Nobody Messes with the Composer or the Cinematographer. Why the Screenwriter?

The screenplay is the one single most important elements of a movie production. Everything depends on having a great screenplay. Great actors are attracted to great screenplays. Directors are attracted to great screenplays. The screenplay is so important that some directors are writer-directors. So what's the problem with giving screenwriters a fair deal?

William Goldman
Famed screenwriter, William Goldman has said, and as seen in this clip, the following:

There is undeniably an adversarial relationship between writers and directors. in movies. Nobody messes with the composer because not everybody can write songs. Nobody messes with the cinematographer because nobody knows how to light things. [But] even producers know letters and alphabets and directors and everybody like to fiddle [with the screenplay]. [It] makes them feel creative.

One of the reasons there are no happy screenwriters is because you have all those people who think they can write better than you can and many of them can and many of them cannot and things [screenplays] get altered. There is this lunatic myth... that the movie is the director's, and that is about as much sense as the flat earth society, and everybody in the business knows it. I'm not saying it's [all] the writer's God knows it. I'm saying that movies are a group endeavor.

Oh I get it. If you can pass 2nd grade writing class, you're a writer. I guess it's ok to pay these people in lollipops.

Meaningless Numbers: 2% of Nothing, 92.5% of 35%, and the SAG 0.75%, aka 900

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

- attributed by Mark twain to British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli

(Yeah, he said it before The West Wing used it as an episode title)

The WGA-AMPTP deal resulted in this tentative MBA agreement: Although the official version is currently available for members to read here. But early review of the terms raise a red flag concerning new media and internet streaming.

ONLINE STREAMING TERMS: CON

Statement by Kristen Stavola

Two Percent of Nothing is Nothing

....I ran this window by a web entrepreneur with 3 name brand technology/internet start ups on his resume. “You will lose nearly 90% of the property's value in that window. Just look at LAZY SUNDAY — a piece of entertainment content that created a 1.3 billion dollar company(YouTube). I’m not saying people made money. It’s an example of the kind of traffic a good piece of entertainment content can generate in a 30 DAY window. No one cares about it now, but in its first 10 days, seven million people checked it out. Why would you guys give up that much real estate so easily and quickly?”

Think about it. Why are we?

DISTRIBUTORS’ GROSS
Two percent distributor’s gross in the third year of the new contract? Initial streaming window? I hope by now you’ve realized that the 2% (the AMPTP has forced upon us) is meaningless. The big traffic numbers have already come inside of the promotional, Residual free zone -- and we’re left with 2% of the stragglers.

Don’t be fooled because my LAZY SUNDAY example above was a 3 min clip and not an entire episode of a broadcast series. Your episode will only get promoted from prime real estate like a network homepage for 1-5 days— TOPS!

Traffic is about promotion and virality. You need to hit that first 100k- 200k viewers in the first 1-3 days if something is to catch on virally with regards to original content. Think of that Sarah Silverman/Matt Damon video just last week! Its audience was on the decline within 3 days. However, its viewers online eclipsed Kimmel’s nightly ratings in 2-3 DAYS! Again, these are examples of how traffic views content. Something was promoting this content -- probably an email from your Striking writer pals. If there is no promotion -- viewers have to dig for your content -- and those numbers are not very sexy!

....We may even be told that because of the erosion of traditional broadcast viewing audience there is no ad-based money being made by the media congloms on streaming media — that they’re giving away streaming media to advertisers to make up the difference! C'mon! I just spoke to three web producers who are making more money PROMOTING our content in the first 3 days then we'll see in the first three YEARS of this contract. I’ve listed many links to research at the bottom of this email, use them. By 2011, in-stream advertising revenue is expected to reach $3.89 billion dollars and revenue for downloads will contribute $850 million according to the Yankee Group.

....And you better hold your hats because the number of sites that offer revenue sharing models (YouTube, Break, MetaCafe,Vio, Revver) will be on the rise this year and those deals are going to be about placement on their homepages in the first 1-7 days. If you think the episode of SAMANTHA WHO that debuted online 24 days ago is going to be getting any promotion from ABC/DISNEY....

