On Oct 21, 3:15 pm, Amy Guskin  wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:42:21 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>
> (in article ):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:46:16 GMT, Amy Guskin 
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:36:17 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
> >> (in article ):
>
> >>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:06:07 -0500, "Carl"

> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Patty Winter"
 wrote in message
> >>>>news:471a9452$0$14128$742ec2ed{at}news.sonic.net...
>
> >>>>> In article
,
> >>>>> Carl  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "David E. Powell"
 wrote in message
>
>>>>>>news:1192852689.073618.249420{at}t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21386389/
>
> >>>>>>> Hollywood writers vote to authorize strike
> >>>>>>> Guild's contract expires Oct. 31; union,
studios at odds over
> >>>>>>> residuals
>
> >>>>>> I thought the studios backed off of that
issue a few days ago.
> >>>>>> That's what was reported anyway.
>
> >>>>> There are multiple issues about residuals, as the
above cited
> >>>>> article explains. As it mentions, it was the
"profit first"
> >>>>> one that the studios dropped.
>
> >>>> Yes, I was only commenting on that one. I saw in the
other thread
> >>>> that this was discussed, so it's old information.
>
> >>>> I'm not even sure what the studio was thinking when
they came up with
> >>>> that
> >>>> item.
>
> >>>> I would have thought that the first time they tried
to pay a writer under
> >>>> that type of agreement they would have been taken to
court and their
> >>>> books
> >>>> and accounting practices would be laid out like a
gutted trout. They'd
> >>>> eventually have to conform to a set of accounting
rules imposed on them
> >>>> from
> >>>> the outside, and I doubt they would have cared for that idea.
>
> >>> Well, you'd think so, but the studios regularly cheat
others with that
> >>> arrangement, as do the record companies. Why they aren't
all in jail
> >>> for fraud is something I've never understood. <<
>
> >> Because if a literate adult signs a contract, and they cannot
prove that
> >> they
> >> were extorted into doing so (which is what it often amounts
to, especially
> >> in
> >> the music business), they have done nothing illegal.
>
> > OK, I can understand that if the contract has a formula for figuring
> > expenses, however bogus. But if a contract just calls for the
> > signatory to receive a percentage of profits, and the studio figures
> > the profits in a fraudulent manner? <<
>
> Oh, I bet most of those contracts have "profits" defined as
they're going to
> figure them.  They hold all the cards; if you don't sign with them, who else
> is going to make your movie?

The irony is that technological avenues are expanding now.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32