It looks like Jack is the latest victim of the Writer's Strike--the show will not be aired until the strike ends and they get production back on track.
And just when it looked like it might be back to good:
A lot of shows have been victimized. But perhaps some good can come out of this:
quote:NBC is considering airing the original British version of The Office in place of the American version.[24]
woot woot!
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
But it's really mostly tragic. Regarding Scrubs...
quote:12 of 18 ordered episodes completed. Series Finale episode could possibly not be produced or broadcast;[ were this to happen, series creator Bill Lawrence will try and release a straight-to-DVD final episode.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I heard about Scrubs the other day and that's the show that had me most upset. I mean, its the LAST season. Lawrence promised fans a really satisfying ending and though the studio has treated the small but devoted fanbase not too badly by most standards, I really do worry that the show may never get the end it deserves.
I'd be okay if the last episodes were just released on the season dvd, but I'm terrified they may never even be filmed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But it is being compensated for the writing of scripts for DVDs and Internet media that is what screenwriters are striking about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is there a full list anywhere of all the shows that will be effected by the strike should it continue?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Almost all shows will be effected should the strike continue. It is easier to have a list of non-affected shows. I know that South Park won't be affected; non union.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Lost is being cut down to half a season. And this is after already going with a shortened 16 episode season.
I can't imagine that the studio big-wigs are stupid enough to think that this can end any other way than the writers getting their demands met.
No one is going to benefit until this thing comes to an end.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I can't imagine that the studio big-wigs are stupid enough to think that this can end any other way than the writers getting their demands met.
No one is going to benefit until this thing comes to an end.
I think a lot of the big wigs think this will end with a lot of writers dropping out of the union in favor of actually getting paychecks.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I hate unions, strikes are terrible.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
We should instead hate the suits of the corporations who take in the vast majority of the profits of those artists who are the ones to actually create what we love.
Long live unions! Down with robber barons. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: I can't imagine that the studio big-wigs are stupid enough to think that this can end any other way than the writers getting their demands met.
No one is going to benefit until this thing comes to an end.
I think a lot of the big wigs think this will end with a lot of writers dropping out of the union in favor of actually getting paychecks.
The majority of the writers that "matter" have enough money to make it worth the wait.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The majority of the writers that "matter" have enough money to make it worth the wait.
Not necessarily, according to the celebrity interviews I've been seeing. Jay Leno, for example, estimates that many of his writers make an average of 30k.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Hmm...well alrighty then...
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Strikes may be terrible, but I for one would rather the producers give the people who are actually most important to the creation of television and movies, the writers, more for their vital service.
In Hollywood, it's well known that writers are despised and walked all over. People don't respect them, or pay them enough most of the time, even with how important they are. They trample all over the work of the writers, and change their work in a manner thye'd never dream of doing to directors.
The reason so many movies suck? Well, a lot of them started as great scripts. But then the producers, ever contemptful of the skill of writers, change things willy-nilly. It's the sort of insanity that would result if financers were in charge of the designers and engineers of bridges and skyscrapers, and changed the design almost randomly based on their whims. It'd be no surprise if the buildings and bridges fell down, and it's not surprise the movies and shows made under an equally insane system suck.
So at least pay the damn writers a little more, if you're going to suck their souls out and trample their art anyway.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
They can air good cable shows that hadn't hit the big networks yet. The 4400. Burn Notice. BSG. Psych. Monk.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it's well known that writers are despised and walked all over.
I've heard this is true of movies; I've heard that it is not true of television.
I don't really know if any of it is truly true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: We should instead hate the suits of the corporations who take in the vast majority of the profits of those artists who are the ones to actually create what we love.
Long live unions! Down with robber barons.
You mean the suits who actually spend their own money in advance in order to give writers a chance to actually write something people see? Yes yes, who needs them, we should just let writers write and somehow magically those writings will become TV shows and movies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Jay Leno, for example, estimates that many of his writers make an average of 30k.
Considering the quality they put out, I think they are overpaid.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I heard that, if you were a writer on the shows "Friends", once you hit age 30, you were pretty much done. The producers assumed that you could no longer write a joke that their target audience would find funny.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What!? Crap that only gives me a remaining 10 years of work!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:smug snickering:
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I am not pro-union. My family had a bad experience with them and I have not been for them since. I think union's were great and needed at one time, but today they are only effective in driving up the cost of manufacturing and they make it difficult to get rid of ineffective employees.