Full Article....

34% (92.5% of 35%) of Writers Agreed to end the Strike

No, omission does not equal approval. The recent WGA vote to end the strike was touted as "92.5% voted in favor of ending" the strike. What was not reported anywhere is that 65% of the membership did not vote, which means the 92.5% is really 92.5% of 35% or 34%. What was that about statistics?

Why did only 3,500 of some 10,000+ members vote? I conjecture there are numerous reasons, possibly as many reasons as their are non-voters. But here are some generalizations on possible writer categories:

• They're homeless due to the strike and the AMPTP's greed, which left them too poor to hold out for 3 months and now leaves them without even the means to register a vote. I know of one homeless writer's family personally. Their kids go to school with my kids.

• They don't want to make waves with their employers.

• They're in a quandary, tired and worn by the strike and want it to end but still can't honestly vote against their conscious to stand up for what's fair.

• They've taken the attitude that they've been forced to end the strike given so little time to understand the deal (24 hours) being offered which would require legal interpretation.

• They've decided the strike isn't an issue and they won't be vilified by the press for standing in the way of the Oscars.

• They've decided to vote down the contract and don't care about the strike.

• They don't give a shit. It's all a crap shoot business anyway, like William Goldman says.

Hey, without qualification, the numbers are meaningless.

The SAG 0.75%, aka the SAG 900.

Then there's SAG and the 0.75% member petition. 900 sounds like a lot don't it? Bull. It's 900 out of 120,000 SAG members. That's less than 1%. Zero point seven-five percent (0.75%). Yet this tiny little minority has the union split in two to discuss this issue and possibly vote on it, and the issue itself is about who should get to vote. No doubt the 900 feel they are first and perhaps the only ones in line. Not so strangely, AMPTP blog commenters support this 0.75%. Well, it's easier to buy off 900 than to give the 120,000 some decent money.

Arguments on both sides of the 0.75% proposal can be found here.

News flash! This just in (2/28/2008)! The pro-SAG disenfranchisement contract now has 1000 petition signers. This means 0.83% of SAG members are on board with elitist disenfranchisement. Bush must be proud. Anyway, before you know it they might actually have a full one percent of SAG on their side. Any month now.

SAG Splintered Just in Time for AMPTP Contract Talks

Here's the irony of it. Do you see the irony of it?

There is a debate on, apparently fueled by a 900 signature petition by SAG members to change eligibility for SAG members to vote on issues, things like I suppose, whether to go on strike or agree to a new contract with the AMPTP. Sound familiar? All of this comes on the heals of the forced WGA contract by the AMPTP, and with SAG about to go into early talks with the AMPTP on their contract. which expires in just a few months.

Of course, if the voting membership changes then the outcome of the vote changes. So if you were in the AMPTP, a business group bent on marketing and statistical analysis, what would be in your best interest here? Suppose you ran a few numbers and found that if the eligible voters happened to be restricted to a certain few who had a steady and healthy income, the chances of those voters going for your AMPTP deal would greatly increase. After all, the real deal with union contracts is to look out for minimums, which really only affect new and soon to be new members.

Yeah, I see the irony of it.

The irony of it is that proponents of the 900 (with ranks diminishing) claim that limiting voting rights to a select few will make the union more cohesive with less splintering and results more effective, since those select few are the ones most likely affected; while what this really does is splinter the union into voters and non-voters. This breeds animosity as can be seen with the comments in reaction to Nikki Finke's blog post featuring the pro-0.75% argument, championed by actor Amy Brenneman.

That's the irony of it.

On the other hand, if you read the rational view by actor Ron Livingston:

The strength of our union is not just the actor who says 'I really want this job, but I’m not doing it anymore until you pay me what I’m worth.' It’s the ten actors next to him who say 'I really want that job, too, but I’m not doing it, either, until you pay him what he’s worth.' And that’s a sacrifice, too.

