However, jwm, I am not going to concern myself with leaked notes and things of that nature, I am going to base my opinion on what I see and hear from the actual mouths of the horses involved not everything Nikki Finke posts on her site like most news outlets.

I do agree the $250 proposal is entirely offensive, however I hear the 2.5% proposal and it makes me wonder if that is fair also. The reason I do this is for a couple of reasons:

• DVD and online sales numbers aren't accurately reported anywhere that is immediately available for me to do a comparison
• As soon as the AMPTP agrees to any deal with the writers they have to automatically assume SAG and the DGA are going to at least ask for the exact same thing if not more

This second piece is what I really think is a big issue that is not being discussed. I know 7.5% is not a ton, especially considering how overpriced DVD and online media is already. I believe the AMPTP is not ready to set a precedent with SAG and DGA negotiations around the corner.

I mention in my piece, and jackclay pointed it out, that I am baffled at how a percentage can't be reached. I absolutely think it has to be a percentage and not a flat rate in any circumstance and I remain baffled that a percentage is not agreed upon and the issue is off the table and the WGA can get to their other points.

Why not figure out one piece at a time? Take issues off the table and get what is important figured out. The AMPTP has now said they would let the strike go on for 10 years before they give up reality and animation, so I do think that should just be forgotten for now, especially since didn't the reality writers already say they didn't want to be part of the WGA?

Since I am not in the negotiating rooms and all the information isn't in the public I can't entirely comment, but I can make my own assessment from what I read and this is just how I see it.

I hope that explains where I am standing a little better if it wasn't quite clear before. I am all for the writers getting what they deserve because they currently are being screwed, but it seems like there is no compromise taking place and a bunch of ultimatums and threats are being tossed around without consideration of the consequences.

every single issue the wga has brought up during these negotiations has been an issue on the table since july when the wga introduced its pattern of demands.

jurisdiction over reality, no strike, animation writers, and everything was part of the list of things that would be discussed in this negotiation since long before formal talks began.

on tuesday this past week, the amptp had failed to respond to a comprehensive counter-offer made the wga on the previous thursday.

on wednesday, the wga was delivered half of the amptp's response, and told the other half was coming. so the wga went on to other matters.

does the wga expect to get reality jurisdiction, no strike dropped and animation writers? doubtful. but negotiating means you ask for more than what you need, and hope the haggling doesn't result in you getting less than what you must have.

and on this past thursday, there were published reports on http://www.deadlinehollywood.com that executives had leaked that they would break off talks on friday and blame the wga.

these rumors were so strong that on friday morning, the wga announced that they hoped these rumors were not true.

by the end of friday, the amptp gave the wga an ultimatum to drop every item they don't really care for or they would walk. before the wga could respond, they left the talks. the wga did not.

let me repeat that. the amptp walked away from the table. the wga did not.

and let me remind you that the shitty deal that the writers got on home video 20 years ago was the result of the amptp asking for writers to wait until the market solidified to have a more decent rate.

how's dvd doing?

good?

yeah, did they ever adjust the residual rate as they said they would?

um, no.

why?

because they don't want to. they like their money.

so, yes, much of the hardball tactics are the result of a very long and ugly past of writers being asked to sacrifice for their employers while promises remain broken.

and by the way, the sum total of the wga's demands would cost the amptp less over three years than the entire amount michael ovits got from being fired for a job he had for 14 months. the writers want pay adjustments that cost $130 million dollars over three years. ovits got $180 million in compensation for getting canned.

those are the priorties writers are fighting. the sum total of the top five exectuives who pull nick counter's strings add up to more than the writers are asking for for one year.

so, you'll have to pardon the writers if $250 a year for the use of shows they write on the internet for a year, only IF the companies decide they are not promotional, is considered offensive.

because, you probably think they wouldn't declare a show promotional just to take the measly $250 away, do you?

yes. they would.

the reason the amptp has stonewall and fabricated to walk away from these talks is because in a couple of weeks, they get to dump millions and millions and of dollars locked up in development contracts with writers, producers and directors that can be cancelled during a "force majeur" event like a strike.

and if they lie and spin and stall and hire a multimillion dollare PR firm, they might be able to convince enough people like you that they never wanted a strike, so that all the people that could sue them for causing the very force majeur event that will save them untold millions can be turned away.

do some research.

get a clue.

However, I think what is missing is the timeline of negotiations on the AMPTP's side. Until mid-October, 2 weeks before the WGA contract expired, the only offer from the AMPTP, in response to the WGA position of 2.5% of internet downloaded materials – not advertisements, but streaming movies and downloaded episodes of TV shows – was to say they would rollback all residuals, for all media. This is less a negotiating position than a refusal to have a conversation.

Their latest offer is no money for streaming movie downloads – something it is difficult to pass off as advertising, and a flat fee of $250 for TV downloads, if the studios/networks deem it to not be advertising. Again, this is not negotiating – there is no movement towards any kind of middle ground.

