Actors take to the internet to show their residual checks, some in the negative(npr.org)
npr.org
Actors take to the internet to show their residual checks, some in the negative
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190336979/actors-strike-residuals-sag-aftra-wga
108 comments
Maybe we could see it from the other direction, there shouldn't be perpetual income. You're paid to act, paid for writing, paid for making music. I don't know how it could work, but people want new movies and new music so some mechanism could pay for future work more directly than charging for each play of an existing bit of art
Copyright laws just need to be shrunk back significantly. Then nobody is gaining income from it. No residuals, no licenses.
On the other hand, you, the talent, receiving $x for your work while your producer receives ${$Inf}x for it feels lopsided too.
Generally the current system makes sense because capital is taking the risk and paying the labor up front to produce something that is also generally the idea of the group with the capital and the up front payment is determined by supply and demand dynamics in the labor market.
Specific to the case of copyright, the idea to reduce copyright term is correct because the natural competitive state of the world is for ideas to be copied by everybody and be pushed to their marginal cost of production quickly (that number is so close to zero for digital media that it should just be thought of as zero). Copyright is fixing the market failure of the fixed cost of media production being unaccounted for in the natural market outcome and that negative spread dissinsentiving new content production. So the correct term to set copyright for is one that insentivizes most media creation with the minimum intervention in the natural market outcome and one has to be insane to think anyone is making new content because of returns from holding a monopoly on its production for more than ten to fifteen years. All the rest of the term is just about unjustly enriching capital, at great cost to society from deadweight loss due to the cost of reproduction not going to zero, by limiting competition for new creations from old creations and capturing residual income from the fraction of one percent of the works that are still financially viable after 15 years.
Specific to the case of copyright, the idea to reduce copyright term is correct because the natural competitive state of the world is for ideas to be copied by everybody and be pushed to their marginal cost of production quickly (that number is so close to zero for digital media that it should just be thought of as zero). Copyright is fixing the market failure of the fixed cost of media production being unaccounted for in the natural market outcome and that negative spread dissinsentiving new content production. So the correct term to set copyright for is one that insentivizes most media creation with the minimum intervention in the natural market outcome and one has to be insane to think anyone is making new content because of returns from holding a monopoly on its production for more than ten to fifteen years. All the rest of the term is just about unjustly enriching capital, at great cost to society from deadweight loss due to the cost of reproduction not going to zero, by limiting competition for new creations from old creations and capturing residual income from the fraction of one percent of the works that are still financially viable after 15 years.
So are you okay with paying residuals for every npm package you download?
> Or rather, if you do the labor, you don't get to have it.
Should everyone who worked on a building get residuals for it?
If instead of selling your house, you decide to rent it out, would you be happy giving the builder part of your rent income?
Are you happy with all of your software being subscription based instead of pay once?
> but you have limited liability so you likely aren't losing everything
As a shareholder you are also shielded by limited liability. Do you have any of your money invested in stocks?
> Or rather, if you do the labor, you don't get to have it.
Should everyone who worked on a building get residuals for it?
If instead of selling your house, you decide to rent it out, would you be happy giving the builder part of your rent income?
Are you happy with all of your software being subscription based instead of pay once?
> but you have limited liability so you likely aren't losing everything
As a shareholder you are also shielded by limited liability. Do you have any of your money invested in stocks?
These are all interesting questions (personally if paid software would push things away from the npm/js ecosystem of a million tiny packages world in favor of fewer, more curated things, I think that's almost reason enough right there ;) ) but I think it's an incomplete list.
Should a contractor be able to retire off building one house?
Should an actor be able to retire off residuals from one movie?
Should a studio executive with an MBA be able to retire off of one year's salary despite contributing nothing to the films that people enjoyed?
Should a wealthy person be able to retire off their parents having a buttload of cash?
I would not be opposed to a world that incentivizes continual work for everyone but it would have to actually apply to everyone. And vice versa, if we want to give people outsized financial rewards and power for one-big-hit type things, why is it that we do it for middleman-shit like stock trading or big-corporate-management-pointy-heads vs, say, writers and actors? Or VCs instead of software developers? HN in aggregate seems to be more sympathetic to complaints of line-level software devs against non-technical managers than to complaints of actors or writers against non-creative managers ;).
Should a contractor be able to retire off building one house?
Should an actor be able to retire off residuals from one movie?
Should a studio executive with an MBA be able to retire off of one year's salary despite contributing nothing to the films that people enjoyed?
Should a wealthy person be able to retire off their parents having a buttload of cash?
I would not be opposed to a world that incentivizes continual work for everyone but it would have to actually apply to everyone. And vice versa, if we want to give people outsized financial rewards and power for one-big-hit type things, why is it that we do it for middleman-shit like stock trading or big-corporate-management-pointy-heads vs, say, writers and actors? Or VCs instead of software developers? HN in aggregate seems to be more sympathetic to complaints of line-level software devs against non-technical managers than to complaints of actors or writers against non-creative managers ;).
> I would not be opposed to a world that incentivizes continual work for everyone
Should my parents never have been able to retire? My mom retired at 53 after working on the school system for 30 years because her pension was invested in stocks. My dad retired at 55 based on stock in his company - he was factory worker. They are now 80 and 78 and have four checks deposited in their accounts every month - social security, a pension and an annuity.
> Or VCs instead of software developers
I hope to retire one day based on my investments as a software developer based on earnings I made as far back in 1996
Should my parents never have been able to retire? My mom retired at 53 after working on the school system for 30 years because her pension was invested in stocks. My dad retired at 55 based on stock in his company - he was factory worker. They are now 80 and 78 and have four checks deposited in their accounts every month - social security, a pension and an annuity.