You'll find comments there largely in favor and in support of his take on it. It's hard not to argue that everyone in the union deserves a vote. They pay dues, they should vote. Besides anyone involved with Swingers has to be way cool.

The real kicker for me is, who decides who gets to vote and who doesn't? Ms. Brenneman says:

"We are NOT asking for an earnings threshold. The number of days worked—not amount of money earned—is the common test for 'affected' members. For work like ours, it must be averaged over a time span long enough to accommodate the inevitable 'ups-and-downs' of our business. The Equity standard is one job (typically at least 6-8 weeks) within the previous 6 years. I believe SAG should consider something similar – perhaps an average of 5 days of principal work and/or 15 days of background work per year, over the previous 6 years. (Three background days has been used as an equivalent of one principal day for union entrance.) Of course, the 6 year period would be prorated for newer members.

"A standard like this—for contract voting only—will broadly include members with working knowledge of the contract and some concrete stake in it. And because it eliminates the influence of those without such a stake, it will give the 'affected' members—those who depend on the contract and know it best—an effective voice. This gives maximum credibility to the vote and strengthens our hand in negotiations, which results in better contracts for all members, present and future.

So who says it's " perhaps an average of 5 days of principal work and/or 15 days of background work per year?" How about perhaps an average of 6 days of principal work and/or 16 days of background work per year. Anyone for 7/17? Maybe 4/14. 1/11 might be nice, for the AMPTP anyway. Less people to bribe.

Depending on the numbers selected, whole different groups become voters or non-voters. What the real question here is, 'how can we get away with disenfranchising voters?' So much for democracy, or even the illusion of it. At least the WGA had that.

But here's kicker number two. Before Ms. Brenneman states the above, she first must rationalize her logic with this gem:

"The SAG constitution requires that contracts be ratified by 'the membership affected thereby.' It doesn’t say 'the entire membership' or 'all members in good standing' as it does for voting on officers. Nor does it refer to 'potentially affected members'.

So my question to her is, "What is the distinction between 'the membership affected thereby' and 'potentially affected members?' " There can't be one because anyone who falls into either category could just as well fall into the other category depending on the time of day you make the determination. Someone doing just extra work could get booked and suddenly become voter eligible within a week or two. What about someone just coming off a gig and finding they haven't worked the required time as of a day ago? A decision is made and they aren't eligible. Then what if they book something the next day that makes them eligible after two weeks?

They have a word for this kind of faulty logic. It's called bullshit.

So what you end up with is going back to square one, where you have people voting on things that may not affect them, and other people not able to vote on what does affect them.

Now of course we all know no one would even do this, but what if a studio decided to book or not book actors based on how they expected them to vote on something like a strike? This would certainly put them is a good position to manipulate elections invisibly. Criminal genius

Writers are Sheep?

From Variety:

WGA, studios hammer on details

Scenario emerges for strike's end

By CYNTHIA LITTLETON, DAVE MCNARY

As the lawyers work overtime to hammer out the details, scenarios are emerging that could -- underline could -- bring an end to the WGA strike as early as next week....

....Given the high esteem that Verrone and Young enjoy among rank-and-file members, even as the strike enters its fourth month, insiders say they ought to be able to shepherd the pact through the votes by the boards and membership.,,,,

more....

But wait, what do writers have to say about all this:

A formal letter to WGA members reads in part, "Regardless of what you hear or read, there are many significant points that have yet to be worked out. ....As the talks proceed, never forget that during this period it is critical for us to remain on the picket lines united and strong. We are all in this together."

Nikki Finke says, "...So now is the time for everyone to back off. That's right, BACK OFF. And to let the WGA leadership talk to its board and also its membership without outside interference. ..."

You mean outside influence like news media articles saying that the Oscars are expected to go on if only those pesky writers will just roll over and stop all this pay me nonsense?

Writers commenting on Nikki's blog aren't acting very sheepish...

Then there's this from Verone

Yellow Journalism: Serving Corporate Moguls in a "free" Society

How else would you expect to control the people of the world, without bombing them to oblivion?

