HP & DH Movie

[sistermagpie]

> Carol responds:
> 
> The trouble with strikes, IMO, is that they hurt the very people 
who
> are asking for "peanuts," depriving them and their families of 
needed
> income, customers of needed services (in the case of teacher's
> strikes, depriving students of an education if the strike is
> extended), and, in the case of the writers' strike, extending to
> people in related industries. All for the sake of a complicated,
> Internet-related problem that, IMO, ought to be resolved without a
> strike. The writers are not helping themselves or anyone else by
> striking because they can't earn an income when they're on the 
picket
> line, and they can't even write at home, as I understand it, 
without
> violating their union contract.

Magpie:
But the solution to that is that they shouldn't strike, so should 
just cave in to the people who are witholding the money for 
themselves anyway, and that hurts everyone in the long run as well.  
The *are* helping themselves and others with the strike. They're 
striking for payment from the things they create.

How is the Internet (and other) problem going to be resolved without 
a strike? The owners have their own solution--pretend they're not 
making any money off these peoples' work on the Internet when they 
are and write contracts where they keep the profits for themselves. 
Why is that a good idea? 

Carol: 
> Surely, a writer's rights include the right to write. That's what 
they
> do. That's how they earn their living. And, regardless of the 
validity
> of their claim to the use of their work in new, technologically
> related ways, that sort of complication seems to me to be a problem
> for lawmakers, not producers, to resolve.

Magpie:
But obviously it isn't a problem for lawmakers--I'm not sure why it 
would be. They're working out the profits for sale of their work. 
Why would there be laws about that rather than the writer (or 
director or actor etc.) working out what they are going to be paid 
for the stuff they create and how it's used in their contract? What 
would a law really have to do with it?

Carol: 
> As for the idea expressed by Kemper that failing to honor the 
strike
> is "treachery," I think that word is more than a bit strong,
> especially if they have no other means of earning a living. (Ever 
try
> to live on unemployment benefits? Are strikers even entitled to 
them?)
> If the strike keeps up, the phrase "starving writer" might be
> something more than a cliche.

Magpie:
It already is more than a cliche--most writers make very little 
money:-) It's probably one profession where people have gone without 
steady paychecks.

Actually, I wonder if there aren't a lot of people who might get 
some good writing done during the strike and just sell it later. 
Nothing's stopping them from that kind of writing that they might 
one day make a lot of money from.

 
> Carol, more concerned about the writers' right to eat and pay their
> bills and put their kids through college than about their rights to
> subsidies that would only marginally increase their income

Magpie:
I'm not so sure it's as marginal as you're describing it here. It 
just seems like a short-sighted way of looking at it--basically 
saying that they shouldn't ever decide to fight for what they 
consider fair pay for their work because it sounds bad for their 
finances now. The way you describe it always sounds like they're 
essentially starving themselves to death because they're too greedy 
to let other people take most of the profits made from stuff they've 
created. 

-m