PDA

View Full Version : Hollywood Calls for Cut of Video iPod Pie


MacBytes
Oct 15, 2005, 12:43 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Hollywood Calls for Cut of Video iPod Pie (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051015134341)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by arn

Lacero
Oct 15, 2005, 12:44 PM
Effn' greedy bastards. When is an employment check enough? Creative works my ass, the studio owns it.

maya
Oct 15, 2005, 12:48 PM
Smells like greed to me. So what else is new? :rolleyes:

Deepdale
Oct 15, 2005, 12:57 PM
With their insatiable appetite for pie, it is amazing that more people in that industry are not suffering from morbid obesity.

JohnHummel
Oct 15, 2005, 01:00 PM
Right now, under contract, actors and other workers are paid residuals for their work - every time a movie/tv show/commercial/ they are in airs or a DVD sells, they get a cut of that. So why not for a digitally purchased download?

Though, this is something they need to take up with the studios. I have the feeling that the percentages are the same - studios get 70% of the sale, Apple the rest, so the actors/workers will just have to settle for that cut, and bug the accountants for their $0.diddlysquat.

otter-boy
Oct 15, 2005, 01:17 PM
It looks like the content on iTMS is already covered under their contracts, they just have to consider where it will be placed: pay-per-view?,DVD-like distribution?, or Internet streaming/downloads?

They have different rates for different types of distribution. It looks like the real issue is not whether these groups will get paid, but how much they will get paid.

PlaceofDis
Oct 15, 2005, 01:24 PM
greed, no one is immune

SummerBreeze
Oct 15, 2005, 01:33 PM
I love how Yahoo makes sure to tell us all that this is an "expolitation" of the poor, pennyless actors. The tone of this piece is one of Apple stealing money from all the networks, although the real problem is that actors don't know what they're talking about.

Why don't they just wait until their respective networks make a deal with Apple? Then they'll know where they stand.

Yvan256
Oct 15, 2005, 01:35 PM
The title is misleading... They don't want a "cut of iPod sales", they simply want their share of the TV shows sold through iTMS.

As many others said, it's up to the studios and their contracts, not Apple.

dornoforpyros
Oct 15, 2005, 01:42 PM
To all the people saying "greedy bastards" did you actually take the time to read the article? Their not looking to milk apple for iPod cuts (like the music industry) but mearly for the TV shows being downloaded.
It actually seems pretty fair to me that a new medium is released and they want to know what the details are.

AoWolf
Oct 15, 2005, 01:44 PM
To all the people saying "greedy bastards" did you actually take the time to read the article? Their not looking to milk apple for iPod cuts (like the music industry) but mearly for the TV shows being downloaded.
It actually seems pretty fair to me that a new medium is released and they want to know what the details are.

Thats not the point the point is the studio owns the program they have the right to sell it how they want. As long as they are not breaching the contracts already signed then they are being greedy.

paulypants
Oct 15, 2005, 01:50 PM
F them, they make enough friggin money. I'm supposed to sympathize with them? Sorry, no....

Stella
Oct 15, 2005, 01:54 PM
Thats not the point the point is the studio owns the program they have the right to sell it how they want. As long as they are not breaching the contracts already signed then they are being greedy.

And the writers should get royalties from the profits, as currently happens with traditional broadcasting - i.e., royalties each time a show is screened. Why should there be a difference for download-able content? Studios need to adapt to the times instead of living in the past.

In case anyone hasn't read the article, a quote relating to payments to actors and writers:

"The groups already have agreements that cover the re-use of their work on the Internet or in "pay per view" models, such as video on demand. The unions also have newer agreements covering work produced for the Internet.

Under the WGA contract, writers are entitled to 1.6 percent of the license fee paid by networks to the producers of a show. The ABC hits "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives," are produced by Touchstone Studios, Disney's TV production arm.

Actors are entitled to 3.6 percent of the license fee."

At the end of the day, this is parallel to recording artists with RIAA not paying enough royalties.