You cite the anger of the WGA in view of previous bad deal – 4 cents per DVD, no residuals for cable, etc. As a rather new member of the Guild, these deals make me angry too. But the other side of this is that the AMPTP has historically beaten the union. It is my opinion, and it is borne out by the aggressive negotiating tactics, and at the same time stalling – the first three days back at the table in November, the AMPTP presented no new proposals – that they hope to effectively break the union. The WGA recognizes that if we accept a bad deal on new media, we are, quite frankly, screwed.

In terms of the language you use regarding animation and reality – well, one of the great lies of current TV is that reality is real. All reality shows have writing staffs in one form or another. That the WGA thinks this should be guild is not crazy. It is not purely a negotiating tactic, as far as I know — it has been on the table since the beginning of negotiations, and simply never truly been addressed by the AMPTP.

You say late in the article that you are baffled a happy percentage of revenue cannot be found. Well, I am too. Whenever I talk to people I know outside the business they are flabbergasted at the amount of money the studios and networks are choosing to lose over a very small cut of revenue – 2.5%. Furthermore, the negotiating position of the AMPTP has been – well, there is no money there. This is clearly a transparent lie, but still, I find it difficult to take any statement they make at face value after this. If there is nothing, kindly pay us our fair share of nothing.

In terms of the networking the WGA mentions and that you cite at the end of your article – well, yeah, it is nice seeing old friends, meeting heroes and feeling part of a community – something difficult in a solitary profession. In the end though, I am not picketing in the snow and leafletting the day after thanksgiving because I need friends. I am doing it because I do not see anything from the AMPTP but greed and the desire to bust a union.

The strike boils down to two things. We'd like 8 cents on DVD and 2.5% of the gross on downloads. Residuals are what keep the average (or, I should say, the mean) writer alive. And as to why we want an outside party – well, you know what Fox says. The Simpsons are still in the red.

Thank you for your time. This is a long comment, I know, and I hope that it useful and responsive to your piece.

You say late in your

PHF said: Bottom line the writers are below the line. If any of the writers were a Hemmingway, Twain, Plath, or Poe the need to strike for creative due wouldn't be necessary. It would be understood.

This I entirely disagree with. I don't think writers get enough credit for the work they do, without them you don't actually have a product to create or work on, which is what this strike proves.

I am not saying they deserve all the credit since a script is always changing throughout a production, but if they hadn't laid the groundwork there would be nothing to change.

bradbrevet said: You can't honestly be comparing reruns of late night television to all of television. Of course people aren't going to be interested in watching reruns of douche bag late night TV.

People don't watch reruns period. An original run of Grey's Anatomy can pull an 11 share or more and then get a 3.9 share when it's rerun. Check the ratings and you'll see.

bradbrevet said: People don't have very high standards as far as TV goes however, they are going to be watching shitty American Idol and all the reality TV you can throw in front of them.

Yes, and sadly those writers who created those shows have no guild or union protection.

bradbrevet said: I don't know what an "about 4%" decline means as far as viewership goes, but I think the lack of good new shows also hurts that. 2007 has not been a good year for new television programming, which is something networks depend on.

Your blanket statement saying, "This strike will make people not want to watch television," is partially correct since new shows will not be made and regular shows will be forced into reruns. Lucky enough for networks people will watch reality programming for the time being and as soon as their new shows return they will come storming back.

We will see if the public will embrace more reality. I am not so sure. I wouldn't bet the farm that the viewers will come storming back once the strike ends. After the last writers strike, 20 years ago, broadcast tv lost a substantial amount of viewers to cable. Broadcast tv never regained what it lost. A lot has changed in 20 years. The audience is very different and I believe they will go elsewhere. Why would they be loyal?

People don't have very high standards as far as TV goes however, they are going to be watching shitty American Idol and all the reality TV you can throw in front of them.

I don't know what an "about 4%" decline means as far as viewership goes, but I think the lack of good new shows also hurts that. 2007 has not been a good year for new television programming, which is something networks depend on.

Your blanket statement saying, "This strike will make people not want to watch television," is partially correct since new shows will not be made and regular shows will be forced into reruns. Lucky enough for networks people will watch reality programming for the time being and as soon as their new shows return they will come storming back.

bradbrevet said: Yes, reruns, that is what I meant by the late night shows not being timely, so we agree that is the reason people aren't watching them and that reason alone.

So then you have changed your mind? People do care what they watch. They don't like reruns. This strike will make people not want to watch television.

bradbrevet said: As far as ratings and viewership being down, no I don't look at that, but I would need something more than just you saying it to prove it. If ratings are significantly down and people are now chatting online and not watching television I would love to see those numbers. Also, I am talking about overall people watching television, not the ratings on C.S.I. and ER.

Per the LA Times:Overall, viewership is down about 4% compared with last season, even taking into account delayed viewing on DVRs. With the exception of ABC's comedy "Samantha Who?" and CBS' vampire drama "Moonlight," every new show has seen steep declines since its premier.

