If you support the Writers Guild Strike, why would you download music and movies for free

[DainBramaged]

using file sharing programs? Isn't their cause the same as the artist's who produce the movies and music? Shouldn't they get the same revenue sharing opportunities the Writers now demand?


I'm interested in the justification here. Everybody thinks it's OK to "share" music and movies, but the writers should be paid when we "view" their content on line.


Isn't this a conflict of causes?

[Mythsaje]

1. I don't, and I wouldn't.

Not that I give a damn about the industry moguls, but I care about the artists and writers.

[Feron]

2. No conflict here.

If I like it, I buy it.

[cynatnite]

3. Well, when it comes to the writers...

if I was watching a webisode or some other produced online content the writers should be paid for it. It's not the same as movies and TV shows.

P2P file sharing is a different animal altogether. It has nothing to do with the writer's strike. Writers have already been paid for movies and TV shows they wrote whether it winds up on uTorrent or not. The only impact it might have is on DVD sales since one of the sticking points in negotiations is how much a writer would get per DVD sale. My understanding is that it's minor and that the real fight is over online content which has nothing to do with P2P file sharing.

I may be wrong so feel free to correct me :)

[DainBramaged]

4. So the writers deserve to be paid for viewing their content on line

But the artists should not be paid for downloading their content online? Because they were paid once for it? Twice? A thousand times? If a million people view writer's content and they should get paid, should the original artists donate their works for free?

I am confused.

[mondo joe]

7. Not arguing in favor of file sharing, but.... the distinction I can see is that in the case

of the writer's strike, the writers are fighting for a share of the profits earned by their work, rather than the producer pocketing it all.

In the case of file sharing there is no profit so it's not a matter of the writer losing out to the producer.

[cynatnite]

10. If I was to download an episode of Boston Legal...

I'm not denying the writer his or her money. They've already been paid for their work. Episodic television operates by a different set of standards than movies. My understanding is that for feature writers they get paid and then earn residuals off of DVD sales. If I download a movie and don't buy the DVD because of that...then I'm denying the writer their nickel and it's no exaggeration when I say they get paid a nickel for every DVD that's sold.

The online content that the writers are complaining about are for webisodes and other content that's produced only for online consumption at authorized sites. There was a major feud between a writer and a studio over some Battlestar Galacticta webisodes which is what the whole online content dispute is based on. The studios don't want to pay the writers for their work in this area.

[Redstone]

5. Yes, I'll feel free to correct you. Songwriters get paid a royalty ONLY on album/

CD sales. I don't know about TV or movie writers, but I do know about songwriters, having been one.

Therefore, file "sharing" of songs over the Internet is theft, from a songwriter's perspective.

And no, I have no objection to someone buying a CD, then copying it to their hard drive or ipod or whatever; it's not fair to ask the consumer to pay more than once. As long as I get my initial $.05 royalty for one of my songs, that's enough.

Redstone

[DainBramaged]

6. Point, exactly as I understand it, but

Isn't file sharing AFTER the original purchase the same as the basis for the Writer's strike?

[Redstone]

11. No, it isn't. This goes back to the "work for hire" lawsuit that was filed (and won)

against the New York Times some years back.

I'm too tired to go into the details, but basically, the lawsuit challenged the "work for hire" conditions that media outlets tried to force on freelancers.

The ruling essentially affirmed that no media outlet owns the writer's ideas (as expressed in their work); the outlet ONLY has the right to publish that work in the format for which it was originaly contracted.

It's like this: If "Bob Roberts" pays me a royalty on sales of one of his CDs that contains one of my songs, he doesn't own the right to re-issue that song on a different CD ("The Best of Bob Roberts") without paying me a royalty on sales of THAT CD as well.

Writing is work, and has a value.

Redstone

[cynatnite]

12. I don't know anything about the music industry...

and rarely download music. I get it from iTunes and burn it. Most of the time I just listen to the radio. :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. It's a compromise

If somebody's gonna get paid for it, the apportionment should be fair between labor (writers) and capital (studios/media companies).

Of course, it would be better if free/voluntary pay content overturned the labor/capital model in the first place (a la Radiohead, say).

Easy.

[1awake]

9. I disagree that everyone thinks

It's OK. I personally don't do it at all. But I must admit.. and I truly can't justify this what so ever.. everytime I hear about the RIAA suing someone.. anyone.. a single mother.. a 12 year old kid.. I can't help but feel less and less bad about those who do.


edit: correction

[eShirl]

13. Without cable or satellite TV, I watch TV show episodes online

not via P2P, but streaming from the official TV network websites. These episodes usually have ads before and/or during the show. It is my understanding this is one of the reasons the writers are striking, for rules regarding royalties for their work when shown on the networks' websites (not just when their work is shown on the networks themselves). (I am hoping when this is won, it is made retroactive to the beginning of the strike.)