Comments on: What Does a WGA Strike Mean For New Media?

By: Janet Atwell

Janet Atwell — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:39:04 +0000

Unfortunately, Web writing is in a bit of a fix at the present time. There are so many people, especially those companies outside of the UK, Canada and the USA that are writing things for as little as $1.00 for every 600 words that it is hard to find quality work these days or quality writing.

I look forward to the day that the people that pay for this substandard fare realize that they are throwing their money away and go back to paying for good written content that they purchase once and it works for them instead of having to change the written portion almost daily.

By: To Break or Not to Break Through Pickets « NewTeeVee

To Break or Not to Break Through Pickets « NewTeeVee — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:04:38 +0000

[...] Among the questions being raised by the writers’ strike are what does it all mean for new media, and will it be a boon for web content? But the more pressing question is, are any new media [...]

By: Writers Guild Strike Looms Large « NewTeeVee

Writers Guild Strike Looms Large « NewTeeVee — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:32:52 +0000

[...] Oct. 25: What Does a WGA Strike Mean For New Media? [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:41:44 +0000

It’s interesting to note that the entire negotiation is between the existing studios and the writer’s guild. If they strike, obviously they are precluded from writing for a struck company, so anything owned by a member of the AMPTP would fall into that category. But what about sites like FunnyorDie? There is very little consideration for new media properties that are NOT owned by the major studios. Technically, I believe WGA writers are ONLY allowed to write for signatory companies…but the question is, whether something like FunnyorDie or youtube even falls into the WGA’s jurisdiction. If they force these sites to compensate writers based on the TV formula, they will quickly be priced out of the market. But how does the WGA deal with an equity arrangement that may net the writer nothing, or land them a huge payday. The studios don’t particularly care, since they don’t own any of those sites anyways. But there are so many more angles to new media that both sides are failing to account for.

However, for what they ARE negotiating on, it seems fairly ridiculous to me that the studios are refusing to pay money and residuals on iTunes downloads or ad supported replays when they are clearly generating revenue. Residuals are not wages for services rendered, but should be viewed as royalty payments for reuse of their creation.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:13:34 +0000

Louderback’s got it right. The dinosaurs on both sides have yet to learn a lesson. Who needs them, really?