Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Marc Wielage <mwielage@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:18:04 -0800
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:04:20 -0800, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <E%iYk.1851$QX3.478@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
The Hollywood script writers never got paid
for DVD releases of their material because there weren't DVDs when they
negotiated their last contract.
------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
You're mistaken. Screenwriters do get paid residuals; they just don't get
paid very much. There's a good rundown at this link about what Writers Guild
members get from DVD sales now (.3% of the gross), vs. what they wanted when
they went on strike in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike
One problem is that the studios get to dictate how profits are defined, and
that's a huge problem with motion picture contracts. And so far, the studios
have refused to give the writers even half a point more money, vigorously
holding on to their piece of the pie.
It's exactly the same in the music business. If the artist is guaranteed 10%
of the profits, but the record labels define what "profit" is, there's a very
good chance that the record is never going to go into the black, after
expenses and interest and so on. It's a miserable -- but very real --
business tactic. Even if the artist gets paid X dollars per unit sold, the
label still gets to subtract expenses and other fees from the artists'
income, so the formula is slanted very unfairly towards the label.
I'm very much on the side of artists -- actors, musicians, songwriters, and
writers -- but I know the reality of intellectual property, and the copyright
law is very clear on how these rights are limited. Nothing lasts forever,
and that includes copyrights.
--MFW
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Richard Crowley
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- References:
- A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Rick Ruskin
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Richard Crowley
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Rick Ruskin
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: geoff
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Rick Ruskin
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Ben Bradley
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Neil Gould
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Neil Gould
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Neil Gould
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Jerry Peters
- Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- From: Mike Rivers
- A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- Prev by Date: Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- Next by Date: Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- Previous by thread: Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- Next by thread: Re: A New Twist On Copyright Infringement?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|