Well, the complicating thing with what you are saying is, we do not know for sure as to who actually owns the copyright on the work -- the employee, or the corporation? For instance, the IP from R&D done in companies typically belongs to the company, not the scientist. Often, music publishing rights belong to the recording company, not the artist. The company may, in good judgment (and as a smart business decision in order to better incentivize employees) decide to share some of the spoils, but it is typically not required.
Second, you are implying that if people knew that the actual creator (as opposed to the corporation) was getting the returns, they might pirate less. I am less optimistic than that: I think people who want it for free will always find a way and an excuse to get it for free.
We do know, the corporations own the copyrights because the writers transfer those rights in exchange for payments which include residuals.
There has traditionally been an agreement that they get a residual for broadcasts and sales, the only reason they're not getting them on internet streaming is because it simply didn't exist when the last contracts were negotiated, and the studios refuse to allow them in a new contract. In the case of music, the record label may get some of the money, but there's never a situation where the music is reused and the author gets nothing.
And while the general public doesn't usually know who gets what, the current strike has made many people aware of what's going on, and the fact that the creatives are currently getting absolutely nothing on internet streaming. While that may or may not encourage piracy, it doesn't change the fact that pirating a show instead of watching a legal streaming version is taking money out of the pocket of the studio...but it's not taking anything out of the pockets of those who created the content. The studios have already kept those pockets empty.
We do know, the corporations own the copyrights because the writers transfer those rights in exchange for payments which include residuals.
There has traditionally been an agreement that they get a residual for broadcasts and sales, the only reason they're not getting them on internet streaming is because it simply didn't exist when the last contracts were negotiated, and the studios refuse to allow them in a new contract. In the case of music, the record label may get some of the money, but there's never a situation where the music is reused and the author gets nothing.
And while the general public doesn't usually know who gets what, the current strike has made many people aware of what's going on, and the fact that the creatives are currently getting absolutely nothing on internet streaming. While that may or may not encourage piracy, it doesn't change the fact that pirating a show instead of watching a legal streaming version is taking money out of the pocket of the studio...but it's not taking anything out of the pockets of those who created the content. The studios have already kept those pockets empty.
Fair enough -- you obviously know the writer/studio split better than I do, and I take your word for it.
But are you still suggesting that if, somehow, that split were to change in favor of the writer, people would pirate less? My view is: I don't think so.
A lot of people don't really know what they are talking about, whether it is calling AppleTV a failure or that Apple killed the music industry. Just because some self called "analyst" or "expert" says something doesn't mean it is true. Just because something gets printed doesn't make it true.
There are many reasons why the music industry is hurting. For example, music labels have traditionally owned multi-million dollar studios. Now with the latest computer technology, one can have an equal or better project studio for under $50k. Labels are stuck with high costs and can't charge the rates they use to get because the smaller, newer studios are undercutting their price. This is one reason why the traditional music labels are hurting and it has nothing to do with iTunes.
There are many more non-distribution reasons why the music industry is hurting and they all combine to create a crisis for the labels. I actually think iTunes saved the music industry from file sharing stealing. People who accuse Apple of ruining the music industry are knocking the good guy. And I know this industry and technology well. I don't need to find an expert about this subject because I am an expert. I live in Nashville, run a project studio, and know what is going on in town.
The main fact is that computer technology is revolutionizing everything it touches - music, video, photography, gps navigation, printing, film, shopping, communication, warfare - you can go on and on. Everybody who continues in their old ways without some change quickly go extinct.
Take Kodak for example. They are not in the music or tv business but they are struggling. Why? Because they did not fully anticipate the quick rise of digital photography. I bet they sell 1% of the film they use to. They never figured HP and Epson would sell more photography paper then they would. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of these same worthless analysts blame Kodak's problems on iTunes and Apple. (The only reason they don't I bet, is because MS isn't paying them to do so.) The point is digital technology brings change big time.
TV production is also changing. Give me a Mac and FCP and a small HD camera, and I can produce good tv content. Sound familiar? Same thing that happened in the music business is happening in the tv business. However, the networks don't want to adapt. Yes, the distribution end is changing but so is the production end. Everything is changing.
