Wow, it’s amazing how some people can be so profoundly ignorant and unwilling to accept even the tiniest possibility that some tiny part of their long-cherished world view might not be accurate.
As a software engineer, there’s an old saying that I’ve always liked: “Software without hardware is an idea; hardware without software is a space heater.”
I wish I was writer enough to come up with some snappy analog that replaced “software” with “writer”, because it seems so blaringly obvious to me that when it comes to things like TV shows and movies, without the writers you’ve got nothing; maybe the director and actors standing around with their thumbs up their butts.
I’ve never understood why the director of a movie gets all the credit; without the script, he’d produce two hours of blank film (or actors standing around with their thumbs up their butts).
And just in case the point’s been missed by those whose reading skills are apparently on par with their writing skills: I totally support the writers in this matter.
Why the fixation here on whether writers are “entitled” to residuals? When you come right down to it, no one is “entitled” to anything, so it’s just a pointless point in the absence of a context.
The real question is (or should be): Are writers entitled to reasonable compensation for their work? If you believe “no”, that writing is so easy that it ought to be done for free, then there’s no further discussion. But if you are reasonable enough to believe “yes”, then we can drill down into what’s reasonable, and what form that compensation should take.
I know nothing about the business, but I’m inclined to take the self-proclaimed writers here at their word, and to dismiss out of hand what Mr. Cynic says, since it’s abundantly clear that he has no clue what he’s talking about (including his declaration of his writing skills; put up or shut up, I see no evidence of your skill here).
So then, to me, it seems as obvious as anything can be that since the writers are not, in fact, paid the total worth of their product up front, and that they do not do it as a “work for hire”, and that part of the fair value of their work is clearly agreed by all parties to be realized in the form of residuals, the only rational conclusion is that they are, without a doubt, entitled to said residuals.
And then, finally, the only sticking point can be how much the residuals should be, and whether the calculation thereof should include revenue earned from newer sources such as DVD sales, online views, iTunes purchases, etc.
And – brace for the shock – that seems to be exactly what the strike is about.
I don’t hear that there is a disagreement between the writers and TPTB about whether the writers should get residuals at all, so the OP’s and the cynic’s statements about non-entitlement aren’t supported, even by those being striked against. The disagreement is about how much of the revenue from sources that didn’t even exist the last time the writers’ contracts were negotiated should be included now in the calculation of the writers’ residuals.