Photorun
Oct 15, 2005, 01:56 PM
So wait, if I use my VCR to record a show FOR FREE, Hollywood doesn't want a cut of the price of my tape or the recorder I use, but if I PAY for a track on iTMS they want to get a cut of that? Seems like at every turn while Apple tries to reinvent the audio and video industry the audio and video industry wants to thrwart progress... keep things in their same sh***t state.

Stella
Oct 15, 2005, 02:00 PM
Do you watch pay for view? If so, the artists and writers make money from the revenue from PP ( see above post ).

When you buy a track from iTMS, you are paying for the content. There is no difference between buying from iTMS and going into a shop and buying a DVD. Its just a different media type and at the end of the day you are paying for the content. Different media shouldn't mean different rules for compensating the artists and writers.

Finally, its not up to Apple set to royalty payments its up to the Studios.

So wait, if I use my VCR to record a show FOR FREE, Hollywood doesn't want a cut of the price of my tape or the recorder I use, but if I PAY for a track on iTMS they want to get a cut of that? Seems like at every turn while Apple tries to reinvent the audio and video industry the audio and video industry wants to thrwart progress... keep things in their same sh***t state.

winmacguy
Oct 15, 2005, 02:16 PM
And the writers should get royalties from the profits, as currently happens with traditional broadcasting - i.e., royalties each time a show is screened. Why should there be a difference for download-able content? Studios need to adapt to the times instead of living in the past.

In case anyone hasn't read the article, a quote relating to payments to actors and writers:


At the end of the day, this is parallel to recording artists with RIAA not paying enough royalties.
Agreed. I dont think the artists and actors are greedy. Some famous actors get paid very well for their work but they are not the only actors plying their trade.

Macmaniac
Oct 15, 2005, 03:01 PM
Working in TV does not gaurentee you a lot of money some actors make a lot of money but your average joe is lucky to be making 35k a year. I know I guy taking an anchor position for a regional basketball team. He is making $9-$10 an hour. Imagine how much a lowly cameraman makes.

LethalWolfe
Oct 15, 2005, 03:10 PM
Agreed. I dont think the artists and actors are greedy. Some famous actors get paid very well for their work but they are not the only actors plying their trade.

There are about 100,000 actors in SAG. Of that about 1% make a living wage from acting. And for every actor in SAG there are probably to trying to get in.


Lethal

arkmannj
Oct 15, 2005, 03:52 PM
Doesn't the (American) Entertainment industry understand that this mentality that we should be paid not just for our work, but the work of others crap s going to hurt them more in the long run.

Seriously, the greed of MPAA's RIAA's and many others in the Entertainment industries are loosing my interest in a increasing rate day by day. give me a week and I'll only be watching productions from those that deserve my hard earned money. Independent films, foreign (India etc).

I am the only one feeling this way ?

I go to work each day thankful that I have a job, that I am able to put food on the table, and pay my rent. Can't they be happy that they already have millions! they make more from one movie / album than most make in a lifetime (even in America). This insatiable desire for more, more more, I feel will be their downfall in the end.

thanks for tuning to to this test of the ranting session, now back to your regularly scheduled program.

nagromme
Oct 15, 2005, 04:11 PM
Seems like it should work the same as any other re-broadcast. It the deal is that the actor gets paid once and that's it, then that's fine. But if the deal is that they get residuals--(which can mean they accept less money up front, speculating on future popularity of their contribution)--then I don't think it's greedy to ask for that to apply to this new medium just like any other. That IS the union's job to negotiate, and this IS a new medium. Of course the issue has come up.

Anyway, it's asking for a cut from the producers, not from Apple.

macnulty
Oct 15, 2005, 05:00 PM
It was more like the unions wanting to protect or ensure their members get their percentage of royality, perfectly legitamate. I don't what the studios have to do with it, or even who was asking for a percentage of iPod revenue.

LethalWolfe
Oct 15, 2005, 05:27 PM
Doesn't the (American) Entertainment industry understand that this mentality that we should be paid not just for our work, but the work of others crap s going to hurt them more in the long run.

Seriously, the greed of MPAA's RIAA's and many others in the Entertainment industries are loosing my interest in a increasing rate day by day. give me a week and I'll only be watching productions from those that deserve my hard earned money. Independent films, foreign (India etc).