> Or VCs instead of software developers
I hope to retire one day based on my investments as a software developer based on earnings I made as far back in 1996
The current system does incentivize continuous work and also, more importantly, continuous efficiency improvement it just suffers from monopoly that the government is failing to correct or in this case that the government created to deal with a different type of market failure and then allowed to be extended unjustly. The problem isn't the system, its the government failing to actively use its existing laws to break up monopolies and especially failing to limit its own regulation that creates monopolies
What “monopoly” is there in content distribution? On the content distribution side there is Netflix, Disney, Warner/Discovery, Comcast/Universal/NBC, AppleTV, Paramount/CBS and Amazon Prime
Copyright, by definition, is a monopoly. You are confusing licenced distributors with the copyright owner where the actual monopoly is. Each of those don't individually distribute all content because copyright holders use their monopoly to limit distribution
That’s not by any reasonable definition a “monopoly” any more than saying I have a “monopoly” on my posts.
And either way, monopoly or not is irrelevant. If the writers weren’t able to get a fair deal because their was only one studio or distributor it would be a monopsony
And either way, monopoly or not is irrelevant. If the writers weren’t able to get a fair deal because their was only one studio or distributor it would be a monopsony
The definition of monopoly from econlib: A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service.
The definition of a copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, etc an original work for a set period of time. It may include one or more additional rights depending on jurisdiction.
So by definition a copyright holder is the only seller of a creative work, aka they have a monopoly on that works public usage, which is very broadly defined.
I mean, you can draw your own conclusion but if you expect me to believe you aren't drawing with crayons you need to retract your previous statement.
Side note: what makes you think the writers own the copyright on their work? Generally they don't especially if they are paid to write something rather than presenting a finished work to multiple studios trying to sell it. You do havr the general definition of monopsony close to right but it had nothing to do with whether another part of the value chain is a monopoly, you can have both or many instances of both along a dingle products value chain.
The definition of a copyright is an exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, etc an original work for a set period of time. It may include one or more additional rights depending on jurisdiction.
So by definition a copyright holder is the only seller of a creative work, aka they have a monopoly on that works public usage, which is very broadly defined.
I mean, you can draw your own conclusion but if you expect me to believe you aren't drawing with crayons you need to retract your previous statement.
Side note: what makes you think the writers own the copyright on their work? Generally they don't especially if they are paid to write something rather than presenting a finished work to multiple studios trying to sell it. You do havr the general definition of monopsony close to right but it had nothing to do with whether another part of the value chain is a monopoly, you can have both or many instances of both along a dingle products value chain.
Yes, if it's a paid product. Think of it as a commission and a fraction of a profit.
This isn't a new idea. In the past companies paid for every showing of a show and a small fraction went to the people who made it. This is important since most performers have an expiration date when they are no longer relevant. It gave them a road to long lasting success even if they can't get a new job.
The problem is that this doesn't work the same way for streaming. This biases actors against streaming and results in problematic incentives. It requires a new model.
This isn't a new idea. In the past companies paid for every showing of a show and a small fraction went to the people who made it. This is important since most performers have an expiration date when they are no longer relevant. It gave them a road to long lasting success even if they can't get a new job.
The problem is that this doesn't work the same way for streaming. This biases actors against streaming and results in problematic incentives. It requires a new model.
>Or rather, if you do the labor, you don't get to have it.
Labor is just another input that goes into making a product. I don't see why they should be entitled to perpetual income any more than the company that supplied the film should be entitled to perpetual income. If you want perpetual income, create your own enterprise, or become an investor yourself. Most of the headline members of the AMPTP are public companies.
Labor is just another input that goes into making a product. I don't see why they should be entitled to perpetual income any more than the company that supplied the film should be entitled to perpetual income. If you want perpetual income, create your own enterprise, or become an investor yourself. Most of the headline members of the AMPTP are public companies.
> I don't see why they should be entitled to perpetual income any more than the company that supplied the film should be entitled to perpetual income.
Why do you think of it in terms of "entitlement". Residuals were negotiated between actors, writers, and the studios. Just like stock options are negotiated for some software engineering jobs, for example. And many companies in various industries have forms of employee profit sharing. This is no different.
The issue here is that the market has changed, and the preexisting deal for residuals didn't take into account the streaming services. So the writers and actors are naturally looking to renegotiate the terms. What's wrong with that? It's a contract negotiation.
Now, if you want to completely overturn capitalism and institute some kind of Marxist labor theory of value, we can argue over that, but it seems a bit tangential here.
Why do you think of it in terms of "entitlement". Residuals were negotiated between actors, writers, and the studios. Just like stock options are negotiated for some software engineering jobs, for example. And many companies in various industries have forms of employee profit sharing. This is no different.
The issue here is that the market has changed, and the preexisting deal for residuals didn't take into account the streaming services. So the writers and actors are naturally looking to renegotiate the terms. What's wrong with that? It's a contract negotiation.
Now, if you want to completely overturn capitalism and institute some kind of Marxist labor theory of value, we can argue over that, but it seems a bit tangential here.
>Why do you think of it in terms of "entitlement".
Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't.
Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't.
> Because that's the angle that the OP was going for, pointing out how it's some sort of injustice that capital gets a perpetual income stream but labor doesn't.
Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too?
You said this, which seems to deny even the possibility of perpetual income for anyone except the owning class:
> If you want perpetual income, create your own enterprise, or become an investor yourself.
Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too?
You said this, which seems to deny even the possibility of perpetual income for anyone except the owning class:
> If you want perpetual income, create your own enterprise, or become an investor yourself.
>doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too
I used the dichotomy of laborers vs capital owners to contrast the two roles and make things easier to discuss. In real life many "employees" are both laborers (ie. getting paid a lump sum for their time) as well as capital owners (because of the equity that their company provides them). Even for jobs that don't provide any equity, anyone can become a member of "the owning class" for as little as $1[1].
>Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too?
I never claimed that labor shouldn't have a perpetual income stream, just that they aren't entitled to one. Capital also isn't entitled to a perpetual income stream either. Bonds are an example.
[1] https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/how-to-start-investing-...
I used the dichotomy of laborers vs capital owners to contrast the two roles and make things easier to discuss. In real life many "employees" are both laborers (ie. getting paid a lump sum for their time) as well as capital owners (because of the equity that their company provides them). Even for jobs that don't provide any equity, anyone can become a member of "the owning class" for as little as $1[1].
>Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor (the "snarky shots fired at you") for wanting perpetual income from their products too?
