Your are right. New delivery systems do have the potential to make an enormous amount of money. The keyword there is potential.

I’m an artist and I work in web and graphics. The people in my industry who truly rock command more money and nicer contracts. The workaday graphics slave doesn’t have as much talent and so doesn’t have as much command. This is how it works in a lot of industries. And it makes sense. If a designer doesn’t like the offer, he either negotiates or doesn’t take it.

As to whether internet broadcast should be counted similarly to television broadcast, I don’t know. I think that if it can be shown that their current contract obliges them residuals from netcasting, then okay, they should get their due. But if not, then renegotiation is necessary (which seems like the case here), and if the employer doesn’t care to renegotiate then that’s unfortunate but it isn’t the case that such residuals are the entitlement of the employee.

I don’t make extra money on my designs no matter how much traffic crosses them. A McDonald’s employing isn’t entitled to extra cash depending on how many burgers he serves. It’d be nice if we were, but we aren’t - unless we negotiate it in into our contracts.

Bandwidth costs are nothing. If it cost anything, nobody would be hosting videos for free. This is why the internet and mobile delivery is such a sticking point. New delivery systems have the potential to make an enormous amount of money. Especially when costs are already covered in broadcast television and there are no other broadcast licenses to pay for.

Advertisers are fleeing broadcast for internet spending.

As long as the internet remains largely unregulated there will be a continuous move from broadcast to the internet.

Yes, GOLDEN COMPASS is a big flopperoo. That’s why I used it as an example.

Are you familiar with the term “Hollywood accounting”? Most studios can prove GONE WITH THE WIND is a money loser over the years if they try hard enough. Dollar one participation is the only real guarantee of any back end.

WGA members are well compensated up front, it is true, but are you saying that NO ONE — actors, directors, writers — should receive money for something continues to make millions for the studio?

Bob Denver and Alan Hale, to name just one example, didn’t get residuals for the countless showings of GILLIGAN’S ISLAND. They — and the writers who came up with their banter and catch phrases — never saw a dime from the countless reshowings of Little Buddy getting bonked with a coconut.

The internet may not be profitable now, but WHY should a writer get 0 percent of an iTunes download, to use a concrete example, when he r she gets a percentage of other paid uses?

Susie, they aren’t striking for a bigger percentage of the profits. They receive their residual whether a movie or TV show makes a profit or not. They want a percentage of the Internet generated ad revenue before even any of the costs associated with streaming it is paid. And remember that residuals and royalties are different. Residuals are delayed payments for work done. Royalties are paid to the actual owner of the content every time it is used or aired. The writers don’t own the shows or movies they write for.

And its not really a raise either because they’re not asking for anything new. What they’re saying is that an entire episode broadcast over the internet is the same as an entire episode broadcast on tv, and that they should be compensated accordingly. They’re not even asking to be compensated much.

What, is it THAT terrible if one of the studio executives have to share some of their six and seven figure dollars (not counting bonuses of course). Ok, so you may a few million less.

Their greed is making people sick. Get off your high horse, studio executives.

You’re still much higher than the rest of the working class.

Distilled, the issue seems as simple as: The writers want a raise and their employers don’t want to give them a raise. The writers think they are worth the raise and the employers don’t.

Personally, I think some writers are worth it but most aren’t. But that’s the problem with guilds and unions. The excellent are dragged down by the mediocre, the weak benefit from the excellent, and the mediocre are still just mediocre.

There either IS money or there ISN’T money on the web. The corporations can’t have it both ways. If there IS money, the Writers (and in a few months, Actors and Directors) want a small percentage of the profits. If there are no profits, there are no royalties.

The content-delivery business may be a $500 million a year business–twice the value of Internet video advertising and users fees–and is growing 25% per year, IDC estimates.

$500 million a year? That’s only 2 1/2 GOLDEN COMPASSES.

In that same quote it notes that that’s still twice the revenue, but this model is growing by leaps and bounds. In a few years, it will be a major, major source of revenue.

The writer’s went on strike the last time because they were told that “home video was experimental” and it might not ever be profitable.

Fool me once.

A lot of money? Bandwidth costs are coming down constantly.

>>>The writers believe that in the future, the Internet and broadcast TV will be the same thing. OK. It’s fun to think about what the future may hold, but I’m still waiting on my hover car and jet pack.

The internet and broadcast TV are ALREADY the same thing. All the broadcast nets are allowing their show to be viewed online in various configurations. Have you heard of this little thing called the iPhone?

Where do you live, Rick, Kazakhstan?

It’s got to suck not having a paycheck around the holidays.

Nobody knows if streaming content on the Internet is a revenue generating endeavor. My guess is that it won’t be. Bandwidth costs a lot of money even when it’s being used to stream old episodes of King of Queens.

The writers believe that in the future, the Internet and broadcast TV will be the same thing. OK. It’s fun to think about what the future may hold, but I’m still waiting on my hover car and jet pack.