OK, maybe Yellow Journalism is a nebulous term. But it sure ain't responsible journalism and it reeks of AMPTP propaganda.

Leaks are all over the media about a tentative agreement with the WGA. Yet the media blackout is still on. The WGA has made no announcement to members yet. The WGA members have yet to consider, discuss, or vote for any agreement. They don't even know what it is. So how can the media possibly responsibly report that an agreement has been reached, unless all the WGA terms have been met. Even so, it's a low AMPTP tactic to pressure writers to accepting whatever it is.

The word is out in supposedly responsible media, like th NY Times (an AMPTP related subsidiary no doubt) that an agreement has been reached.

What happens now if WGA members don't like what the terms are? They have now been put into a pressured position by the media to agree to end the strike. This release makes it all appear on their shoulders, even before anyone knows the terms, even before formal talks have resumed. They're still in informal talks, right?

What a load of AMPTP propaganda media agenda setting bullshit.

This could be a news release that went out over a news service and got picked up, or maybe AMPTP people affiliated with big media planted the stories. The story itself is one of all rumors. There are no credible people making statements. No names at all. Just "sources".

So the act of publishing this before writers have a chance to even look at it will create lots of hope which will then be dashed once writers see what the deal really is, or if there is one. That will demoralize writers and stack public opinion against them, especially public opinion of people being hurt by the strike.

Like they say, there isn't anything legal on paper yet. There is no fine print to examine and check for loopholes. the talks are still informal. Until there is something legal on paper, there is no deal. It is wrong to print anything about a deal until that point. These media stories are pure propaganda and the lowest form of yellow journalism.

Here's what UnitedHollywood.com has to say about it:

It's Not Over 'Til It's Over -- And It Isn't Over

Mark Evanier provides some very wise precautionary words on his blog News From Me, putting what's happening in negotiations in the context of past strike experiences. Here's an excerpt:

... it's a fine, even prudent idea to not get one's hopes too high. It is a not uncommon negotiating technique to get the other side into the mindset that the deal is done, and then to throw in a last second demand. In past WGA-AMPTP contracts, negotiating has even continued after the deal was made and ratified. Weeks, even months after the '81, '85 and '88 strikes were settled and work resumed, reps from the studio side were still arguing over what had been agreed to, insisting that their notes said we'd agreed to X when we were certain we'd consented to Y. And even when we all agree on what we all agreed upon, we can't always agree on the interpretation of some clauses and codicils.....

more...

From Nikki Finke's DeadlineHollywoodDaily.com:

UPDATE: Is WGA-Mogul Deal About Done?

....United Hollywood, the unofficial website for WGA info, says: "UH has confirmed from off-the-record sources that progress is indeed being made in the informal talks, and that creative solutions to the biggest differences between the AMPTP and the WGA have gotten the tentative and cautious approval of both sides. This does not mean there is a deal in principle yet. It means we may, finally, be very close to one -- as close as days away. And while we're cautiously optimistic about what we're hearing, it comes with a real caveat.

Skip to the comments to find the following, apparently from a pro screenwriter. Regardless of who it's from, it makes a lot of sense. Most of the other comments are likely from anonymous studio shills.

Anybody else notice that nobody is posting under real names here any more? I am a journalist turned TV/screenwriter and now a strike captain in the East and I am trying to buck the trend (please be kind).

I know this much is true: anyone leaking information to Nikki, or Michael Cieply, or anyone is guilty of violating the media blackout. They might just really want to be the Selfless Citizen (or Important Source) who Gets The Real News Out First, but my experience as a journalist tells me that — even if they DO have the insider information they claim — they have an AGENDA.

To me the situation is simple: You can’t be “almost” settled, any more than a woman can be “almost” pregnant. And dangling these kinds of rumors may get some people’s hopes up to make them more desperate to settle. That is at least one agenda here. Especially with stories like the LA TImes’ focusing on below-the-line workers’ anger.