I never claimed that labor shouldn't have a perpetual income stream, just that they aren't entitled to one. Capital also isn't entitled to a perpetual income stream either. Bonds are an example.
[1] https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/how-to-start-investing-...
> Well, "injustice" aside, doesn't it seem somewhat arbitrary, inconsistent, bizarre to be ok with capitalists having perpetual income from their products while ridiculing labor
If I bought a car and used it to drive for Uber are you okay with paying the factory workers a share of your income? If you owned a mom and pop restaurant should the people who built the restaurant get a share of your profits?
If you started a software business are you okay with the authors of every library you used getting a share of your profits?
If I bought a car and used it to drive for Uber are you okay with paying the factory workers a share of your income? If you owned a mom and pop restaurant should the people who built the restaurant get a share of your profits?
If you started a software business are you okay with the authors of every library you used getting a share of your profits?
This response is quite bizarre.
First of all, you seem to be conflating the employee-employer relationship with the consumer-seller relationship. As a consumer, I don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership. The car dealership is not my employee, nor am I their employee. We have a one-time transaction, and then I probably never see them again. I didn't perform any labor for the dealership, and they didn't perform any labor for me. All they did was sell me a car. Of course the salesperson performed labor for the dealership, and maybe the salesperson got a cut of the car price, but I don't know for sure, because that's between the salesperson and the dealership, in their negotiated contract. My contract with the dealership was, I give them $X, and they give me vehicle Y. FWIW the dealership never even asked for a portion of my income, and I didn't ask for a portion of theirs. Neither of us had the leverage to do so, and we didn't have an ongoing financial relationship, so it didn't make any sense whatsoever to do revenue sharing.
I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software. Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan. This was actually their idea, not mine, to entice employees to stay with the company. It was part of the negotiated contract.
Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios. They're more or less employees and have negotiated a contract that gives them residuals. It's all about negotiation. Both sides agreed to this. The studios aren't trying to abolish the concept of residuals. The only sticking point in negotiations is the streaming business, most of which now benefits the studios alone, so of course they don't want to give up more money. It's a financial negotiation that you're trying to turn into some strange philosophical issue. What you get as a result of negotiation is simply a matter of leverage. Some have the leverage, some don't. Labor unions tend to give labor more leverage. Actors have a lot of leverage, because people go to the movies to see the actors, not to see the producers.
First of all, you seem to be conflating the employee-employer relationship with the consumer-seller relationship. As a consumer, I don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership. The car dealership is not my employee, nor am I their employee. We have a one-time transaction, and then I probably never see them again. I didn't perform any labor for the dealership, and they didn't perform any labor for me. All they did was sell me a car. Of course the salesperson performed labor for the dealership, and maybe the salesperson got a cut of the car price, but I don't know for sure, because that's between the salesperson and the dealership, in their negotiated contract. My contract with the dealership was, I give them $X, and they give me vehicle Y. FWIW the dealership never even asked for a portion of my income, and I didn't ask for a portion of theirs. Neither of us had the leverage to do so, and we didn't have an ongoing financial relationship, so it didn't make any sense whatsoever to do revenue sharing.
I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software. Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan. This was actually their idea, not mine, to entice employees to stay with the company. It was part of the negotiated contract.
Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios. They're more or less employees and have negotiated a contract that gives them residuals. It's all about negotiation. Both sides agreed to this. The studios aren't trying to abolish the concept of residuals. The only sticking point in negotiations is the streaming business, most of which now benefits the studios alone, so of course they don't want to give up more money. It's a financial negotiation that you're trying to turn into some strange philosophical issue. What you get as a result of negotiation is simply a matter of leverage. Some have the leverage, some don't. Labor unions tend to give labor more leverage. Actors have a lot of leverage, because people go to the movies to see the actors, not to see the producers.
> don't negotiate with the factory workers who built my car, because I don't even know them. The factory workers negotiate with the car company, and I negotiate with the car dealership.
And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car. The factory workers pay to exchange their labor to build the car. Writing is a one time labor. What’s the difference?
> Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios
No they don’t. Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio.
> I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software
Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use?
> Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan
Are you still getting a revenue share after you are no longer an employee?
> Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios
No they don’t, once the show is finished they no more have a relationship with the studio than you have after you leave a job.
> It's a financial negotiation
Yes, it is a negotiation. Just like if you worked for a startup and settled for lower pay in exchange for equity. Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate.
And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car. The factory workers pay to exchange their labor to build the car. Writing is a one time labor. What’s the difference?
> Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios
No they don’t. Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio.
> I'm currently self-employed and thus get perpetual income from my own software
Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use?
> Before that, I was a longtime employee of a software company, and they had a revenue sharing plan
Are you still getting a revenue share after you are no longer an employee?
> Writers and actors have an ongoing relationship with the studios
No they don’t, once the show is finished they no more have a relationship with the studio than you have after you leave a job.
> It's a financial negotiation
Yes, it is a negotiation. Just like if you worked for a startup and settled for lower pay in exchange for equity. Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate.
> And you pay the car dealership for a one time use of the car.
I'm not sure what you mean. One time use would be rental. I own the car and use it all the time.
> Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio.
Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios. Other writers and actors are temps. But the thing is, Hollywood is a pretty small town, and there are only so many studios, which is why it's possible for a union to represent all the writers, all the actors, all the directors.
> Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use?
Well, Apple currently takes 15% of my income...
> Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate.
I never said otherwise. But obviously the non-streaming film and TV market bore residuals. We'll see who has the leverage and what happens with streaming. The biggest issue is that the studios are pleading poverty over streaming, which seems unbelievable. Anyway, I'm just baffled that other people in these comments are somehow baffled at the idea that residuals exist. There's nothing inherently wrong with them.
I'm not sure what you mean. One time use would be rental. I own the car and use it all the time.
> Writers are contracted to write for a show. They are not employees of any given studio.
Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios. Other writers and actors are temps. But the thing is, Hollywood is a pretty small town, and there are only so many studios, which is why it's possible for a union to represent all the writers, all the actors, all the directors.
> Do you pay a perpetual license for every library that you use?
