On Oct 22, 8:00 am, Amy Guskin  wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:21:00 -0400, David E. Powell wrote
>
> (in article ):
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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. <<
>
> Not to the same extent that the film studios control favorable distribution.  
> As a writer, would you rather your movie be seen all over the internet, or in
> movie theaters?

This is true, and the profit and guarantees of the movie business
(money up front and press as a movie artist) are huge compared to the
internet. However, with some of the strides made in the last ten
years, it's a wierd time for them to really crack down on writers.
(Especially with the "creative accounting," and the latest posts on
here are not the first time I have heard of that.) Some of the stuff
internet filmmakers are able to pull off these days is pretty
massive.

On the flip side the "traditional folks' have gone into the internet
now, from setting up "independent" blog sites to hiring posters to
post rave reviews of whatever they are selling so it is two-sided
right now to say the least. I odn't belieev traditional movie/tv
makers and distributors will get crushed too bad by it, but net
sending of files especially is a concern even for the big studios.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32