If anything has been consistent during the strike, it has been the efforts to divide and conquer the guild. And the way the press works, they’re excited by squabbles, so they will publish an op-ed by a one-man political party ( John Ridley), or pick up on an email from John Wells and turn it into an official reaction to try to stir the pot. This site, for all its intentions, has also fomented flaming and bitchiness, much of it under the cloak of anonymity. And it was, conveniently or not, on hiatus when the plan went down that everyone predicted — the quick deal with the nonstriking DGA as a slap in the face to those of us on the picket lines.

The United Hollywood site has provided writers a forum to voice their support when rumors of schisms were touted, and to voice honest caution in the face of rampant email, blog, and even print journalism all rushing to be the first to say the deal is done.

I am certainly not in favor of anyone being out of work any longer, but it would be asinine and suicidal for the writers to now explode their just quest for a fair deal thanks to some mind-fuck of an endgame.

Comment by David Handelman

Full article...

Here's a good summary of the AMPTP's offer to the DGA

Excerpts From Robert J. Elisberg of the Huffington Post:

WGA Strike Primer: The DGA Settlement Begins...

Some things must be put on hold, and this is one of them. On the surface, some issues look extremely good, some look extremely bad. But what they really look like in the light of day waits to be seen.

Two issues are clear immediately, however.

The first is that the AMPTP would never have offered any of the steps forward to the directors if the WGA hadn't been on strike for 2-1/2 months, catching networks by surprise and stopping production of television, forcing movies to be put on hold, putting pilot season in jeopardy, putting the next television season in jeopardy, putting the Oscar telecast and its $100 million payday and promotional bonanza for movies in jeopardy, putting the Grammy's in jeopardy, jettisoning the Golden Globes, creating the potential of advertising "give-backs" into the billions of dollars, and creating deep dissension within the AMPTP itself, with independent deals already made with United Artists, Spyglass Entertainment, Worldwide Pants, The Weinstein Company and many more on the verge, as up to 25 requests come into the Writers Guild office a day, every day. Not to mention significant Internet deals with Yahoo, MRC (funded by AT&T and Goldman, Sachs), Jackson Bites, and many more notable deals on the verge.....

Way to go WGA. Hey, who needs Hollywood?

The second issue that's clear is this:

Whether this deal is good or bad for writers: these terms could have been offered a month ago.

It's a mark of shame to the AMPTP corporations that it wasn't. The Writers Guild has been trying to negotiate such areas, and the AMPTP response was not to negotiate in good faith, but to walk away. Shameful.

The excuse by the AMPTP corporations about Guild leadership has always been a canard. The excuse about the "six issues" that had to be removed from the table has always been a canard.

(For linguistic purposes here, "canard" is being used in place of the more confrontational "big fat lie, so big and so fat you would choke on it, if you could even get it to leave your gut.")

And the two canards are provable.

More....

Damned. The AMPTP lied to us? Say it ain't so. I for one am shocked at this behavior. Grown men behaving like little children.

The Writers Strike: Who you gonna believe? Internet Aliased Trolls or Real People on Video?

Since the beginning of this strike, a lot of sentiment has been played out on internet blogs and message boards. Some of them public, some private for WGA members. UnitedHollywood.com is a public blog run by WGA writers. Every time they make a good case for the WGA the AMPTP trolls reply with all kinds of anti-writers comments. They seek to split union members, cause infighting, and push the AMPTP ideals - like slavery.

The problem is that writers generally don't want to get into these politics, and they don't want to make a bad name for themselves with future employers. So they tend to keep their statements simple, usually to a few words that make nice chants on the picket lines. Things like 'fair deal', 'piece of the pie', 'as long as it takes'. And it is really very simple. It's the AMPTP who make it more complicated than it is. It's simply about getting the 2.5% residual rate they want on new media. That's the main issue that the AMPTP will not even consider, will not even sit down to discuss.