Well, Apple currently takes 15% of my income...
> Neither they or you “deserve” more than the market will bear and what you are able to negotiate.
I never said otherwise. But obviously the non-streaming film and TV market bore residuals. We'll see who has the leverage and what happens with streaming. The biggest issue is that the studios are pleading poverty over streaming, which seems unbelievable. Anyway, I'm just baffled that other people in these comments are somehow baffled at the idea that residuals exist. There's nothing inherently wrong with them.
> Some writers and actors are permanent employees of a show, which is likely owned by one of the studios
And when the show is over, why “should” it be different than when my employment is over unless I hold on to RSUs (public company) or options when I leave? I chose to work for a public company that gave me less than market value in exchange for stock that gives me residual rights to income from the company. I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market.
I’m not baffled residuals exist, I’m baffled that people think that writers and actors “deserve” them instead of it just being a negotiation between cash now and less cash and higher/risk return by accepting them in exchange for less cash up front
And when the show is over, why “should” it be different than when my employment is over unless I hold on to RSUs (public company) or options when I leave? I chose to work for a public company that gave me less than market value in exchange for stock that gives me residual rights to income from the company. I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market.
I’m not baffled residuals exist, I’m baffled that people think that writers and actors “deserve” them instead of it just being a negotiation between cash now and less cash and higher/risk return by accepting them in exchange for less cash up front
> I could just as well as chosen to work for a company that paid me up front in cash my market.
That's not how it works. Which non-equity jobs have a significantly higher base pay than the BigCos themselves who do offer equity in addition to paychecks?
That's not how it works. Which non-equity jobs have a significantly higher base pay than the BigCos themselves who do offer equity in addition to paychecks?
I work in cloud consulting. I work at AWS in the Professional Services department. There are plenty of third party boutique consulting firms that pay the same if not more in cash
this is a good argument for not letting companies have perpetual IP based income :)
1. Outside of trademarks, "IP" typically isn't "perpetual". Copyrights last a long time, but they're not perpetual either.
2. If you sell a widget, that item gets irreversibly transferred to the buyer. If you sell your time (ie. what you're doing as an employee) the same thing happens with your time. If you "sell" a movie, that doesn't happen. Well, technically that happens all the time between companies, but doesn't apply to the typical consumer transaction. "perpetual IP based income" is a way to make products that are infinitely copyable have a viable business model. Otherwise if you want to watch a movie, you'll have to pay for the whole thing.
2. If you sell a widget, that item gets irreversibly transferred to the buyer. If you sell your time (ie. what you're doing as an employee) the same thing happens with your time. If you "sell" a movie, that doesn't happen. Well, technically that happens all the time between companies, but doesn't apply to the typical consumer transaction. "perpetual IP based income" is a way to make products that are infinitely copyable have a viable business model. Otherwise if you want to watch a movie, you'll have to pay for the whole thing.
> Copyrights last a long time, but they're not perpetual either.
For the creators, copyright is effectively perpetual. It expires eventually, but rarely until after you're dead. "As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first." https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
For the creators, copyright is effectively perpetual. It expires eventually, but rarely until after you're dead. "As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first." https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
It’s interesting seeing the first three comments; from scarface_74, jrockway, and causality0. Movies are often their own corporate entities, with actors investing their time in hopes of a good return. When you choose to work at a startup, you invest your time, and take a lower cash salary, in hopes that your equity will make it worth it. Same with actors.
If you sympathize for the founders who get screwed out of big returns because of the machinations of others, the situation isn’t that different here. Hence the strike, and this story.
If you sympathize for the founders who get screwed out of big returns because of the machinations of others, the situation isn’t that different here. Hence the strike, and this story.
I work in cloud consulting for a the river company based in Seattle. My base pay is far lower than I could get working for another consulting company. The difference is made up by RSUs which by definition give me rights to the future value of the company. If you work for a company that pays dividends like Apple and Microsoft, the RSUs they give you do give you a residual right to income.
It's hard not to see this as some sort of niche Los Angeles fight. I don't think the average American tracks on the issue of getting free money for your personhood rights.
> SAG-AFTRA also asked for revenue sharing, which means actors would get a fixed residual and also a separate residual tied to the amount of money a show brought in once it hit streaming platforms.
The numbers are just not going to line up here the way people expect. These shows are only on streaming because the rights are cheap. And hollywood has been pumping out low quality shows in such excess that they are essentially commoditized. If it comes to pay or pull, these streaming services are going to start pulling a lot more shows. Shows that never even made it to physical media.
I think we are seeing a collapse of an era. Even if SAG pulls together a deal, the industry is just not going to carry on in the same way it has.
> SAG-AFTRA also asked for revenue sharing, which means actors would get a fixed residual and also a separate residual tied to the amount of money a show brought in once it hit streaming platforms.
The numbers are just not going to line up here the way people expect. These shows are only on streaming because the rights are cheap. And hollywood has been pumping out low quality shows in such excess that they are essentially commoditized. If it comes to pay or pull, these streaming services are going to start pulling a lot more shows. Shows that never even made it to physical media.
I think we are seeing a collapse of an era. Even if SAG pulls together a deal, the industry is just not going to carry on in the same way it has.
That doesn't really make sense. The shows aren't only on streaming because the rights are cheap, because what's the point of buying them at that point when you can spend that money on your own IP? Streaming buys licenses because they are valuable, this value is only transferring between the service and the network.
Further, I don't think they're really against the real numbers being shown so they can more accurately get a sense of what's happening. Keeping numbers a secret here only benefits two groups: networks and streaming services.
Even the music industry is more transparent.
Further, I don't think they're really against the real numbers being shown so they can more accurately get a sense of what's happening. Keeping numbers a secret here only benefits two groups: networks and streaming services.
Even the music industry is more transparent.
> Streaming buys licenses because they are valuable, this value is only transferring between the service and the network.
When I had my house built for $335K in 2016, I paid the builders for building my house and the labor involved. They have no right to any of the value I’ve derived from my house by renting it out when we moved or when I sell it for hopefully twice the price. When I paid them for my house, my business with them was done.