Why doesn't NBC continue on with Apple? There is the MS connection. Also, Apple is in bed with Disney which owns ABC/ESPN. Therefore they view Apple as one of their competitors. Who wants their distribution controlled by their competitor? NBC is scrambling to get free of iTunes. They could care less about the viewer; they are thinking about themselves in the long run.
Apple is also thinking about their company too. The big difference is that Apple's interests align with the consumers. They are years ahead of the competition. That is why Apple is so successful in the music business and tv download business.
As for AppleTV being a flop, hard to say. We are one mile into a marathon and so far Apple is leading the race. I wouldn't call it a flop or failure. If Apple introduces a new version with 720p HD and an additional movie download rental service, I would think the race is only getting started.
I think Apple realized the AppleTV wasn't the elegant solution they really wanted but they didn't want to wait and let others grab the mindshare or newborn tv/movie download market. The AppleTV secured Apple's lead by offering the best solution at that time. However, the market is growing and Apple will ride that growing wave.
The question is how is that wave going to grow? We are facing a watershed with HD vs. small web TV. We want HD content from iTunes but most people do not have the bandwidth connection to make this feasible. This battle is not like the HD audio formats that flopped. Most people could not hear the difference between SACD and CD. Therefore they had no reason to buy HD audio.
However, people can see a difference with HD video. We want and need the better HD content. It just takes up tons of bandwidth to move. Can internet tv really work? What about real time broadcasts like sports? Lots of race still to come.
The only thing for sure is that nobody and nothing is a failure when it comes to tv/movie internet distribution. I am not just talking about Apple, though they have a good head start. Nobody is out of this race yet.
In all this talk about the "death" of the music industry two things are not being mentioned. Cost and content. Like all suppliers, the labels want top dollar for their product and are used to skirting the edge of what the consumer will bare to get it. But unlike in the past where the consumers only choice was to do without or pay the labels price, the current consumer has the third choice of 'pirating' the product. With iTunes and we found that many consumers will pay a reasonable amount but this by its nature is below the top dollar that the consumer will bare. I see Universal and the others trying to jack the prices back up to the top dollar what the consumer will pay. But this is a dangerous game for them and ignores the new third choice of piracy.
The second problem is content. The labels complain that their CDs are not selling and blame piracy. I content that their CDs aren't selling because they are not worth buying. Admittedly I have reached the old fart age and most new music isn't for me. (And thanks to Clear-Channel I quit listening to radio ten years ago so even have a poorer knowledge of what's out there in the commercial world.) But seeing as I am having no problem in finding podcasts with music I like I, and performers playing it, can't help but conclude that the labels are making conscious decisions to sell music not worth buying.
The music industry is dead, long live the music industry! The music labels are victims of their own success which has afforded them broad market control spanning production, distribution and, unfortunately for them, reception of their products eventuating in dissent from both artists and consumers. To a degree this wasn't just a power struggle, pirates will always find the next excuse not to pay and being brought to it's knees undoubtedly helped this industry to accept & adapt to accommodate the changes. I've never been convinced technology alone will successfully bring swelling ranks of artists/wannabe artists with the public and the old structures will never fade entirely and perhaps they shouldn't, similar ones will eventually emerge. As is the nature of us.
The TV industry is dead, long live the TV industry! This industry is still strong and able to fight, maybe Apple should have let piracy have its way here before creating a 'solution'. Unfortunately it has a real problem, while we were relatively happy with CDs (just iPods are better) consumers have been asking a question for 30 years - to change how we watch TV, initially when (with VCRs/DVRs) and now where. No answers for 30 years! Really not good. It'll be us that change how we watch TV and Apple are happy to rescue us this time not the industry.
Why are we angry at AppleTV & calling it a flop? Because we know what it could & should be, we know that Apple is capable of delivering it and someone's getting in the way and we now see who that is. Are we happy? Are we hell.
McD
(by the way the only point I didn't agree with was the broadband/download part - my broadband sustains 400-600KBytes/second from local servers and many Kiwis have access to 10Mbps cable on affordable plans. Movies, shows and non-live content can be on scheduled for download similar to the current TV Show/Podcast system. For live Rugby & other broadcasts? As said before, some things shouldn't die completely)
Why? it only works if you plug it into a TV. With a Nano you can do that or watch directly. Don't see the benefit in it, other than for NBC it isn't manufactured by Apple.