That is, until the writers strike started. I did not realize writers made so little compared to actors, directors, and producers. I don't see this as the writers trying to cash in, I think they are just trying to get their fair share. I support the writers in this situation.
That said, I still do not particularly like union's. My father was still burned by a union that was happy to take his dues for years but told him he wasn't "really" a bricklayer when he was laid off in the '80's. I have still had dealings with lazy union workers that knew it was virtually impossible to for them to be fired. I no longer think that all union's are useless, just most of them.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Today writing class, we will learn the word Irony.
Tony is a writer.
He writes for the show Scrubs.
He has a wonderful script for the series finale of Scrubs.
He goes on strike because while he gets paid for the work that is put out on Television, he gets nothing on the DVD and Internet sales of that work.
He needs that extra money to pay off his overpriced California home which due to recent land speculation mistakes, has actually dropped considerably in value.
To be ready to make his money Tony is using the extra time he has while on strike to polish his amazing script for the series finale of Scrubs.
The Strike has caused the TV Show Scrubs to scrub their wonderful series finale from being aired on TV.
Instead it will go directly to DVD, and Internet Downloads.
For which Tony will not make a penny.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
While I do side with brojack that MY personal experiences with unions have been pretty crummy (workers who had no motivation because they knew they were getting paid tons, and couldn't be fired), I do support the writer's strike.
Hollywood and the television industry have kind of angered me for a long time, and I know that the real quality film I watch does not come from a producer, but from a writer who probably still doesn't get enough for it.
Now if only the music industry would reform to give newer artists a better chance at making a living, maybe popular American entertainment wouldn't suck.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I completely support the writers' strike. For those who think they are whining - does "nothing" sound like a fair wage to you?
It may be a great job, but since writers do not live on rainbows and fairy dust, it seems only fair to pay them.
That argument works the other way as well - thanks to the stories the writers produce, the executives get to play Hollywood mogul and sleep with starlets.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
JH, Didn't a writer get the girl in King Kong and not the producer? I'll bet a writer wrote that. I'm surprised the producer didn't change it to where Jack Black got the girl. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
WIthout dealing with the justice of the strike or not, it might be better to discuss what they are actually fighting against. They are not fighting against being paid nothing, they are fighting to receiving royalties for additional forms of distribution that they currently are not paid royalties for; they already receive both salary and royalties for those works in some forms of distribution.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I am not pro-union. My family had a bad experience with them and I have not been for them since. I think union's were great and needed at one time, but today they are only effective in driving up the cost of manufacturing and they make it difficult to get rid of ineffective employees.
That is, until the writers strike started. I did not realize writers made so little compared to actors, directors, and producers. I don't see this as the writers trying to cash in, I think they are just trying to get their fair share. I support the writers in this situation.
That said, I still do not particularly like union's. My father was still burned by a union that was happy to take his dues for years but told him he wasn't "really" a bricklayer when he was laid off in the '80's. I have still had dealings with lazy union workers that knew it was virtually impossible to for them to be fired. I no longer think that all union's are useless, just most of them.
Another important question to consider is do you like corporations? Corporations are no more free market than unions.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:You mean the suits who actually spend their own money in advance in order to give writers a chance to actually write something people see?
Do you mean the suits who are actually spending shareholder money? The same suits who have feasted off of DVD sales and ignored digital distribution even though all signs pointed that way? The same suits who indulge in all sorts of Byzantine financial moves to make sure that even those producers, writers, actors and directors who are powerful enough to get a cut of a creative product get as little as possible or even nothing?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I'm surprised the producer didn't change it to where Jack Black got the girl.
a la Moulin Rouge
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Another important question to consider is do you like corporations? Corporations are no more free market than unions.
How so? (BTW, brojack didn't say anything about unions being not free market.)
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't really get the correlation. I don't really care much for big corporations either, but just like union's, they are here to stay. Corporations did not have an immediate impact on my father's job when I was a kid.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
"Unions", dang it.
The plural is "unions." "Union's" is possessive.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Can you tell I am not a writer?
Sorry about that.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: To be ready to make his money Tony is using the extra time he has while on strike to polish his amazing script for the series finale of Scrubs.
The guild does not allow the writers to do that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The goal of a corporation in not a free market.
The goal of a corporation is to make a profit.
The bigger the profit the more that goal is met.
The elimination of the competition, monopolizing the market, and cheating the "free" market in any way possible are tactics that corporations use. Usually those are legal tactics, but not always so.