From UnitedHollywood.com::

Two Sides to Every Story: The Truth...and Everything Else

As the strike continues and things heat up around the DGA negotiations, apparently the multi-national media mega-corps and their $100K a month crisis management flaks are ramping up their online psy-ops and misinformation campaigns. Deadline Hollywood Daily, in a post detailing a range of less than savory actions taken by AMPTP members against WGA supporters, reported that "AMPTP staffers, consultants and members (especially corporate publicity departments) are busily posting comments on WGA-friendly websites and blogs that Hollywood visits regularly and filling them with hate-filled rants against the WGA leadership, the A-list actors, and the companies who've made WGA side deals. The goal is to turn off readers and drive traffic away and in the process spread pro-AMPTP propaganda and make it look as if the strike is breaking apart." Well, we at UH.com can certainly confirm the hate-filled rants. How bad has it gotten? Well, what are the most vile things you can imagine? Did you include references to Hitler, comparisons to the 9/11 terrorists, the "C-word" and every conceivable variation of the F-bomb? Okay, now imagine someone posting that, oh... 40 or 50 times a day, sometimes 10 times in the span of 10 minutes. In fact, it's that kind of stuff - not the obvious trolls - that caused us to turn on comment moderation. And now we can add a new tactic: pretending to be WGA members in online comment sections.

and then we have the writers speaking out for themselves on video where we can verify who thaey are:

Voices4Action!

For the past month we've been filming interviews with writers, directors, actors, futurists, DPs, and people on the picket line, asking them to talk about the strike. Oliver Stone looked back at his years in the business, remembering how it used to be before the corporations' greed overwhelmed the movie business. Maria Maggenti told us about the importance of residuals to her career. Tony Gilroy talked about fairness. Adam Brooks about fighting for the future. The picketers outside Fox just before the holidays, called for "Action!" We've heard these ideas before, but, for us, the interviews personalized the issues of the strike. Voices4Action is also a place where we'll be talking about the future of story-telling in the new digital marketplaces. The congloms say they don't know how the internet will work, if there is, in fact, any money to be made on-line. Putting aside their disingenuousness, there is an honest fact that can't be denied. The internet is evolving and changing in ways difficult to predict.

So who you gonna believe?

If you want to do something simple and easy to help the writers get this strike over sooner, go out and post your support for the writers and what you believe to be real. If you do I would hope you'd have the guts to use your real name instead of hiding behind a non-credible alias. Writers do it, actors do it, you can do it.

And complaining about WGA tactics ain't gonna do it, especially if you're not in the WGA. That's not your concern anymore than your family bank account is the WGA's concern.

Who Needs Hollywood?

Update: Liman forms new media company.

From UnitedHollywood.com; 1/17/2007:

New York and Los Angeles – Director and producer Doug Liman announced today the formation of a new media company, “Jackson Bites,” which will create television-style programming for alternative distribution. He will serve as co-owner of the venture with the support of a wide range of new media and business investors. Liman also announced that the new company has entered into an agreement with the Writers Guild of America (WGA), effective immediately.
More...

As I write this, the writer's strike is in it's third month. A DGA deal is apparently in the works with the AMPTP. but the AMPTP has yet to come back to the table with the WGA for 34 days. The AMPTP will not consider the writer's demands for a 2.5% residual on internet media until the writers remove their other requests which include the sympathy strike, animation, and reality. The AMPTP has no problem letting the strike continue despite the loss of over half a billion dollars to the industry so far. The reason appears to be that AMPTP companies stand to make so much money on internet media that they don't mind a billion or so lost now. What they hope to gain is to not have to pay writers for material streamed over the net. What the think they have is all the cards. They think the writers need them. They are, after all, the big Hollywood studio owners, General Electric, AOL/Time Warner, Sony, NewsCorp, CBS, and Viacom. But what they can't bring themselves to admit, apparently, is that the writers don't need them. The writers have already closed deal with independent studios, World Wide Pants, Weinstein, and United Artists (actually a subsidiary of an AMPTP company). On top of that we are seeing new deals come through almost daily.

Meanwhile WGA writers are forming new media enterprises on their own. A favorite of mine is this one: United Hollywood Live This show is awesome, at least for now, It only airs three times a week. I hope it will grow into something cool after the strike too.