When I had my house built for $335K in 2016, I paid the builders for building my house and the labor involved. They have no right to any of the value I’ve derived from my house by renting it out when we moved or when I sell it for hopefully twice the price. When I paid them for my house, my business with them was done.
Your analysis is incomplete. The value you've derived from your house is a subset of total value derived from the process of constructing your house.
Did you have an architect design the house?
If so, who owns the copyright for the design: you or the architect? For example, AIA Document B105TM – 2017 "Standard Short Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect" says "The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright".
This means the architect could make a new house which is a copy of your house, or (more importantly) re-use architectural elements in other houses.
If you negotiated that you own the copyright, how much more did you pay the architect? Did the architect still got a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use parts of the plans elsewhere?
Even if you didn't have an architect, you must surely realize that others do hire architects to design their house.
By narrowing the analogy to just the builders and the rental of a single physical structure, your analysis necessarily excludes copyright issues which are much more directly relevant to the current negotiation.
The set caterers aren't negotiating for residuals either.
Did you have an architect design the house?
If so, who owns the copyright for the design: you or the architect? For example, AIA Document B105TM – 2017 "Standard Short Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect" says "The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright".
This means the architect could make a new house which is a copy of your house, or (more importantly) re-use architectural elements in other houses.
If you negotiated that you own the copyright, how much more did you pay the architect? Did the architect still got a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use parts of the plans elsewhere?
Even if you didn't have an architect, you must surely realize that others do hire architects to design their house.
By narrowing the analogy to just the builders and the rental of a single physical structure, your analysis necessarily excludes copyright issues which are much more directly relevant to the current negotiation.
The set caterers aren't negotiating for residuals either.
Why should they get residual checks? Most other professionals get paid for the hours they work and then we either have to keep working or invest some of our earnings to have enough to live on.
Of course in the startup world, you may be willing to take a lower compensation for equity that will pay our later. But hopefully you understand the risk.
If anything they should negotiate a higher up front payment.
Of course in the startup world, you may be willing to take a lower compensation for equity that will pay our later. But hopefully you understand the risk.
If anything they should negotiate a higher up front payment.
> Most other professionals get paid for the hours they work and then we either have to keep working or invest some of our earnings to have enough to live on
When people talk about the rich pitting the working class against each other, this is exactly what they're talking about. Rather than saying "yeah, fuck the man, we're all in this together!", you've chosen "why should they get out of eating the shit of our owners? They should learn to eat shit just like the rest of us!"
When people talk about the rich pitting the working class against each other, this is exactly what they're talking about. Rather than saying "yeah, fuck the man, we're all in this together!", you've chosen "why should they get out of eating the shit of our owners? They should learn to eat shit just like the rest of us!"
It’s not “the man” who all should get residuals? Building architects every time someone stays in a building they designed? Software engineers every time you use a library?
Are you okay with software patents and licensing? Do you think library makers should get a residual every time you pull a library down from npm?
Are you okay with software patents and licensing? Do you think library makers should get a residual every time you pull a library down from npm?
because once made, distributing the thing and making more money is trivial. So, getting an ongoing cut of the proceeds is important.
side note, this also means software engineers at large companies are getting screwed and should unionize.
imagine it takes $2M to make something, and in the first year it makes $4M. Then, every year after it, it's made $.5M.
Either: A) we give actors residuals or B) copyright should expire and movies should be free after the initial crowdfunding.
side note, this also means software engineers at large companies are getting screwed and should unionize.
imagine it takes $2M to make something, and in the first year it makes $4M. Then, every year after it, it's made $.5M.
Either: A) we give actors residuals or B) copyright should expire and movies should be free after the initial crowdfunding.
> because once made, distributing the thing and making more money is trivial. So, getting an ongoing cut of the proceeds is important.
But why are you so fixated on "getting an ongoing cut"? Thanks to finance, we can calculate the net present value of any perpetual income stream. There's nothing really different between getting paid $1000, and getting paid $500 + perpetual income stream that has a net present value of $500.
But why are you so fixated on "getting an ongoing cut"? Thanks to finance, we can calculate the net present value of any perpetual income stream. There's nothing really different between getting paid $1000, and getting paid $500 + perpetual income stream that has a net present value of $500.
I’ve always viewed it that replays keep their face in the public arena disrupting privacy. If you film something 20 years ago, and then all of a sudden it becomes hugely popular again via streaming you will also be propelled back into the public arena which can have negative effects on your life (unable to go out without paparazzi, interference from strangers etc).
And that’s also a choice that should be factored in.
I would think it has to do with the IP owners using the likeness of the actors to continue to market the show year after year.
Does your employer get to use code you wrote after they pay you? Do they get to market features you worked for after you leave?
Do landlords get to collect rent on buildings after the architects are paid to design it?
Do landlords get to collect rent on buildings after the architects are paid to design it?
Both of those things are also bad.
So you are saying that landlords should have to pay the original architects of the buildings part of their rental income?
Are you okay with paying residuals to every library author when you use an npm package?
Are you okay with paying residuals to every library author when you use an npm package?
1. There shouldn't be landlords.
2. Copyright shouldn't exist at all, but until it's abolished I am not opposed to a system where revenue is shared with the developers of any libraries you use. Although I think such a system would be difficult to manage and track.
2. Copyright shouldn't exist at all, but until it's abolished I am not opposed to a system where revenue is shared with the developers of any libraries you use. Although I think such a system would be difficult to manage and track.
Why do authors receive royalty every time their book is sold?
Likely because it's less risky for the publisher, as opposed to a big up-front payment for something that might not sell as well as expected. As an author, which approach would you prefer?
And that’s something that everyone here fails to understand. For me there are three levels of risk.
1. Getting all of my compensation in cash (least downside/least upside)
2. Working for a publicly traded company where part of my compensation comes from RSUs vested over a schedule
3. Working for a startup where I get “equity” instead of my market value in cash.
The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.
1. Getting all of my compensation in cash (least downside/least upside)
2. Working for a publicly traded company where part of my compensation comes from RSUs vested over a schedule
3. Working for a startup where I get “equity” instead of my market value in cash.
The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.