Forming industry organizations to lobby for perks, bailouts, and industy tax breaks is not Free Market tactics.
Forming official and unofficial industry cartels to set prices high and keep costs low--limiting competition for supplies and sales--is not Free markets.
Blackballing, and punishing people who report crimminal activity that their company does is not Free Market.
Lieing and hiding and covering up any and all information that consumers need to make an informed choice of a purchase is not Free Market.
Drafting large import fees on foreign competitors goods is not a Free Market activity.
Drafting large numbers of desparate illegal aliens into your workforce to keep the cost of labor down is not a Free Market activity.
No. I am all for Free Markets solving many of our problems, as long as we have enough honorable and well paid referees not in the pay of the players, but in the service of keeping that Market truly Free.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Lost is being cut down to half a season
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Another important question to consider is do you like corporations? Corporations are no more free market than unions.
How so? (BTW, brojack didn't say anything about unions being not free market.)
Corporations, as they exist in the United States, basically absorb all of the legal liabilities of their partners. They act as a shield and allow people to create products without responsibility for any negative consequences that result from their products. Corporations can exist in a true free market however they would merely be agreements among people to work together. Conceptually, a corporation in a free market is still treated like an individual. The people who create such a corporation would have to decide on how to distribute liabilities. The one thing they could not do, which current corporations in the US can do, is eliminate liabilities.
EDIT: Btw, I'm mainly talking about publicly traded corporations.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I guess I get it now. You think that since I am anti-union, then I have to be pro-corporation. That is not necessarily the case.
Here is the story. When I was five, I remember my dad explaining to my mom that the employees at his company were approached by a bricklayers union. They decided to join and everything was fine for awhile. The union took my dads dues and promised to be there if he was ever laid off. When oil went bust in the early '80's, my dad and his co-workers were laid off when the company closed down. They went to their union and asked for help. The union said they were not "really" bricklayers since they worked installing refractory and not laying brick in the traditional sense. My dad and all those other guys were left to fend for themselves. This was my first experience with a union. Not a very happy experience.
The other came when I got my first drafting job. It was at an Architectural Millwork company that had union carpenters. Since I was not a carpenter and the companies training was lacking, I had many drawings with errors on them. In an attempt to better myself, and in turn the companies product, I volunteered to work on the evening shift as a carpenter to learn how stuff "should" go together. I had a carpenter that was willing to take me under his wing and show me the ropes. This was shot down immediately. I was told this was basically an insult to the union and from that point on, the union reps nitpicked my work and filed grievances against me whenever possible. All I wanted to do was learn how to build things out of wood better.
The UAW did a great thing for the auto-workers back in the day and I agree the writers should get royalties from their product on DVD and the Internet (everyone else does), but I have had two bad experiences with unions in the past. I would hope you would understand why I don't really care for them.
Edit: spelling
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Sorry for the confusion brojack. My initial goal was to point out that unions are a necessary evil in the current market, however I realize that my comments didn't express that idea at all.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
No problem. I see they are a necessary evil and agree that corporations are one also. My initial post stated that although I fundamentally disagree with unions (for personal reasons), I see why the writers are striking and support them.
No offense was taken by your posts.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
And I just realized you had the first post about corporations, Dan had the other. I didn't pay attention to the names and assumed both came from the same person.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Another important question to consider is do you like corporations? Corporations are no more free market than unions.
How so? (BTW, brojack didn't say anything about unions being not free market.)
Corporations, as they exist in the United States, basically absorb all of the legal liabilities of their partners. They act as a shield and allow people to create products without responsibility for any negative consequences that result from their products. Corporations can exist in a true free market however they would merely be agreements among people to work together. Conceptually, a corporation in a free market is still treated like an individual. The people who create such a corporation would have to decide on how to distribute liabilities.
I'm not sure I agree. How can it be possible to distribute liabilities? Individuals are responsible for their own actions.
If you were to sign a piece of paper assuming liability for my actions, and I were to rob a bank, would it be okay to send you to jail? The idea that anyone can take away anyone else's responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions is part and parcel with the ideology that opposes free markets.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If you have a group of 10 people then you can assign different tasks to different people which effectively distributes the liabilities. Rather than each individual sharing responsibility for everything (debt, bad products, etc.), the workload can be distributed (not on paper but literally distributed).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Corporations, as they exist in the United States, basically absorb all of the legal liabilities of their partners. They act as a shield and allow people to create products without responsibility for any negative consequences that result from their products.