I am the only one feeling this way ?

I go to work each day thankful that I have a job, that I am able to put food on the table, and pay my rent. Can't they be happy that they already have millions! they make more from one movie / album than most make in a lifetime (even in America). This insatiable desire for more, more more, I feel will be their downfall in the end.

thanks for tuning to to this test of the ranting session, now back to your regularly scheduled program.

I think you, and others in this thread, either aren't reading the article or are misunderstanding the article (it doesn't help that the title is misleading).

The studios aren't calling for money. It's the unions (actors, directors, writers, etc.,) that are speaking up to make sure they get the percentage they deserve from the studios/networks. And did you read my post above yours? The vast majority of actors probably work 2-3 jobs (including acting gigs) just to make ends meet. Just because a very, very, very small percentage of high profile actors make millions doesn't mean that ALL actors make millions. It's like saying everyone in the computer field must be superrich because Gates, Dell, and Jobs are superrich.

People always complain that the artists get ripped off by the labels/studios and now here were are w/the artists making sure the labels/studios don't rip them off and people are calling the artists greedy. Does that make any sense?


Lethal

ethernet76
Oct 15, 2005, 06:00 PM
So wait, if I use my VCR to record a show FOR FREE, Hollywood doesn't want a cut of the price of my tape or the recorder I use, but if I PAY for a track on iTMS they want to get a cut of that? Seems like at every turn while Apple tries to reinvent the audio and video industry the audio and video industry wants to thrwart progress... keep things in their same sh***t state.

There's a large difference between person recordings and commercial sales.

Again, I don't think it's fair to demonize these people. Apple is in no respect dissimilar from Target, Best Buy, or Wal-mart. They offer a product in a (virtual) store.

Members of these guilds already receive a percentage of DVD sales. Accordingly they should be afforded the same standards as traditional media sales.

Lastly, Apple hasn't innovated anything in the terms of downloadable content. Buying music online isn't an innovation. It was the next step. Apple was just the first company willing to take the risk.

Apple hasn't innovated much since the Newton, Quicktake days. The only real innovation they've had is the fashion over function mindset.

arkmannj
Oct 15, 2005, 06:57 PM
I think you, and others in this thread, either aren't reading the article or are misunderstanding the article (it doesn't help that the title is misleading).

The studios aren't calling for money. It's the unions (actors, directors, writers, etc.,) that are speaking up to make sure they get the percentage they deserve from the studios/networks. And did you read my post above yours? The vast majority of actors probably work 2-3 jobs (including acting gigs) just to make ends meet. Just because a very, very, very small percentage of high profile actors make millions doesn't mean that ALL actors make millions. It's like saying everyone in the computer field must be superrich because Gates, Dell, and Jobs are superrich.

People always complain that the artists get ripped off by the labels/studios and now here were are w/the artists making sure the labels/studios don't rip them off and people are calling the artists greedy. Does that make any sense?


Lethal


Ok being who I am I am willing to concede when I'm wrong. and when others are right.
1) You are right, I had not read the article at the time of my initial post
Also, no I had not read your post, only the first page of comments.
I apologize for my misinformed comment, however my sentiments remain the same.

2) I suppose my initial reaction should have been rephrased, my emotion is mostly towards the imbalance of how the industry is being run, in many ragards as well as how money is distributed. Not, I repeat not at the individual artists, making it day by day doing what they love as a profession. As long a fair deal can be worked out for the Artists in the "new medium" of download songs, and they don't screw anyone else in the process, then I'm happy.

johannes
Oct 16, 2005, 05:31 AM
Doesn't the (American) Entertainment industry understand that this mentality that we should be paid not just for our work, but the work of others crap s going to hurt them more in the long run.

Seriously, the greed of MPAA's RIAA's and many others in the Entertainment industries are loosing my interest in a increasing rate day by day. give me a week and I'll only be watching productions from those that deserve my hard earned money. Independent films, foreign (India etc).

I am the only one feeling this way ?