What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.
So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
Very few, if any other creative fields do the creators get paid a royalty for the work that they do for their employer. Even if something is done freelance the rights to the content are typically held by the person who hires the creative professional. I know that I don't get a penny in royalties for any of the 100 or so books and other published material I've designed over the years.
The writers have a Union and that is fine, they are able to get royalties and that is OK as well, but if they want to get paid for content delivered over the internet today then they should be willing to pay part of the price as well. Do you think for a second that the writers would cough up one penny of their money if the networks lost money on one of their digital delivery ventures? No they would still expect to be paid for every download whether the networks made money off of it or not.
The writers have a Union and that is fine, they are able to get royalties and that is OK as well, but if they want to get paid for content delivered over the internet today then they should be willing to pay part of the price as well. Do you think for a second that the writers would cough up one penny of their money if the networks lost money on one of their digital delivery ventures? No they would still expect to be paid for every download whether the networks made money off of it or not.
In a way they are taking on some of the risk. The arrangement was that they would accept less pay up front in exchange for royalties on broadcasts and sales. So if it doesn't sell, then they get paid less than they would have if they had gotten fully paid up front.
In a way they are taking on some of the risk. The arrangement was that they would accept less pay up front in exchange for royalties on broadcasts and sales. So if it doesn't sell, then they get paid less than they would have if they had gotten fully paid up front.
As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
There's no reason for them to take risk like that, because they've been duped into that that once, and they're trying to avoid that again. They did take risk by accepting lower royalties on home video sales when it was new, 80% reduction, and despite the decades since and billions of dollars a year market, their share hasn't returned to its previous percentage.
As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
Oh give me a fucking break. There is no risk! The networks already have websites and advertising bandwidth costs. NBC charges a per-view commercial advertising fee on the web posted content. You know damn well that it took a few hundred dollars of labor to turn an already paid for finished product into a streaming download which will make that amount back in advertising over the first several hundred views. Thus for a vanishingly small incremental cost, they generate near pure profit from the new distribution channel. Again. There is no risk!
If you want to talk about risk you have to create non-broadcast not already paid for original content to put directly on the web. Since that isn't happening in major network distribution the whole risk argument is stillborn. PR webisodes complicate things, but that exposure is so small that if the rebroadcasts are worked out the PR stuff will not be a sticking point.
Oh give me a fucking break. There is no risk! The networks already have websites and advertising bandwidth costs. NBC charges a per-view commercial advertising fee on the web posted content. You know damn well that it took a few hundred dollars of labor to turn an already paid for finished product into a streaming download which will make that amount back in advertising over the first several hundred views. Thus for a vanishingly small incremental cost, they generate near pure profit from the new distribution channel. Again. There is no risk!
A few hundred bucks? Are you kidding? It's few hundred bucks if you conveniently ignore the cost of the delivery system which for that amount of concurrent views will be 5-6 figures. This is a new area and the cost models are still being thrashed out, the content creators have zero risk and while zero pay is a bit much they should take a hit on the 'usual' royalty figure and negotiate up once the platform proves a success.
A few hundred bucks? Are you kidding? It's few hundred bucks if you conveniently ignore the cost of the delivery system which for that amount of concurrent views will be 5-6 figures. This is a new area and the cost models are still being thrashed out, the content creators have zero risk and while zero pay is a bit much they should take a hit on the 'usual' royalty figure and negotiate up once the platform proves a success.
McD
My dollar amount is based on one of the networks costs as explained by the employee that transcodes and posts most of their content, on the side from their normal duties. A straight to the source kind of thing.
As for delivery costs, the site is hosted externally, maintained semi-internally. Streams generate pathetically incremental bandwidth costs which are tiny fractions of the per-stream advertising revenue. There is no large up front equipment cost because of the external hosting. And the transcoding is done on underutilized systems already used for other pre-existing PR tasks so no extra cost there either.
Again, that is an essentially zero risk business. They are delivering already proven-demand content through a content delivery mechanism that almost entirely removes the single most expensive component - human labor - and has incremental costs that generate near pure profit from that distribution channel.
My dollar amount is based on one of the networks costs as explained by the employee that transcodes and posts most of their content, on the side from their normal duties. A straight to the source kind of thing.