This is not accurate. I've posted something on this in another thread recently, but corporations do not shield stockholders from liability for their acts.
They shield stockholders (past the amount of their investment) from the acts of others that give rise to liability.
Anyone who contracts with a corporation knows that this limit on liability exists. They are free to either refrain from doing business with such a corporation or to negotiate the contract such that the stockholders agree to be liable beyond the limit of their investment. I have been on both ends of such contracts (waiving my own protection from liability and forcing the other side to waive theirs) many times. It's extremely common.
Posted by miamiandy (Member # 8906) on :
Apparently I've read that it is likely going to be a very long strike. Also, if they don't settle june-july 2008 the Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild of America will likely join the writer's guild and then this'll be really fun.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't mind a soft reboot of Hollywood. I think this could be a good thing all around.
Also, I'm almost positive that writers do get SOME money from DVD sales currently. I think the last deal gave them 4 cents per DVD, and they want it raised to 8 cents. But they don't get anything from online distrubuted content.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Wow, Are the networks really prepared to show reruns for the next year? They better be careful or all of may find something better to do (hatrack) and not come back. Haven't they learned anything from the cigarette industry, just keep them smoking. If they stop they may not come back.
I know the big movie companies are scrambling to finish up as many movies as possible before the strike. It would take a lot longer to feel the effects in the movie industry since they work so far out. You wouldn't really notice anything missing for at least a year, or longer.
Who knows maybe people will, God forbid, get off the couch spend time with friends and family, or doing healthy things like playing sports and exercising, or improve themselves by taking classes, starting a hobby or even just reading. Actually I am hoping the writers will stay on strike for a long, long time so I will be forced to break my addiction.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Corporations, as they exist in the United States, basically absorb all of the legal liabilities of their partners. They act as a shield and allow people to create products without responsibility for any negative consequences that result from their products.
This is not accurate. I've posted something on this in another thread recently, but corporations do not shield stockholders from liability for their acts.
They shield stockholders (past the amount of their investment) from the acts of others that give rise to liability.
Are talking about monetary or legal liabilities? Legally, if a product causes people to die then the corporation, not the individuals who created the product, is held responsible. The individuals can be charged if they committed a crime while designing the product however they generally cannot be charged with the deaths (exceptions including cases where an employee intentionally poisons a product or something of the sort).
Monetarily, shareholders are only liable in the sense that their investment could lose them money (except in special cases like you mentioned). That's true of any case involving investment. The problem is that a corporation, as an entity, can borrow money that the shareholders are not liable for. In a true free market corporation, one or more of the shareholders would have to borrow money. The liability for borrowed money would always be on the investors, it couldn't be placed on some artificial construct like a corporation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Legally, if a product causes people to die then the corporation, not the individuals who created the product, is held responsible. The individuals can be charged if they committed a crime while designing the product however they generally cannot be charged with the deaths (exceptions including cases where an employee intentionally poisons a product or something of the sort).
That's just not true. Often no one bothers to go after the ones who made the product, but the torts of individuals are still actionable against those individuals.
quote:Monetarily, shareholders are only liable in the sense that their investment could lose them money (except in special cases like you mentioned). That's true of any case involving investment.
This is also not true. Every single entity lending money to a corporation knows that the shareholders are not responsible for that money by default. It represents freedom of contract to allow that arrangement. In essence, every contract with a corporation that is silent on shareholder liability has an implicit clause that says, "Lender agrees to look only to the corporation's assets, and not to the assets of any individual shareholder, for satisfaction of debts arising from or in connection with this contract." Lenders who agree to this clause are participating in a free market.
Practically speaking, corporate debts are often - very, very often - guaranteed by some or all of the shareholders. Those instances represent the free market working in a different way.
quote:The problem is that a corporation, as an entity, can borrow money that the shareholders are not liable for. In a true free market corporation, one or more of the shareholders would have to borrow money.
In a free market, lenders would be able to decide whether they want to limit liability to the corporation or to require personal guarantees from shareholders. Since this is what happens in the corporate credit market, the corporate credit market is, in this respect, a free market.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Currently writers get residuals of (approximately) 4 cents per DVD sold, and nothing for online sales or online streaming. They get residuals for syndication and reruns, but networks are increasingly avoiding this by streaming entire episodes on network websites and instead. They are also selling episodes on iTunes and Joost and the upcoming Hula.com, claiming that these do not fall under the residual deal because they are "promotional," even though there is advertising and money changes hands.