And this:
Nielsen released information showing that average TV viewing for US households was flat from 2005-6 to 2006-7 at 8:14 per day.

Average Primetime household viewing fell 1 minute from 1:11 to 1:10.

That flattening and decline also take into account Live+7 viewing for 2005-6 and 2006-7, so live viewing of TV shows are showing declines, but we have no specific data.

bradbrevet said: However, I will say I remember the article this past week saying that Monday Night Football had the highest ratings ever, which I thought was interesting since it is now on a paid cable channel and not a free broadcast station.

It was a GREAT game!

bradbrevet said: Sorry, I don't think television shows are going away any time soon. Whether they are broadcast over cable or on the Internet they are going to be there, and I don't see online chatting ever taking over.

I agree I don't think television will go away completely. I think that the numbers/stats show that people are going elsewhere for their entertainment.

As far as ratings and viewership being down, no I don't look at that, but I would need something more than just you saying it to prove it. If ratings are significantly down and people are now chatting online and not watching television I would love to see those numbers. Also, I am talking about overall people watching television, not the ratings on C.S.I. and ER.

However, I will say I remember the article this past week saying that Monday Night Football had the highest ratings ever, which I thought was interesting since it is now on a paid cable channel and not a free broadcast station.

Sorry, I don't think television shows are going away any time soon. Whether they are broadcast over cable or on the Internet they are going to be there, and I don't see online chatting ever taking over.

bradbrevet said: Where are they going? Last I checked most people still have a television and watches it regularly.

Have you checked the ratings lately? Viewership is down.

bradbrevet said: Social networks? To do what, online chat?

Yup, that and so much more. You might try it some time. It's fun. More fun than watching boring reruns.

bradbrevet said: People aren't watching late night because it isn't timely, that's why they aren't watching late night. And you no longer watch television because you are online in social networks? Seriously… that is weird.

People are not watching Leno and other late-night shows because they are currently running reruns. Weird or not, millions are social networking and getting their news and information via the internet.

bradbrevet said: This is the scorned/revenge type attitude I am referring to.

Overall I think your reply is a little hasty and not totally thought out.

Scorned/revenge? Na. I am just calling as I see it.

[QUOTE=FMC]If the AMPTP does not return to the bargaining table, they will give the television audience no choice but to go on-line for their entertainment. The public will not be looking for television shows or movies on-line, but social networks.
Social networks? To do what, online chat?

[QUOTE=FMC]Consider what's happening to late night television. The audience has dropped 40%. Does the AMPTP really think that once the TV audience gets hooked on the internet that people will return to that archaic medium? Video killed the radio star and the internet will surely destroy television. This strike is actually hastening that reality. I no longer watch television. I get what what I need on-line.
People aren't watching late night because it isn't timely, that's why they aren't watching late night. And you no longer watch television because you are online in social networks? Seriously… that is weird.

[QUOTE=FMC]Do these Mogusl need a swift end to the strike? Probably not. Their holiday vacations will not be interrupted. These moguls probably have extravagant Christmas vacations in Deer Valley planned and their wives/mistresses will be gifted with tons of bling.
This is the scorned/revenge type attitude I am referring to.

Overall I think your reply is a little hasty and not totally thought out.

The public does care about what they watch that's why they are LEAVING. If the AMPTP does not return to the bargaining table, they will give the television audience no choice but to go on-line for their entertainment. The public will not be looking for television shows or movies on-line, but social networks. Perhaps this is what Peter Churnin wants, and is why he is not rushing to settle, but what about the rest of the AMPTP? The AMPTP will actually kill the writers main revenue source and help to destroy the television industry as a whole. If the television industry weakens, ALL television jobs will dry up forever. This is a precarious time. Is the AMPTP willing to gamble the future of television, a medium already struggling to keep its audience?

Consider what's happening to late night television. The audience has dropped 40%. Does the AMPTP really think that once the TV audience gets hooked on the internet that people will return to that archaic medium? Video killed the radio star and the internet will surely destroy television. This strike is actually hastening that reality. I no longer watch television. I get what what I need on-line.

Do these Mogusl need a swift end to the strike? Probably not. Their holiday vacations will not be interrupted. These moguls probably have extravagant Christmas vacations in Deer Valley planned and their wives/mistresses will be gifted with tons of bling. They seem to have very little understanding of what the public wants and its lack of tolerance for reruns. If these moguls had their ears to the ground instead of high up in ivory towers they could have created YouTube. However, they don't think like the common man so they are unlikely to create or even understand the next big trend. The moguls know one trend, rehash!

Someone has to knock some sense into these pompous egotists! Without some kind of responsible mediation the two sides will be forever battling like irrational children. There needs to be some kind of adult supervision. So much for Brian Loud going in to help. He is like a pre-teen babysitter who has lost control of the house to the kids!