3 ms·

From what I understand they are not getting paid since the paradigm changed: "the way it's changed is most of these streaming services focus on a metric called

From what I understand they are not getting paid since the paradigm changed: "the way it's changed is most of these streaming services focus on a metric called ARPU, which is the average revenue per user", "the main difference is it used to be that the incentives were linked. So the writers and the studios were trying to get people to watch the show and get high ratings and get people to pay attention to the show. Today, the streamer is trying to get people to subscribe to their service, so they're looking more at the aggregate of the service versus the individual show." [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173612099/why-writers-are-having-a-hard-time-earning-a-living-in-the-streaming-econom https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173612099/why-writers-are-ha...

notahacker 3y ago
I'm not sure quite why you're continuing to post articles explaining why writers get paid less as streaming services' revenue is less linked to the ratings of new shows as an argument in favour of marking down the value of the intellectual property they create to zero... My original point still stands. Ask the writers. They're not getting paid nothing yet, and they won't approve of your passionate advocacy of a future in which they are paid nothing.
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  I'm not quite sure why you are not understanding that with the streaming model of business the writers, and even the actors, no longer get residuals, here is another article [1]: yes, they get paid nothing. I am advocating for the abolishment of copyright laws, not for not being rewarded for one's work. [1] Euphoria actress Sydney Sweeney revealed in a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter that "They don’t pay actors like they used to, and with streamers, you no longer get residuals.", https://nofilmschool.com/streaming-services-residuals https://nofilmschool.com/streaming-services-residuals
  - notahacker 3y ago
    I'm not sure why you are not understanding that not getting residuals is not the same as not getting a salary or a per writing contribution payment. Or that production companies are not paying these salaries (and the rest of the production budget) out of the kindness of their hearts, but out of revenues accrued from networks and streaming services having to pay to screen their shows. Or that writers will not be paid anything (and certainly not by streaming services) in a copyright-free world in which anybody is allowed to use any creative work in any way free of charge. The abolition of copyright laws is literally the abolition of virtually[1] all existing rewards for creating IP. This is not complicated stuff: if it's genuinely news to you that writers aren't working for free, perhaps you are not the person to lecture us on how copyright should work. [1]I guess writers could still ask for donations. They could do this already, but they prefer negotiating with networks for higher pay packages...
    - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
      If it's genuinely news to you that exploitation is a normal day-to-day part of any industry, perhaps these pointless replies should end here. Yes, writers have been working for free [1]. [1] "In October 2015, Wil Wheaton created a stir when he declared that he had turned down an offer to write for the Huffington Post. He refused, according to him, because they had declined to pay for his work, in keeping with their policy of reimbursing writers with "exposure" in lieu of payment." https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11106006/writing-for-free https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11106006/writing-for-free Guess what writers who aren't famous have to do? Work for free, for "exposure".
      - notahacker 3y ago
        Strangely, it is not news to me that exploitation is a normal day-to-day part of any industry . (This is why I have not made any statements to that effect, never mind done anything as ludicrous as post articles about unionised screenwriters seeking to negotiate a higher pay rate as evidence that "most" of them earned "nothing") And this is also why I am not advocating a copyright-free world in which HuffPo has the right to sell ads around everything Wil Wheaton ever wrote without paying him a penny or even seeking his permission. Guess what writers whose work isn't copyrightable will be paid in? That's right, "exposure", and not even exposure with much prospect of paid compensation if their work takes off.

notahacker 3y ago

I'm not sure quite why you're continuing to post articles explaining why writers get paid less as streaming services' revenue is less linked to the ratings of new shows as an argument in favour of marking down the value of the intellectual property they create to zero... My original point still stands. Ask the writers. They're not getting paid nothing yet, and they won't approve of your passionate advocacy of a future in which they are paid nothing.

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
I'm not quite sure why you are not understanding that with the streaming model of business the writers, and even the actors, no longer get residuals, here is another article [1]: yes, they get paid nothing. I am advocating for the abolishment of copyright laws, not for not being rewarded for one's work. [1] Euphoria actress Sydney Sweeney revealed in a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter that "They don’t pay actors like they used to, and with streamers, you no longer get residuals.", https://nofilmschool.com/streaming-services-residuals https://nofilmschool.com/streaming-services-residuals
- notahacker 3y ago
  I'm not sure why you are not understanding that not getting residuals is not the same as not getting a salary or a per writing contribution payment. Or that production companies are not paying these salaries (and the rest of the production budget) out of the kindness of their hearts, but out of revenues accrued from networks and streaming services having to pay to screen their shows. Or that writers will not be paid anything (and certainly not by streaming services) in a copyright-free world in which anybody is allowed to use any creative work in any way free of charge. The abolition of copyright laws is literally the abolition of virtually[1] all existing rewards for creating IP. This is not complicated stuff: if it's genuinely news to you that writers aren't working for free, perhaps you are not the person to lecture us on how copyright should work. [1]I guess writers could still ask for donations. They could do this already, but they prefer negotiating with networks for higher pay packages...
  - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
    If it's genuinely news to you that exploitation is a normal day-to-day part of any industry, perhaps these pointless replies should end here. Yes, writers have been working for free [1]. [1] "In October 2015, Wil Wheaton created a stir when he declared that he had turned down an offer to write for the Huffington Post. He refused, according to him, because they had declined to pay for his work, in keeping with their policy of reimbursing writers with "exposure" in lieu of payment." https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11106006/writing-for-free https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11106006/writing-for-free Guess what writers who aren't famous have to do? Work for free, for "exposure".
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Strangely, it is not news to me that exploitation is a normal day-to-day part of any industry . (This is why I have not made any statements to that effect, never mind done anything as ludicrous as post articles about unionised screenwriters seeking to negotiate a higher pay rate as evidence that "most" of them earned "nothing") And this is also why I am not advocating a copyright-free world in which HuffPo has the right to sell ads around everything Wil Wheaton ever wrote without paying him a penny or even seeking his permission. Guess what writers whose work isn't copyrightable will be paid in? That's right, "exposure", and not even exposure with much prospect of paid compensation if their work takes off.