Essentially the studios have found a new way to increase their profits on a product by redefining their obligations so that they don't have to pay what they rightfully should.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Are they asking for a percentage or a fixed fee per rerun? Wheedon said something to the effect "they don't have to pay us unless they make money." When shows are streamed for free, would the networks have to pay?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Are the actors getting cut out the same way? I would think they would be unhappy by this.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think so - the directors as well. Their contracts expire in the spring, and they'll go on strike if it isn't resolved.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
So right now the producers are enjoying a free-for-all. I don't blame the writers, actors, and directors for being upset.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: They get residuals for syndication and reruns, but networks are increasingly avoiding this by streaming entire episodes on network websites and instead.
I think this is a point that a lot of people aren't thinking about with regards to the strike. Since reruns are not played as often, writers are losing income compared to what they used to make. I watch a lot of my tv online for free (legally). Lots of ads and probably more effective then the ads when I watch tv normally. The networks are clearly getting ad money for these and so they should pay the writers. Anti-strike people keep claiming that the online is a new and extra source of income. It is a new source, but it is replacing an old, not supplementing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The problem with the argument about the internet being all new and unknowable is that they already tried that once with home movies, and robbed the writers out of millions that they should have had, and now they're trying it all over, hoping the writers will fall for it again. They aren't stupid or greedy, they just want their fair share. It's a BS argument, at the very least they could come to some sort of temporary term, or a term that connects profit for the writers to whatever profits the studios get. But it's crap if the studios expect the writers to wait another decade before making a decision.
Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
And if you thought the news about Lost's shortened season was bad, try this:
quote: Question: What does the strike mean for Lost? Any idea how many episodes they finished pre-strike? Is it still scheduled to air some time in February? — Mike
Ausiello: Why do I suddenly feel as if I'm talking to myself, Mike? Why do I also suddenly feel like I'm not going to like what I have to say? At least I know the answer to that second part — it's because I don't like what I have to say. If the strike extends into the new year and beyond, there is a chance ABC may opt to delay the new season until the fall. Or worse yet, February 2009 .
quote:I wouldn't mind a soft reboot of Hollywood. I think this could be a good thing all around.
I've read some commentaries that suggest that this is exactly what the studios want. The fall TV season hasn't gone well. This is a way to kill off shows and get out of development deals
What I have yet to read about is how this all works with TV advertising. I know that one of the biggest scams in entertainment media are the upfronts. Can those who bought time in the upfronts renegotiate terms if what's aired is different? Or are they locked in to the slots?
I don't think I'd be too happy if I had been promised the Office/30 Rock demographic and instead got some reality show.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Legally, if a product causes people to die then the corporation, not the individuals who created the product, is held responsible. The individuals can be charged if they committed a crime while designing the product however they generally cannot be charged with the deaths (exceptions including cases where an employee intentionally poisons a product or something of the sort).
That's just not true. Often no one bothers to go after the ones who made the product, but the torts of individuals are still actionable against those individuals.
That's not what I meant. Can the CEO of a corporation be charged with criminal negligence if , say, a toy product causes the death of some children? Babysitters can be put in jail if the kid they're watching accidently kills himself, but corporations only get fined when small magnets from their products kill kids.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I don't watch much tv (just online, actually)--but I have no memory of anything like this in my lifetime. It seems so surreal that something as steady and reliable as "my tv shows" could disappear like this.
Question: Should I wait to buy DVDs of old shows (to hold me over) until the writers get their residual pay raise? THAT would certainly be showing my support.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I doubt anyone would notice unless there was a national movement to try and decrease DVD sales in protest.
But with the holiday season coming up, I don't think it'd succeed.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Maybe no one would notice, but I think it's an honorable idea Launchy. I've held back on buying CDs before when I knew a particular record label was screwing over its smaller artists on sales.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Can the CEO of a corporation be charged with criminal negligence if , say, a toy product causes the death of some children?
If he knew or should have known of the danger, to the standard of criminal negligence, and that danger caused the death of the children, then yes, he could be convicted.
quote:Babysitters can be put in jail if the kid they're watching accidently kills himself, but corporations only get fined when small magnets from their products kill kids.
Which means they haven't proved negligence on the part of the CEO.