As for delivery costs, the site is hosted externally, maintained semi-internally. Streams generate pathetically incremental bandwidth costs which are tiny fractions of the per-stream advertising revenue. There is no large up front equipment cost because of the external hosting. And the transcoding is done on underutilized systems already used for other pre-existing PR tasks so no extra cost there either.
Again, that is an essentially zero risk business. They are delivering already proven-demand content through a content delivery mechanism that almost entirely removes the single most expensive component - human labor - and has incremental costs that generate near pure profit from that distribution channel.
Ahh - I see. How much, in business costs, executive time, legal QA etc. do you think it costs to produce the memos & sign-off which were necessary to authorise a new 'stream'? And you're really telling us your contact has full sight of the set-up costs of that hosting arrangement? Sounds more like a conveniently segregated and simplistic view with no real grasp of business kind of thing
Ahh - I see. How much, in business costs, executive time, legal QA etc. do you think it costs to produce the memos & sign-off which were necessary to authorise a new 'stream'? And you're really telling us your contact has full sight of the set-up costs of that hosting arrangement? Sounds more like a conveniently segregated and simplistic view with no real grasp of business kind of thing
McD
You sound like an RIAA member accountant trying to explain why 76 cents per song income on iTunes is losing them money on a per download basis. Or a major movie distribution studio exec trying to explain how Lord of the Rings lost the studio money on over one billion dollars of income, or a defense contractor trying to justify a BRAC closing by explaining how much cheaper they will be at providing the service.
In every case the accounting used is irresponsible and outrageous lying, hiding the true effects in a multilayered indirection riddled morass. If the cited accounting were only half true every one of those industries would be out of business, not stating record profits on quarterly reports.
And yes, my friend was involved in pitching the reference implementation in the first place, getting the original effort funded several years ago when they started streaming PR show snippets that had lead-in ads. So I don't think it's particularly simplistic, I think your unjustified memo hawking jacking costs up is a bit thin though. Do you expect me to believe the business of authorizing a stream runs at over a dollar per streaming? When hosting and amortized posting is a few cents per stream?
Comments
Well, the complicating thing with what you are saying is, we do not know for sure as to who actually owns the copyright on the work -- the employee, or the corporation? For instance, the IP from R&D done in companies typically belongs to the company, not the scientist. Often, music publishing rights belong to the recording company, not the artist. The company may, in good judgment (and as a smart business decision in order to better incentivize employees) decide to share some of the spoils, but it is typically not required.
Second, you are implying that if people knew that the actual creator (as opposed to the corporation) was getting the returns, they might pirate less. I am less optimistic than that: I think people who want it for free will always find a way and an excuse to get it for free.
We do know, the corporations own the copyrights because the writers transfer those rights in exchange for payments which include residuals.
There has traditionally been an agreement that they get a residual for broadcasts and sales, the only reason they're not getting them on internet streaming is because it simply didn't exist when the last contracts were negotiated, and the studios refuse to allow them in a new contract. In the case of music, the record label may get some of the money, but there's never a situation where the music is reused and the author gets nothing.
And while the general public doesn't usually know who gets what, the current strike has made many people aware of what's going on, and the fact that the creatives are currently getting absolutely nothing on internet streaming. While that may or may not encourage piracy, it doesn't change the fact that pirating a show instead of watching a legal streaming version is taking money out of the pocket of the studio...but it's not taking anything out of the pockets of those who created the content. The studios have already kept those pockets empty.
We do know, the corporations own the copyrights because the writers transfer those rights in exchange for payments which include residuals.
There has traditionally been an agreement that they get a residual for broadcasts and sales, the only reason they're not getting them on internet streaming is because it simply didn't exist when the last contracts were negotiated, and the studios refuse to allow them in a new contract. In the case of music, the record label may get some of the money, but there's never a situation where the music is reused and the author gets nothing.
And while the general public doesn't usually know who gets what, the current strike has made many people aware of what's going on, and the fact that the creatives are currently getting absolutely nothing on internet streaming. While that may or may not encourage piracy, it doesn't change the fact that pirating a show instead of watching a legal streaming version is taking money out of the pocket of the studio...but it's not taking anything out of the pockets of those who created the content. The studios have already kept those pockets empty.