From UnitedHollywood.com:

Tune in for another edition of the only show in Hollywood that actually hopes every broadcast is its last, United Hollywood Live (12 pm Pacific/3 pm Eastern).

Tune in by CLICKING HERE (or by using the widget located along the right hand side of UnitedHollywood.com). The show, which airs Monday, Wednesday and Friday, is also available as a podcast immediately after each broadcast via the widget and on iTunes (search: United Hollywood).

From Strike TV:

Strike TV is an Internet fundraiser. It's an online "channel" featuring original video shows created by working professionals in the TV and Film Industry. These shows are self-funded and owned by their creators. Funds raised by ad revenue will go toward the Writers Guild Foundation Industry Support Fund, assisting non-WGA members, including IATSE and Teamsters affected by the strike. Strike TV videos will not be about the strike. This is a chance for writers to do what they do best - be original and tell stories.

From UnitedHollywood.com: WGA Makes Interim Deal with MRC

MRC is a new kind of company for a new age in content creation. We'll have more on this deal, and MRC, very soon -- stay tuned.

LOS ANGELES – The Writers Guild of America (WGA) and MRC, the independent film, television, and digital studio, have reached a comprehensive interim agreement that forges a new alliance between writers, producers, and financiers in the production of feature films, television shows, and digital programs.

"This is an exciting agreement that will open up opportunities for writers, especially in New Media," said Patric M. Verrone, president of the Writers Guild of America, West, and Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East. "We know that Guild members will be eager to be a part of the MRC creative team."

The Unconstitutionality of the Internet Movie Download Scenario

The expectation is that DVDs will soon become obsolete, as will cable TV. We will be getting our entertainment through the internet which will be upgraded to have much better quality streaming and support for the large media files. But what happens when we don't buy DVDs anymore? Do we subscribe to a service that downloads them to a hard drive, something like TVO? Do we stream them over the net from a server maintained by a movie distributor?

If so, what do we then own when we buy a movie? Is it only a license to authorize the streaming? Must we transfer the license to each new system we buy? If we have multiple systems in the house, can we copy the license to each one? Is there a charge for that? Will the license be maintained on a server and all we need is a password? Isn't that insecure since pirates could steal a password just like identity thieves steal bank accounts?

In this world we don't own a physical copy of the movie. We just own a right to view it? What if there's a terrorist threat and we can't access the servers to download films? What if the government shuts down the servers? Must we wait for the war to end? or if there's a power outage at the server location? Now we have to worry about that on top of the possibility of similar problems on our end.

What if the distributor has a claim against us? Let's say we're behind on a bill for some other service. Can they hold us hostage by shutting down our movie account until we pay up?

We already have a serious problem with banks having total access to our money in bank accounts. If a creditor takes you to court and gets a levy on your assets the bank can give them all your money. A bank can take any fees it wants from your account. If you have an overdraft the bank takes the money first. They don't ask questions later, they just take the money. If they raise the fees, they just take them. They don't tell you later. Money is all they care about. Who's to say movie distributors won't behave the same?

The AMPTP: What's Wrong with these People?

UnitedHollywood.com posted a letter, "As Long as it Takes", from Jay Kogen to the WGA and supporters explaining why the AMPTP is so screwed up. Here are some excerpts:

Could the internet be even more valuable than even we think? What if the studios know it’s going to be worth so very much so very soon that shelving a TV season is nothing compared to the money they’ll make in the future if they can get us to take a bad deal? What if every tenth of a point they give up is worth billions of dollars in the next 10 to 20 years? If all you cared about is making money, you’d wait and hope the WGA either falls apart or weakens enough to take less of “your” pie.

The AMPTP has made a grave miscalculation. We know we are fighting for the very ability to make a living in the future. We know we are losing money now we won’t get back – but it is for the greater good and for the least powerful among us. We get that. We’re good with that. The corporate mind can’t fathom it.

Check out this video: As Long as it Takes