Here are some examples:
One from New York, in which negligent homicide charges were dismissed but reckless endangerment charges were affirmed against two managers and a corporation based on their use of unsafe equipment. Although the homicide charges were dismissed, the case is ample evidence that managers with personal involvement in a crime can be successfully charged.
quote:Experts also said prosecutors are often leery of charging individual officials with crimes that could put them in jail because such cases are extremely difficult to prove.
Villanova's Chanenson said it's often difficult to prove executives were individually responsible for a crime committed on their watch. If the evidence against individual officials is not strong enough to prosecute them, their collective actions can amount to a crime by the company, he said.
The key is that corporations do nothing to shield someone from personal liability that they have personally incurred.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The key is that corporations do nothing to shield someone from personal liability that they have personally incurred.
Tautologically speaking, you're right. Because that's how "personal liability that they haver personally incurred" is defined.
If I have a partnership with someone (not incorporated) and someone in the partnership ships a product that winds up hurting someone, everyone in the partnership, including me, bears some liability. Because we had the responsibility to see to it that our assets were not used in such a way as to harm anyone.
My problem with corporations is that they redefine the whole concept of liability so that you can acquire a kind of safe part ownership. That means that I can buy stock in Exxon and bear absolutely no responsibility if they spill oil all over the place. I can buy stock in R.J. Reynolds (sorry... Altria) and thereby contribute to the death by lung cancer of millions, but I'm not at all responsible for it, because we've redefined my part ownership to be free of any responsibility whatsoever.
That lawsuit against Big Tobacco should have been leveled against every single person who holds stock in those companies. But corporation law frees stockholders from their responsibilities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tautologically speaking, you're right. Because that's how "personal liability that they haver personally incurred" is defined.
No, it's not. That's what I've been saying. If you do act X, whether you face liability for act X has nothing to do with whether you performed that act on behalf of a corporation or not.
If you are thinking that statement is tautological, you're not understanding what I'm saying.
quote:If I have a partnership with someone (not incorporated) and someone in the partnership ships a product that winds up hurting someone, everyone in the partnership, including me, bears some liability. Because we had the responsibility to see to it that our assets were not used in such a way as to harm anyone.
Which is as arbitrary a rule as the rule of liability concerning corporations. It's not like it's a "natural" rule. The rule of partnership liability was created just as the rule of corporate liability was created.
Moreover, partnerships don't have rules concerning sufficient capitalization - partnership liability is necessary because of that lack. Piercing a corporate veil is possible in many situations.
quote:My problem with corporations is that they redefine the whole concept of liability so that you can acquire a kind of safe part ownership. That means that I can buy stock in Exxon and bear absolutely no responsibility if they spill oil all over the place. I can buy stock in R.J. Reynolds (sorry... Altria) and thereby contribute to the death by lung cancer of millions, but I'm not at all responsible for it, because we've redefined my part ownership to be free of any responsibility whatsoever.
Not true. You are free of responsibility beyond your original investment - a very different statement from the way you said it.
Moreover, you as an Exxon shareholder have no control over what Exxon actually does. Someone who does have control might be liable - and that will be decided without regard to the form of business organization.
quote:That lawsuit against Big Tobacco should have been leveled against every single person who holds stock in those companies. But corporation law frees stockholders from their responsibilities.
The lawsuit against big tobacco was fully paid off. Exxon has plenty of assets to pay for the Valdeez oil spill without looking to the shareholders.
Shareholder liability would have done absolutely nothing to change that in either case.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Answer to my questions about upfronts, advertisers and fall out from the strike:
Interesting link, Zalmoxis! I'm still digesting my thoughts on that one, but wanted to say thank you for sharing it.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
My pleasure.
At first I took the cynical view that the producers didn't mind the strike so much as it would allow them to kill some deals that they no longer wanted.
But I think this has the real potential to hurt TV because of a combination of advertising dollars being spent elsewhere and audience erosion. If advertisers shift their ad dollars elsewhere and discover that they get better returns (quite likely), that money won't pour back into television once the strike is over. And if the audience for TV erodes (and I think that's a real possibility -- this isn't like the baseball strike where there really aren't other substitutes) that will cause further reallocation of ad dollars.
Whatever happens, the TV networks (and to a lesser extent the movie studios) need to figure out digital distribution. I think they still have a chance to not suffer the same fate as the record labels. But I don't know how long that window is going to remain open.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And even with a lack of substitutes, baseball still suffered for years after the strike. Hockey is still suffering from the 2002 collective bargaining lockout. I don't know how things were in 88, but I suspect a lot of people will write off television, but a lot will fall right back into line with it.