Fair enough -- you obviously know the writer/studio split better than I do, and I take your word for it.
But are you still suggesting that if, somehow, that split were to change in favor of the writer, people would pirate less? My view is: I don't think so.
I give you a serious, unbiased article and you give me biased claptrap? You're hurting me!!
You're hurting yourself by quoting Forbes.
There are many reasons why the music industry is hurting. For example, music labels have traditionally owned multi-million dollar studios. Now with the latest computer technology, one can have an equal or better project studio for under $50k. Labels are stuck with high costs and can't charge the rates they use to get because the smaller, newer studios are undercutting their price. This is one reason why the traditional music labels are hurting and it has nothing to do with iTunes.
There are many more non-distribution reasons why the music industry is hurting and they all combine to create a crisis for the labels. I actually think iTunes saved the music industry from file sharing stealing. People who accuse Apple of ruining the music industry are knocking the good guy. And I know this industry and technology well. I don't need to find an expert about this subject because I am an expert. I live in Nashville, run a project studio, and know what is going on in town.
The main fact is that computer technology is revolutionizing everything it touches - music, video, photography, gps navigation, printing, film, shopping, communication, warfare - you can go on and on. Everybody who continues in their old ways without some change quickly go extinct.
Take Kodak for example. They are not in the music or tv business but they are struggling. Why? Because they did not fully anticipate the quick rise of digital photography. I bet they sell 1% of the film they use to. They never figured HP and Epson would sell more photography paper then they would. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of these same worthless analysts blame Kodak's problems on iTunes and Apple. (The only reason they don't I bet, is because MS isn't paying them to do so.) The point is digital technology brings change big time.
TV production is also changing. Give me a Mac and FCP and a small HD camera, and I can produce good tv content. Sound familiar? Same thing that happened in the music business is happening in the tv business. However, the networks don't want to adapt. Yes, the distribution end is changing but so is the production end. Everything is changing.
Why doesn't NBC continue on with Apple? There is the MS connection. Also, Apple is in bed with Disney which owns ABC/ESPN. Therefore they view Apple as one of their competitors. Who wants their distribution controlled by their competitor? NBC is scrambling to get free of iTunes. They could care less about the viewer; they are thinking about themselves in the long run.
Apple is also thinking about their company too. The big difference is that Apple's interests align with the consumers. They are years ahead of the competition. That is why Apple is so successful in the music business and tv download business.
As for AppleTV being a flop, hard to say. We are one mile into a marathon and so far Apple is leading the race. I wouldn't call it a flop or failure. If Apple introduces a new version with 720p HD and an additional movie download rental service, I would think the race is only getting started.
I think Apple realized the AppleTV wasn't the elegant solution they really wanted but they didn't want to wait and let others grab the mindshare or newborn tv/movie download market. The AppleTV secured Apple's lead by offering the best solution at that time. However, the market is growing and Apple will ride that growing wave.
The question is how is that wave going to grow? We are facing a watershed with HD vs. small web TV. We want HD content from iTunes but most people do not have the bandwidth connection to make this feasible. This battle is not like the HD audio formats that flopped. Most people could not hear the difference between SACD and CD. Therefore they had no reason to buy HD audio.
However, people can see a difference with HD video. We want and need the better HD content. It just takes up tons of bandwidth to move. Can internet tv really work? What about real time broadcasts like sports? Lots of race still to come.
The only thing for sure is that nobody and nothing is a failure when it comes to tv/movie internet distribution. I am not just talking about Apple, though they have a good head start. Nobody is out of this race yet.
In all this talk about the "death" of the music industry two things are not being mentioned. Cost and content. Like all suppliers, the labels want top dollar for their product and are used to skirting the edge of what the consumer will bare to get it. But unlike in the past where the consumers only choice was to do without or pay the labels price, the current consumer has the third choice of 'pirating' the product. With iTunes and we found that many consumers will pay a reasonable amount but this by its nature is below the top dollar that the consumer will bare. I see Universal and the others trying to jack the prices back up to the top dollar what the consumer will pay. But this is a dangerous game for them and ignores the new third choice of piracy.
