HP & DH Movie

[sistermagpie]

> Magpie:
> 
> > 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 responds:
> 
> Because it relates to copyright law, the topic that started this
> discussion in the first place. It *is* the government's or the 
court's
> place to determine who owns the rights to a writer's work,

Magpie:
But that's not in question, is it? Isn't it that the writer is 
selling his/her writing as usual and the rights are agreed to via 
the contract? The contracts where I work say who will hold the 
copyright--it can be the writer or the pulbisher, depending on the 
contract. Then the contracts spell out what the author is going to 
get for use of something in certain formats--isn't that how it 
works? Why would the government pass a law that said the standard 
contract has to give the writer X amount off internet sales or X 
amount from the ad revenue from the internet? Wouldn't that be part 
of the deal? 

> Magpie: 
> > 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:
> 
> That's not the impression I got. Didn't someone on this list say 
that
> Steve Kloves can't write the DH script until the strike is 
settled? I
> know I read that somewhere. At any rate, you can't write and stand 
in
> a picket line at the same time. And wouldn't a union member who 
wrote
> while the strike was on be considered a strike breaker (committing
> "treachery," to use Kemper's word)?

Magpie:
I wasn't referring to that kind of writing, since that's contracted 
writing. I'm talking about Steve Kloves writing something own that 
he's going to sell. (He can certainly think about how he's going to 
work on Harry Potter if he wants.) I can't imagine any writer would 
be considered a union breaker for going home in the evenings and 
working on his novel after walking on the picket line during the 
day. Plenty of writing is done after the day is over. Relatively few 
writers are paid for the time they write or have the bulk of the 
work day to do it, I think.

It just seems like it comes down to: strikes are hard and 
inconvenient. They are, but that's why I don't think people went 
into it lightly. I heard one group of writers describing a way in 
which these kinds of loopholes seemed to have them working for 
nothing.

> Carol responds:
> 
> Whether or not it's marginal, I doubt that it will make up for the
> income they've lost in ten weeks (IIRC) of striking
> 
> Carol, who *is* concerned about the writers but is equally 
concerned
> about the effects for all concerned of a prolonged strike

Magpie:
And I think it pretty easily can since we're talking about 
establishing this into the future, period. 

It just seems like the effects a prolonged strike are understood by 
everyone going into it. It's supposed to be a wait-out with the 
workers agreeing to stick together so they can get what they want 
because they believe in what they're going for. If it was just 
understood that you stopped striking when you realized you'd lose 
income by not working, there would be little point to the strike. 
They're willing to make the sacrifice because the rewards are 
important. I admire people for making that commitment--I don't think 
they did it lightly. 

-m