Quote: Stuart Laws @ November 17, 2007, 4:03 PMNo, come on. The dispute is over the shift in where the employers get income. Due to the huge success of DVD and internet distribution the producers are making huge amounts of money. However the current royalty deals in place were agreed before the explosion in popularity of the new media.
Therefore they are entirely justified to want a fairer proportioning of the money. This is an entirely fair and reasonable request, especially considering the level of money that is being made. If we want a society where rich f**kers can do whatever they want just because they are rich and because they can make out that a bunch of writers are whinging tossbags then why don't we all get on a plane now and try and take advantage of the gap in the market. I bagsy writing for The Daily Show. It may be 'just' writing but it's important to make a stand and show that power isn't the domain of a select few.
Go writers!
Fair comment! But in my case, I don't want to be a staff writer (employee) on an American TV show. And it's a business, fair doesn't come into it! Employers don't give more money to employees without a fight! Power and riches go together hand in glove! The powerful almost never give anything away (usually, because they don't want/need to!)
Like I say, if the strikers are strong enough to win, they'll win but I am not convinced that what they have on offer is worth more money to the employers!
Take 'The Simpsons', if you change 'the voices' the audience would know, but I reckon the folks creating the images and writing the gags could be replaced fairly easily without the audience realising, especially now that the show and characters are well established.
Of course, the incoming artists/writers would have to be good, but I reckon there are plenty of writers who'd give 'their all' to have a go at writing that show, and some of them would surely be good enough.
But yes, if writers can get more 'dough' (as opposed to 'doh') I'm all for it!