The second problem is content. The labels complain that their CDs are not selling and blame piracy. I content that their CDs aren't selling because they are not worth buying. Admittedly I have reached the old fart age and most new music isn't for me. (And thanks to Clear-Channel I quit listening to radio ten years ago so even have a poorer knowledge of what's out there in the commercial world.) But seeing as I am having no problem in finding podcasts with music I like I, and performers playing it, can't help but conclude that the labels are making conscious decisions to sell music not worth buying.
The music industry is dead, long live the music industry! The music labels are victims of their own success which has afforded them broad market control spanning production, distribution and, unfortunately for them, reception of their products eventuating in dissent from both artists and consumers. To a degree this wasn't just a power struggle, pirates will always find the next excuse not to pay and being brought to it's knees undoubtedly helped this industry to accept & adapt to accommodate the changes. I've never been convinced technology alone will successfully bring swelling ranks of artists/wannabe artists with the public and the old structures will never fade entirely and perhaps they shouldn't, similar ones will eventually emerge. As is the nature of us.
The TV industry is dead, long live the TV industry! This industry is still strong and able to fight, maybe Apple should have let piracy have its way here before creating a 'solution'. Unfortunately it has a real problem, while we were relatively happy with CDs (just iPods are better) consumers have been asking a question for 30 years - to change how we watch TV, initially when (with VCRs/DVRs) and now where. No answers for 30 years! Really not good. It'll be us that change how we watch TV and Apple are happy to rescue us this time not the industry.
Why are we angry at AppleTV & calling it a flop? Because we know what it could & should be, we know that Apple is capable of delivering it and someone's getting in the way and we now see who that is. Are we happy? Are we hell.
McD
(by the way the only point I didn't agree with was the broadband/download part - my broadband sustains 400-600KBytes/second from local servers and many Kiwis have access to 10Mbps cable on affordable plans. Movies, shows and non-live content can be on scheduled for download similar to the current TV Show/Podcast system. For live Rugby & other broadcasts? As said before, some things shouldn't die completely)
That little device is a kick-ass idea.
Why? it only works if you plug it into a TV. With a Nano you can do that or watch directly. Don't see the benefit in it, other than for NBC it isn't manufactured by Apple.
What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.
So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
Very few, if any other creative fields do the creators get paid a royalty for the work that they do for their employer. Even if something is done freelance the rights to the content are typically held by the person who hires the creative professional. I know that I don't get a penny in royalties for any of the 100 or so books and other published material I've designed over the years.
The writers have a Union and that is fine, they are able to get royalties and that is OK as well, but if they want to get paid for content delivered over the internet today then they should be willing to pay part of the price as well. Do you think for a second that the writers would cough up one penny of their money if the networks lost money on one of their digital delivery ventures? No they would still expect to be paid for every download whether the networks made money off of it or not.
The writers have a Union and that is fine, they are able to get royalties and that is OK as well, but if they want to get paid for content delivered over the internet today then they should be willing to pay part of the price as well. Do you think for a second that the writers would cough up one penny of their money if the networks lost money on one of their digital delivery ventures? No they would still expect to be paid for every download whether the networks made money off of it or not.
In a way they are taking on some of the risk. The arrangement was that they would accept less pay up front in exchange for royalties on broadcasts and sales. So if it doesn't sell, then they get paid less than they would have if they had gotten fully paid up front.
In a way they are taking on some of the risk. The arrangement was that they would accept less pay up front in exchange for royalties on broadcasts and sales. So if it doesn't sell, then they get paid less than they would have if they had gotten fully paid up front.
As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
There's no reason for them to take risk like that, because they've been duped into that that once, and they're trying to avoid that again. They did take risk by accepting lower royalties on home video sales when it was new, 80% reduction, and despite the decades since and billions of dollars a year market, their share hasn't returned to its previous percentage.
As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
Oh give me a fucking break. There is no risk! The networks already have websites and advertising bandwidth costs. NBC charges a per-view commercial advertising fee on the web posted content. You know damn well that it took a few hundred dollars of labor to turn an already paid for finished product into a streaming download which will make that amount back in advertising over the first several hundred views. Thus for a vanishingly small incremental cost, they generate near pure profit from the new distribution channel. Again. There is no risk!
