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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think so - the directors as well. Their contracts expire in the spring, and they'll go on strike if it isn't resolved.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So right now the producers are enjoying a free-for-all. I don't blame the writers, actors, and directors for being upset.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
