meteoric rise in wage y/y while the rest of us get boned.

          • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol you getting exploited makes you a bitch. IP creators striking for better residual payments is pure common sense.

            I’m sorry you don’t understand how markets work.

      • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you take your job at a rate of pay based on getting paid residuals in perpetuity?

        This is like you taking a contract where they continue to pay you a licence fee for each server that they use your product on, then they move the product to a cloud system so they can get the output of 100 servers with only a single server licence.

        • Derproid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wait writers normally get royalties for their work? What the fuck that’s amazing, so Netflix is just in violation of a contract then? Why doesn’t the WGA just sue them?

          • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because the contract probably pays differently depending on the broadcast method and didn’t take streaming into account

      • nuachtan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think I can see where you are coming from here. The difference between your creativity and writers, actors, musicians is that while your work is used by the company you built the system for that company isn’t selling it to someone else. You built infrastructure.

        Writers, actors, and musicians work is being sold by the companies they work for as a revenue stream.

        • just_change_it@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The platform that IT Engineers created for netflix is being sold by the companies they work for as a revenue stream.

          See what I did there? Your argument is that they are more important but in reality they are replaceable like everyone is. Most of the writers out there aren’t in high paying GRRMartin level roles, they’re writing episodes of sitcoms and reality TV. The quality is all over the place.

          • johnlobo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            so you saying, if a book are publish and sold, a writer only paid for writing the book and all the profit should go to the publisher only?

            or song writer should be paid one off for writing a song and all the profit should go to music label only?

            and no, netflix not selling the platform. it is like saying Grocery store sold their store everyday. it make no sense. the engineer is a builder, they build a platform. netflix pay them for the platform, netflix sell stuff on said platform.

            you are dumb

              • johnlobo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                book author get paid for writing their book, and plus royalty when the book are finish and sold to the public.

            • just_change_it@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              How about if one person should make money in perpetuity for doing a job, everyone should?

              You want to keep paying the architect, plumbers, electricians, carpenters and all the other construction crew that worked on your house right?

              Oh wait… not that…

              Maybe payment in perpetuity is a bad idea because it just funnels wealth to the few at the expense of the many… I mean it’s ok to charge people a billion times for something done a single time right?

              There’s a huge philosophical discussion here, but instead you want to throw names. Things are the way they are overwhelmingly because of arbitrary bullshit.

              Intellectual Property is a construct enabling monopolies and generating billions of dollars off the trivial reproduction of work done by others. All this perpetual money making bullshit is just piggybacking off of something that never should have been.

              • johnlobo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                wow, so dumb trying to sound intelligent.

                “funnel wealth to few”. this is what happenning now.

                the people striking won’t get rich from what they are asking for. they are asking for liveable income. they are only asking for a tiny portion from the collective profit of work that have their name in it. and they not only asking for money, they asking to be treated like a human being at their workplace.

                architect are rich as fuck. plumber are very well paid.

                “Intellectual Property is a construct enabling monopolies and generating billions of dollars off the trivial reproduction of work done by others. All this perpetual money making bullshit is just piggybacking off of something that never should have been.”. and wtf are you rambling here?

                don’t talk shit when you never try working like them.

              • nuachtan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Intellectual Property is abused by monopolies, sure, but it’s not a construct made by those monopolies. If you write a book you should have rights to how that book is distributed. That’s the idea behind copyright.

                • just_change_it@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you write a book you should have rights to how that book is distributed. That’s the idea behind copyright.

                  Copyright is all about preventing anyone else from profiting off of your work by simply copying your work. Thanks to Mickey Mouse that duration is now life+70 years which is absurd.

                  Distilling the concept down and removing the nuance: As of today if you produce a written work you have monopoly control over that work for life+70 years unless you sign contracts stating otherwise.

                  Today, copyright as a construct creates monopolies that survive the creator.

                  In the case of Drug copyright, the duration is 20 years from the invention, which generally ends up being about 10 years after clinical trials to make money before anyone can make a copy. I struggle to see why the rules do not evenly apply, but the rationale behind drugs seems to be that humans benefit from them being available for as cheap as possible. If we had 20 year durations on TV and Movie copyrights it would be better for the masses and would give creators decades to earn profits on their work.

                  Drug makers try everything possible to extend copyrights on their drugs by doing things like creating medical devices with superior delivery methods in the case of injectable drugs. Since the new delivery method is more effective the old one is generally not used and so generics have to then wait for the delivery method to be out of copyright… This is just one example though. There’s no promises a generic drug ever comes to market if the drug is not widely used. The same shenanigans would be used by the entertainment industry to re-package their content with remastered versions or re-scanned original films like they have done with DVD, Blu-Ray and Streaming versions. Extended editions would also be an option… but the original copy would be free for all to enjoy after 20 years.

                  Why anyone is able to profit off of the original edition of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings for another hundred years is beyond me, it should just be free and available to everyone imo. The money has been made.

                  That’s my opinion anyway. Monopolies and income in perpetuity are horrible concepts generally only abused by the few at the detriment of the many. In the real world many just pirate content anyway. If it were up to rights’ holders NO copies even for personal use would be allowed. They would just have us pay per view even for copies we purchased.

                  • nuachtan@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I can agree with most of what you wrote. I’m not entirely convinced the life +70 protections for some things is wrong. An artist should have control over their work, but once they pass things need to become public domain. I’ll go one step further and say that no one should be able to own things they didn’t create or commission. The Happy Birthday story is a prime example.

          • nuachtan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            My argument wasn’t that they are more important. My observation was that the things writers, actors, and musicians produce is being sold over and over and over for other people’s profit.

            Apparently my mistake was in thinking that the IT infrastructure created was purely infrastructure in the same vein as electrical, plumbing, or even physical buildings. I didn’t know that the IT systems created to provide streaming services was being sold to other streaming platforms without credit to the designers.

            And before anyone thinks I am saying electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the like aren’t creative I am NOT saying that. A family member is a plumber and the stuff he has to dream up to get stuff to work is incredible.

      • Koffiato@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have the same stance. Just because I designed a product, I don’t get a percentage of each product sold.

        Because if we did that for everyone who were responsible for it, it’d skyrocket the said products price.

      • mac@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly.

        I don’t understand why people are so up in arms around artists and the entertainment industry. Flat payment is commonplace in most industries. These people agreed to the payment they were given.