If you want to talk about risk you have to create non-broadcast not already paid for original content to put directly on the web. Since that isn't happening in major network distribution the whole risk argument is stillborn. PR webisodes complicate things, but that exposure is so small that if the rebroadcasts are worked out the PR stuff will not be a sticking point.
Oh give me a fucking break. There is no risk! The networks already have websites and advertising bandwidth costs. NBC charges a per-view commercial advertising fee on the web posted content. You know damn well that it took a few hundred dollars of labor to turn an already paid for finished product into a streaming download which will make that amount back in advertising over the first several hundred views. Thus for a vanishingly small incremental cost, they generate near pure profit from the new distribution channel. Again. There is no risk!
A few hundred bucks? Are you kidding? It's few hundred bucks if you conveniently ignore the cost of the delivery system which for that amount of concurrent views will be 5-6 figures. This is a new area and the cost models are still being thrashed out, the content creators have zero risk and while zero pay is a bit much they should take a hit on the 'usual' royalty figure and negotiate up once the platform proves a success.
McD
A few hundred bucks? Are you kidding? It's few hundred bucks if you conveniently ignore the cost of the delivery system which for that amount of concurrent views will be 5-6 figures. This is a new area and the cost models are still being thrashed out, the content creators have zero risk and while zero pay is a bit much they should take a hit on the 'usual' royalty figure and negotiate up once the platform proves a success.
McD
My dollar amount is based on one of the networks costs as explained by the employee that transcodes and posts most of their content, on the side from their normal duties. A straight to the source kind of thing.
As for delivery costs, the site is hosted externally, maintained semi-internally. Streams generate pathetically incremental bandwidth costs which are tiny fractions of the per-stream advertising revenue. There is no large up front equipment cost because of the external hosting. And the transcoding is done on underutilized systems already used for other pre-existing PR tasks so no extra cost there either.
Again, that is an essentially zero risk business. They are delivering already proven-demand content through a content delivery mechanism that almost entirely removes the single most expensive component - human labor - and has incremental costs that generate near pure profit from that distribution channel.
My dollar amount is based on one of the networks costs as explained by the employee that transcodes and posts most of their content, on the side from their normal duties. A straight to the source kind of thing.
As for delivery costs, the site is hosted externally, maintained semi-internally. Streams generate pathetically incremental bandwidth costs which are tiny fractions of the per-stream advertising revenue. There is no large up front equipment cost because of the external hosting. And the transcoding is done on underutilized systems already used for other pre-existing PR tasks so no extra cost there either.
Again, that is an essentially zero risk business. They are delivering already proven-demand content through a content delivery mechanism that almost entirely removes the single most expensive component - human labor - and has incremental costs that generate near pure profit from that distribution channel.
Ahh - I see. How much, in business costs, executive time, legal QA etc. do you think it costs to produce the memos & sign-off which were necessary to authorise a new 'stream'? And you're really telling us your contact has full sight of the set-up costs of that hosting arrangement? Sounds more like a conveniently segregated and simplistic view with no real grasp of business kind of thing
McD
Ahh - I see. How much, in business costs, executive time, legal QA etc. do you think it costs to produce the memos & sign-off which were necessary to authorise a new 'stream'? And you're really telling us your contact has full sight of the set-up costs of that hosting arrangement? Sounds more like a conveniently segregated and simplistic view with no real grasp of business kind of thing
McD
You sound like an RIAA member accountant trying to explain why 76 cents per song income on iTunes is losing them money on a per download basis. Or a major movie distribution studio exec trying to explain how Lord of the Rings lost the studio money on over one billion dollars of income, or a defense contractor trying to justify a BRAC closing by explaining how much cheaper they will be at providing the service.
In every case the accounting used is irresponsible and outrageous lying, hiding the true effects in a multilayered indirection riddled morass. If the cited accounting were only half true every one of those industries would be out of business, not stating record profits on quarterly reports.
And yes, my friend was involved in pitching the reference implementation in the first place, getting the original effort funded several years ago when they started streaming PR show snippets that had lead-in ads. So I don't think it's particularly simplistic, I think your unjustified memo hawking jacking costs up is a bit thin though. Do you expect me to believe the business of authorizing a stream runs at over a dollar per streaming? When hosting and amortized posting is a few cents per stream?
ZUKER WANTS YOU!!!!!