The question is what will rise up to replace it (probably via the internet) in the meantime? We'll find out in January when there's nothing really left on TV to watch.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Good points, Lyrhawn.
My household will:
Read, up our Netflix usage and perhaps watch free, online streaming video. I'm not inclined to either BitTorrent or pay for online content.
I would consider watching network-quality sitcoms online even if there were commercial breaks (or at the beginning or end). But I don't think I'd have the tolerance for anything longer than 20-30 minutes.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
There's a new episode of Mad TV on right now. Do they have non-union writers, or are all their sketches ripped from last month's headlines?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Currently writers get residuals of (approximately) 4 cents per DVD sold, and nothing for online sales or online streaming. They get residuals for syndication and reruns, but networks are increasingly avoiding this by streaming entire episodes on network websites and instead. They are also selling episodes on iTunes and Joost and the upcoming Hula.com, claiming that these do not fall under the residual deal because they are "promotional," even though there is advertising and money changes hands.
Essentially the studios have found a new way to increase their profits on a product by redefining their obligations so that they don't have to pay what they rightfully should.
While this is (AFAIK) true, if the writers get what they are demanding, among other things it would mean that they get more per DVD than the members of the other four unions combined. Which makes it almost impossible for the studios to agree to the current demands. I'm hoping for a compromise, but not holding my breath.
The good news (well, for some of us -- not so much for the striking writers) is that the out-of-control real estate prices will almost certainly drop. They did in 1988, and there are already signs that they will again. Black cloud, silver lining, etc.
*sigh* I remember the strike in 1988, and how even when there were writers willing to cross the lines, the shows stunk for the rest of the season. I'm guessing that will happen again . . . And meanwhile, the pickets keep ending up at locations right near where I have to go, just on the specific day I have to be there. Guess I'm just lucky. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even if all five groups got 8 cents, that's 40 cents a DVD. I can't say I still think that's a whole heck of a lot, unless that's per person. I mean, if there 20 writers for a show, would they EACH get 8 cents, or would there be 8 cents per DVD to split between them?
40 cents a DVD isn't too much for the writers, directors, actors...what are the other two, producers and...stunt people? Doesn't it barely cost that much to even make the physical DVD itself? Who is getting the other $20 that comes from selling it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Currently writers get residuals of (approximately) 4 cents per DVD sold, and nothing for online sales or online streaming.
AFAIK, its actually a bit worse than that. That 4 cents per DVD sold is a maximum and is affected by the same funny profit accounting that saw LOTR and Spiderman not turn a profit.
quote: That's the great irony of the situation. The criteria told to us right up front while we were producing B5 was that each of the series on PTEN had to show a profit *in that year* in order to stay on the air and be renewed. So we'd have these meetings with studio heads who were congratulating us on how much money the show was making for them (again, while we were still making for it), and then look at me, realize what they'd said, and hurriedly add, "Though technically we're still in the red."
The show, all in, cost about $110 million to make. Each year of its original run, we know it showed a profit because they TOLD us so. And in one case, they actually showed us the figures. It's now been on the air worldwide for ten years. There's been merchandise, syndication, cable, books, you name it. The DVDs grossed roughly half a BILLION dollars (and that was just after they put out S5, without all of the S5 sales in).
So what does my last profit statement say? We're $80 million in the red.
Basically, by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits.
But then again, I knew that was the situation going in...I saw the writing on the wall (and the contract) from the git-go. I didn't do this to build an empire, I wanted to tell this story...and that's worth more than anything else.
Doesn't mean I can't tweak 'em about it, though.
jms
Based on the combination of that and posts like:
quote: >I wonder: is there money for writers in DVD releases like this, some >kind of residual? Is there a residual for any of the original >production people, the actors, directors, producers?
Writers, actors and directors get residuals on DVDs based on the VHS residuals formula which was put into place a number of years ago before the videotape boom and the Writers Guild didn't think there was any money in it. Consequently, the studios got a deal wherein basically the writers get something on the order of a penny a copy (or nothing, since it's based on net profits).
The guild, gotta love 'em....
jms
I get the feeling that 4 cents per DVD is the absolute high end and by implication if JMS is seeing something less than a penny per copy since Babylon 5 is still in the red by their accounting, then the majority of writers on other shows must be in an equal or probably even worse position.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Even if all five groups got 8 cents, that's 40 cents a DVD.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)