I go to work each day thankful that I have a job, that I am able to put food on the table, and pay my rent. Can't they be happy that they already have millions! they make more from one movie / album than most make in a lifetime (even in America). This insatiable desire for more, more more, I feel will be their downfall in the end.

thanks for tuning to to this test of the ranting session, now back to your regularly scheduled program.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you had your way, the studio execs/producers would make all of the money and creative artists would basically get the shaft.

I think the title of this article is misleading.

jpgodlew
Oct 16, 2005, 08:46 AM
This is like saying all computer makers should pay a % of their sales to the software industry because a few of all total computer users choose to use pirated software. Now think about this; if Apple had to raise the price on iPods in order to pay the Entertainment Industry, we would all feel the impact regardless if we downloaded music and movies legally or not, which just isn't right.

arkmannj
Oct 16, 2005, 02:33 PM
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you had your way, the studio execs/producers would make all of the money and creative artists would basically get the shaft.

I think the title of this article is misleading.

I think you missed my second post where I apologized for having commented without having read the article or even all of the posts.
So again, yes you (like LethalWolfe) are right, at the time of the post I didn't know what all I should have before posting, and posted mostly on an emotional state. Again, I apologize..I'm sorry..Forgive me...

I admit I fell victim to the misleading title, and I did not do my do diligence of looking at the actual article before posting. I won't do it again. so yes I was an idiot in that post.

Also, as I admitted in my second post, I should have phrased my first post differently. It obviously did NOT come out how I intended. (maybe I shouldn't post when I'm on pain-killers, but what else do I have to do...) My frustration is at a seeming imbalance in the entertainment industry in MANY regards. If the union(s) can work out a fair deal for the Artists in the "new medium" of download songs/movies, and they don't screw anyone else (i.e. consumers, Apple, etc...) in the process, then I'm happy.

I DO think the artists should get a fare cut of THEIR creative works (i.e. royalties of their songs/movies/shows etc.) but that (IMHO) should be between the Artists (and their Union ) to work out with the studios they have contracts with, not Apple (unless Apple starts being more than the distributor).

I hope that clarifies things a bit. and that it did come out how I intended.
(maybe I'll read it again, when I'm not on med's and go "what the He## was I thinking" ;) )
best wishes,
~Arkmannj

LethalWolfe
Oct 16, 2005, 03:18 PM
This is like saying all computer makers should pay a % of their sales to the software industry because a few of all total computer users choose to use pirated software. Now think about this; if Apple had to raise the price on iPods in order to pay the Entertainment Industry, we would all feel the impact regardless if we downloaded music and movies legally or not, which just isn't right.

Read the article and the thread before you post, please.


Lethal

SiliconAddict
Oct 17, 2005, 08:42 AM
I think the title of this article is misleading.


You aren't kidding. It should be

Hollywood Calls for Cut of iTMS Pie

Sun Baked
Oct 17, 2005, 08:53 AM
You aren't kidding. It should be

Hollywood Calls for Cut of iTMS PieHow about video download pie, since they're not after the profits from iTMS or the sale of iPods -- but their fair share of the $1.99 download.

Course it'll probably be chopping up a quarter into tiny bits.

LethalWolfe
Oct 17, 2005, 12:43 PM
You aren't kidding. It should be

Hollywood Calls for Cut of iTMS Pie

More like

Entertainment industry Guilds want to make sure Studios don't screw them out of their contractually obligated cut of iTMS Video pie

SiliconAddict
Oct 17, 2005, 02:23 PM
More like

Entertainment industry Guilds want to make sure Studios don't screw them out of their contractually obligated cut of iTMS Video pie


A little long don't you think? :p

Jay42
Oct 17, 2005, 02:37 PM
Haha, thats ridiculous. Nice try.

EDIT: Thats intended at those looking for a cut of the profits Apple earned

LethalWolfe
Oct 17, 2005, 08:53 PM
A little long don't you think? :p

Just make it 6pt font. It'll fit. :D



Jay42,
Please read the article and the thread before you post. I don't see anything ridiculous about cast & crew members making sure they get the royalties they are supposed to get from the studios for iTMS video sales.


Lethal