> The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.
Are you, anonymous internet rando "scarface_74", claiming to know the interests of the Hollywood writers better than the writers themselves?
Are you, anonymous internet rando "scarface_74", claiming to know the interests of the Hollywood writers better than the writers themselves?
No I’m anonymous scarface_74 who knows finance and risk/rewards ratios based on being an MBA drop out.
I have had the same choices:
1. Being risk averse by taking cash up front and choosing to negotiate based on a maximum up front payment
2. Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup
I have had the same choices:
1. Being risk averse by taking cash up front and choosing to negotiate based on a maximum up front payment
2. Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup
> No I’m anonymous scarface_74 who knows finance and risk/rewards ratios based on being an MBA drop out.
It's truly a wonder that you haven't been made the President of the Writer's Guild of America.
> Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup
Hollywood studios are not startups, and residuals are not like startup equity. Writers and actors are not hoping for some BigCo to come along and buy the Hollywood studios, or for the studios to go public, leading to a massive single payday. The studios are the BigCos, and they're already public. Residuals are more analogous to BigCo stock than to startup equity.
It's truly a wonder that you haven't been made the President of the Writer's Guild of America.
> Taking less up front and dealing with a higher risk/reward return like accepting lower payer for equity by working for a startup
Hollywood studios are not startups, and residuals are not like startup equity. Writers and actors are not hoping for some BigCo to come along and buy the Hollywood studios, or for the studios to go public, leading to a massive single payday. The studios are the BigCos, and they're already public. Residuals are more analogous to BigCo stock than to startup equity.
The choice for the writers are the same. Take less up front for a higher risk/reward if the show is successful and get a continuous income stream or take more up front and don’t the studios have the risk of the show being successful in returns of higher rewards.
Whether the studios are public is irrelevant. What is relevant is the success of the movies/tv shows being successful.
Whether the studios are public is irrelevant. What is relevant is the success of the movies/tv shows being successful.
> or take more up front
From https://www.sagaftra.org/were-fighting-survival-our-professi...
Us: We need an 11% general wage increase in year 1 so our members can recover from record inflation during the previous contract term.
Them: The most we will give you is 5%, even though that means your 2023 earnings will effectively be a significant pay cut due to inflation and it is likely you will still be working for less than your 2020 wages in 2026.
From https://www.sagaftra.org/were-fighting-survival-our-professi...
Us: We need an 11% general wage increase in year 1 so our members can recover from record inflation during the previous contract term.
Them: The most we will give you is 5%, even though that means your 2023 earnings will effectively be a significant pay cut due to inflation and it is likely you will still be working for less than your 2020 wages in 2026.
And that has nothing to do with residuals.
They could just as easily negotiate for no increase in pay for larger residuals that most people here are focused on.
They could just as easily negotiate for no increase in pay for larger residuals that most people here are focused on.
My point is that there's no magical massive upfront pay increase forthcoming that would make up for lost residuals. That was never on the table at any time. There's no way for actors and writers to avoid getting screwed if they don't get residuals. And it's pretty clear why that's not on the table: big upfront payments are a big risk to the studios, even more so than the risks they already take, so it's not good for them either. There's a good reason this system has existed for a long time.
The status quo favors the studios, because they're finding new ways to avoid paying the residuals, while not offering anything else to take their place.
The status quo favors the studios, because they're finding new ways to avoid paying the residuals, while not offering anything else to take their place.
How are residuals from streaming working out for musicians on Spotify getting $.0006 per stream? Why would it magically work out better for most writers instead of suffering the same power law where the Taylor Swifts gets most of the money?
Definitely I'd want residual income. To avoid the opportunity cost in case one of my works become bestseller.
Would you take less money up front in exchange?
Because that’s the contract they sign and they own the rights to the book. Actors don’t own the rights to the movies.
Actors and writers deserve meaningful residual income just like the authors. And they actually did, as a result of a similar strike in the 60s. The model was disrupted due to the advent streaming as the dominant media, so they are merely asking for a correction.
Are the writers of the libraries software developers used owed a continuous royalty based on how profitable the software built using it makes?
The author of a book could just as easily negotiate a large payment up front to give up rights to their book in exchange of one lump sum and invest their money and let the publisher both take all of the upside. But get all of the downside.
The author of a book could just as easily negotiate a large payment up front to give up rights to their book in exchange of one lump sum and invest their money and let the publisher both take all of the upside. But get all of the downside.
You keep repeating this as if it was actually an easy feat. No, aside from already famous established actors you won't just "negotiate a way better perfect contract upfront".
This is where the capital power imbalance cannot be defeated. They always have the upper hand against any single individual.
This is where the capital power imbalance cannot be defeated. They always have the upper hand against any single individual.
We should start asking for residuals on software we write!
Equity? Are y'all not asking for that? Travolta Confused Meme here
Royalties are equity distributions, "dividends" if you will.
Royalties are equity distributions, "dividends" if you will.
Equity is something else, right? Actors aren't given shares of the studio in return for making a show; they're given a % of the sales. (A looooow % based on this article.)
Equity in software is weird. At small companies, it's pretty much like winning the lottery. (I got $0 per share I owned the last time around. That's about what I valued it at, so no big deal.) At big companies, your work probably doesn't play any role in affecting the stock price.
For that reason, I think residuals are a unique thing not covered by equity. Having said that, I'm mostly kidding. The "we pay you for the hours you show up" is a relatively fair model and has worked well in our industry.
Equity in software is weird. At small companies, it's pretty much like winning the lottery. (I got $0 per share I owned the last time around. That's about what I valued it at, so no big deal.) At big companies, your work probably doesn't play any role in affecting the stock price.
For that reason, I think residuals are a unique thing not covered by equity. Having said that, I'm mostly kidding. The "we pay you for the hours you show up" is a relatively fair model and has worked well in our industry.
> Equity in software is weird. At small companies, it's pretty much like winning the lottery
What’s weird about it? Stock in public companies are also “equity”. It’s not winning the lottery in that case. I know my shares of AMZN are going to be worth something as they vest.
