Hollywood Calls for Cut of Video iPod Pie

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 15, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #2
    Effn' greedy bastards. When is an employment check enough? Creative works my ass, the studio owns it.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    maya

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    somewhere between here and there.
    #3
    Smells like greed to me. So what else is new? :rolleyes:
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    With their insatiable appetite for pie, it is amazing that more people in that industry are not suffering from morbid obesity.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    #5
    Actually, I can see their point

    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.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    #6
    Looks to be settled

    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.
     
  7. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #7
    greed, no one is immune
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    SummerBreeze

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    AoWolf

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Daytona Beach
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    paulypants

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #12
    F them, they make enough friggin money. I'm supposed to sympathize with them? Sorry, no....
     
  13. macrumors 603

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Photorun

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    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.

     
  16. macrumors 68020

    winmacguy

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    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
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    arkmannj

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Location:
    UT
    #19
    Hurting them selves in the long run

    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.
     
  20. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Location:
    Rehoboth Beach, De
    #21
    Misleading Title

    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.
     
  22. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    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
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    arkmannj

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2003
    Location:
    UT
    #24

    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.
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page