From what I understand they are not getting paid since the paradigm changed: "the way it's changed is most of these streaming services focus on a metric called ARPU, which is the average revenue per user", "the main difference is it used to be that the incentives were linked. So the writers and the studios were trying to get people to watch the show and get high ratings and get people to pay attention to the show. Today, the streamer is trying to get people to subscribe to their service, so they're looking more at the aggregate of the service versus the individual show." [1]
I'm not sure quite why you're continuing to post articles explaining why writers get paid less as streaming services' revenue is less linked to the ratings of new shows as an argument in favour of marking down the value of the intellectual property they create to zero...
My original point still stands. Ask the writers. They're not getting paid nothing yet, and they won't approve of your passionate advocacy of a future in which they are paid nothing.
I'm not quite sure why you are not understanding that with the streaming model of business the writers, and even the actors, no longer get residuals, here is another article [1]: yes, they get paid nothing.
I am advocating for the abolishment of copyright laws, not for not being rewarded for one's work.
[1] Euphoria actress Sydney Sweeney revealed in a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter that "They don’t pay actors like they used to, and with streamers, you no longer get residuals.", https://nofilmschool.com/streaming-services-residuals
I'm not sure why you are not understanding that not getting residuals is not the same as not getting a salary or a per writing contribution payment. Or that production companies are not paying these salaries (and the rest of the production budget) out of the kindness of their hearts, but out of revenues accrued from networks and streaming services having to pay to screen their shows.
Or that writers will not be paid anything (and certainly not by streaming services) in a copyright-free world in which anybody is allowed to use any creative work in any way free of charge. The abolition of copyright laws is literally the abolition of virtually[1] all existing rewards for creating IP.
This is not complicated stuff: if it's genuinely news to you that writers aren't working for free, perhaps you are not the person to lecture us on how copyright should work.
[1]I guess writers could still ask for donations. They could do this already, but they prefer negotiating with networks for higher pay packages...
If it's genuinely news to you that exploitation is a normal day-to-day part of any industry, perhaps these pointless replies should end here.
Yes, writers have been working for free [1].
[1] "In October 2015, Wil Wheaton created a stir when he declared that he had turned down an offer to write for the Huffington Post. He refused, according to him, because they had declined to pay for his work, in keeping with their policy of reimbursing writers with "exposure" in lieu of payment." https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11106006/writing-for-free Guess what writers who aren't famous have to do? Work for free, for "exposure".
Strangely, it is not news to me that exploitation is a normal day-to-day part of any industry .
(This is why I have not made any statements to that effect, never mind done anything as ludicrous as post articles about unionised screenwriters seeking to negotiate a higher pay rate as evidence that "most" of them earned "nothing")
And this is also why I am not advocating a copyright-free world in which HuffPo has the right to sell ads around everything Wil Wheaton ever wrote without paying him a penny or even seeking his permission. Guess what writers whose work isn't copyrightable will be paid in? That's right, "exposure", and not even exposure with much prospect of paid compensation if their work takes off.
Hope at least you are getting paid and you don't deploy such ridiculous amounts of bad faith for free.
My reply from above "Most of them already don't get paid, hence the strike" was specifically in the context of the streaming platforms not paying residuals in the same manner the studios do, hence the reference to the article.
What I find most funny is that you don't even know or care about alternative solutions, you just assume the copyright laws is for the best in the best of all possible worlds [1] and anything else would be chaos.
What I find most funny is that you're implying there are alternative solutions that you do know and care about.
And yet instead of addressing my actual objection - that screenwriters seeking to get paid more for co-creating IP would be unlikely to see abolition of IP protection as a solution - by articulating those alternatives and how it would allow them to get paid more, you chose to assert they don't get paid.[1]
I mean, I'm not the one advocating the radical change here, even though actually I don't "assume that the copyright laws is for the best in the best of all possible worlds". So it's not really incumbent on me to answer my own objections by imagining screenwriter-satisfying solutions involving the abolition of copyright. If you actually had one and were able to advocate it with as much zeal as you have defended the claim "most of them already don't get paid" this might be a more interesting discussion.
[1]doesn't really matter if you were doing so "specifically in the context of streaming platform residuals" since whether or not they get residuals from a particular media type is irrelevant to the fact screenwriters are not in favour of proposals which would entail them losing both the residuals they do get and their job
Ok, I'll bite, we are already at the 6th reply, who cares anymore.
The alternative solution is, shortly put, to quote Geoffrey Hinton: socialism [1]. Longly put: fully automated luxury communism [2].
Once the first two tiers of Maslow's pyramid (physiological and safety needs) are covered by automated systems people will be truly free; some will express themselves in writing, and expecting copyright protection over their work will seem as ridiculous as if one of us today would start charging money from people for using the word "the" [3]. We are currently tasked to give rise to the automated systems.
Sorry, to Gordian problems [4] I have only Gordian solutions.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173612099/why-writers-are-ha...