That’s the reason I refuse to work for a startup at this point in my life. It was bad enough when my RSUs dropped from $140 to $90 by the time my first shares vested (back to $130 now and I got a refresher that mostly made up for it). But that’s a kid better than waiting for an exit.
What’s weird about it? Stock in public companies are also “equity”. It’s not winning the lottery in that case. I know my shares of AMZN are going to be worth something as they vest.
That’s the reason I refuse to work for a startup at this point in my life. It was bad enough when my RSUs dropped from $140 to $90 by the time my first shares vested (back to $130 now and I got a refresher that mostly made up for it). But that’s a kid better than waiting for an exit.
My point of this subthread is that royalties, dividends, equity, whatever are all just mechanisms to reward based on upside in a collective endeavor, and can be negotiated as a compensation component. If you're functioning within capitalism, the idea that you keep getting paid for something you're not actively working on shouldn't be foreign. Look no further than your index funds, whether growth or income producing securities. What makes royalties unpalatable with these concepts in mind? Not much different than VTI, SCHD, etc (public securities, growth and income producing respectively, if you're unfamiliar). You have acquired an asset in some manner (either paying for it with fiat or with your time), and you are holding it for future economic benefit.
For example: I receive dividends from a friend's vending machine business I invested in to help them rapidly scale up (including me lugging vending machines to locations, setting up infra to monitor remotely and accept payments, etc). That is no different than equity in a SaaS product or someone's contributions to a major motion picture.
I agree there is a lot of nuance (ie all of your points), but the conversation should be "how is ownership valued and distributed? is it reasonable and equitable?"
For example: I receive dividends from a friend's vending machine business I invested in to help them rapidly scale up (including me lugging vending machines to locations, setting up infra to monitor remotely and accept payments, etc). That is no different than equity in a SaaS product or someone's contributions to a major motion picture.
I agree there is a lot of nuance (ie all of your points), but the conversation should be "how is ownership valued and distributed? is it reasonable and equitable?"
What's the largest equity role you've held?
In a YC unicorn, ~%0.15 give or take (out of 0.2% granted, employee 10-15). In other orgs, various amounts depending on how my contribution is valued (grinding on a keyboard, advising, etc). In my most recent role, they gave me a ton of RSUs for essentially "head of security" at a fintech reporting to a CISO.
My point is that if you're not asking about ownership, you should be. My personal financial situation is not representative of the broad working class. Lots of luck involved too, but asking is mostly free.
Resources I've previously posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28405708
Parent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28401655
u/JoshDoody's submissions are also great on the comp negotiation topic (although he has not been around lately): https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=JoshDoody
https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Never-Split-Difference-Lead-Title... (Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if Your Life Depended on It)
(I learned the hard way, I hope to help others not have to by sharing my thoughts and experiences)
My point is that if you're not asking about ownership, you should be. My personal financial situation is not representative of the broad working class. Lots of luck involved too, but asking is mostly free.
Resources I've previously posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28405708
Parent thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28401655
u/JoshDoody's submissions are also great on the comp negotiation topic (although he has not been around lately): https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=JoshDoody
https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Never-Split-Difference-Lead-Title... (Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if Your Life Depended on It)
(I learned the hard way, I hope to help others not have to by sharing my thoughts and experiences)
I'm building something, and approaching investment stage.
Really like the "cut of your jib" - are you currently interested in hearing about opportunities?
Really like the "cut of your jib" - are you currently interested in hearing about opportunities?
Definitely interested if I can materially contribute. Email in profile, looking forward to hearing what you're building and how I can help.
Whatever the amount of shares I have in my publicly traded employer/the total amount of outstanding shares.
I know people are hoping that this strike will show the power of unions and encourage others to unionize in a similar manner... but what if they fail? Wouldn't that demonstrate the opposite? It feels like hollywood is on the precipice of a gig economy. There is always someone waiting in the wings to do the same for less. I think big name actors are a function of branding, you roughly know what you're getting with a Tom Cruise or a Ryan Reynolds movie, which makes the money spent on them more of a marketing expense than an acting expense. There are other ways to create and maintain brands.
I think if people believe they are owed more than someone is willing to pay them should instead compete. Maybe make an actor owned studio / production company? There are already quite a few of them and it does appear to be a growing trend. I hit a ceiling in my own compensation and had to instead create my own software company in order to capture more of the value that I create.
I think if people believe they are owed more than someone is willing to pay them should instead compete. Maybe make an actor owned studio / production company? There are already quite a few of them and it does appear to be a growing trend. I hit a ceiling in my own compensation and had to instead create my own software company in order to capture more of the value that I create.
Yeah. There are so many people who move to LA with the dream of becoming a movie star, why isn't it possible to just fire the entire union and hire new actors?
I'm sure it's more difficult than that, but if there were one industry where it was possible, due to massive lines of people waiting to fill those roles and become famous, I think it would be acting.
I'm sure it's more difficult than that, but if there were one industry where it was possible, due to massive lines of people waiting to fill those roles and become famous, I think it would be acting.
It's not as easy as just hiring new non-union actors. Quality matters, and most of the actual good actors that audiences want to see are union members. And other unions will usually refuse to cross a picket line or work with scabs so producers would also have to hire non-union crews, drivers, and writers.
There are non-union productions. But those are mainly smaller independent projects which never bring in much revenue.
There are non-union productions. But those are mainly smaller independent projects which never bring in much revenue.
Why would it demonstrate the opposite? It's one union in a particular field. We have plenty of other unions out there, look at cops.
It wouldn’t demonstrate it completely but would add to the evidence against it. I’m not suggest the entire idea of unions rest on this one outcome. Probabilities are updated with new evidence, there is either a relationship or there isn’t, it can’t be one sided. Since there appears to be a lot of weight placed on this one outcome from this being both a powerful union as well as an exemplar for prospective software unions, I think it’s fair to say that the failure of the Hollywood unions would massively negatively impact the prospects of software unions.
I get 0 cents of residual for continuing use of the software I built for hire. I think the discussion needs to shift to lifetime pay per hour worked than random residual checks. Maybe they have good reasons to be upset, but the residual amounts isn't the right piece of evidence.
I don't see why your personal experience is all that relevant.
Just because you haven't been able to negotiate a contract with residuals shouldn't prevent anyone else from getting better terms. Maybe you should join a union and collectively bargain for a better contract? Or get an agent to negotiate for you?
Residuals in acting are the rough equivalent an employee stock option for software developers. They are part of the total compensation, and help align the interests of the actor/developer with the interests of the company. Work hard, and if the show/product does well, the worker gets an extra reward. Remove stock options, remove residuals, and total compensation drops, leaving you with angry employees.
The argument about the amount of residuals support the strikers' argument that they are getting less total compensation, which is one of several major points made by the unions.
Just because you haven't been able to negotiate a contract with residuals shouldn't prevent anyone else from getting better terms. Maybe you should join a union and collectively bargain for a better contract? Or get an agent to negotiate for you?
Residuals in acting are the rough equivalent an employee stock option for software developers. They are part of the total compensation, and help align the interests of the actor/developer with the interests of the company. Work hard, and if the show/product does well, the worker gets an extra reward. Remove stock options, remove residuals, and total compensation drops, leaving you with angry employees.
The argument about the amount of residuals support the strikers' argument that they are getting less total compensation, which is one of several major points made by the unions.
> Just because you haven't been able to negotiate a contract with residuals shouldn't prevent anyone else from getting better terms
Residuals are nothing magical. You can calculate the net present value of the future expected value of your work and negotiate based on that.
Residuals are nothing magical. You can calculate the net present value of the future expected value of your work and negotiate based on that.
Of course they aren't magical. Neither are options.
Your point, while valid, doesn't change my total compensation argument at all.
Just because glimshe doesn't get residuals (or presumably employee stock options) doesn't mean others should be prevented from negotiating for residuals or stock options as part of their total compensation.
Your point, while valid, doesn't change my total compensation argument at all.
Just because glimshe doesn't get residuals (or presumably employee stock options) doesn't mean others should be prevented from negotiating for residuals or stock options as part of their total compensation.
it's weird to hear a famous actor/actress complaining about work and then saying that the boss is too busy yachting while they bust their hump.
it's very much a turtles-all-the-way-down feeling.
it's very much a turtles-all-the-way-down feeling.
Man I'd be living the life if I could show up to work one time and then get paid for it over and over as long as my work was still benefitting the company.
I don't understand how Disney and Netflix and HBO decide it makes financial sense to strip major series like Westworld off their streaming services because the residuals are costing them more than the series is earning but actors are on strike because they don't get paid enough. What's going on?
I don't understand how Disney and Netflix and HBO decide it makes financial sense to strip major series like Westworld off their streaming services because the residuals are costing them more than the series is earning but actors are on strike because they don't get paid enough. What's going on?
> I don't understand how Disney and Netflix and HBO decide it makes financial sense to strip major series like Westworld off their streaming services because the residuals are costing them more than the series is earning
That's not exactly the sole explanation:
"Warner Bros. Discovery plans to license the series, and several others, to free ad-supported streaming television services"
"On top of that, it'll be able to fully write down the future amortization costs of those series."
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/12/22/westworld-no-longe...
That's not exactly the sole explanation:
"Warner Bros. Discovery plans to license the series, and several others, to free ad-supported streaming television services"
"On top of that, it'll be able to fully write down the future amortization costs of those series."
https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/12/22/westworld-no-longe...
> get paid for it over and over as long as my work was still benefitting the company.
You say this like it's laughably unrealistic. Yet it sounds completely reasonable to me. Why shouldn't you get paid in proportion to the value you create?
You say this like it's laughably unrealistic. Yet it sounds completely reasonable to me. Why shouldn't you get paid in proportion to the value you create?
Two reasons. Firstly, I still get paid for the time I don't have the opportunity or the work ethic to create value. I'm able to financially plan and feel far more secure that way. Secondly, it would create a nightmare if everyone operated this way. Imagine paying a stipend to Toyota every year your car keeps running. A payment to the builder every year your house doesn't fall down. A payment to your professors every time you get a paycheck since their work contributed to you getting a job and a payment to your computer manufacturer every time you send an e-mail. It's rent-seeking behavior that society has chosen, for some reason, to tolerate in the producers of entertainment.
I do of i decide to keep the stock I earned instead of selling it and diversifying it.
Not too unthinkable when SaaS exists :)
because companies continue to sell the thing you already made, ballooning the profit vs cost to make ratio... if actors only got paid the one time, companies and stockholders would eat an increasingly larger percentage of the true revenue of the IP.
Mandy Moore has a net worth of $14 million. Kamil McFadden is worth $5 million. Kellee Stewart $3 million. William Stanford Davis $5 million. In fact Jana Schmieding is the only person in the article who isn't a known millionaire. The amount of privilege these people have is unreal.
What's the net worth of the film and TV studios, their executives, and their major shareholders?
Famous actors can use their fame to highlight the issue, and that's how it becomes a news story, but the issue affects all actors, especially the ones who are not rich and famous. They won't get their names in a news story.
Famous actors can use their fame to highlight the issue, and that's how it becomes a news story, but the issue affects all actors, especially the ones who are not rich and famous. They won't get their names in a news story.
[deleted]
I don't think the executive pay matters all that much in this discussion, and is a marxist argument ultimately.
If they are well compensated and have proper work conditions, what the shareholders and bosses are making is irrelevant. Market forces should determine their pay; otherwise, why do we think that they should make more money than anyone else?
If they are well compensated and have proper work conditions, what the shareholders and bosses are making is irrelevant. Market forces should determine their pay; otherwise, why do we think that they should make more money than anyone else?
> If they are well compensated and have proper work conditions, what the shareholders and bosses are making is irrelevant.
So why does the net worth of Mandy Moore, et al., matter?
> Market forces should determine their pay
Residuals are due to market forces.
It feels like you should be arguing against causality0, not me.
So why does the net worth of Mandy Moore, et al., matter?
> Market forces should determine their pay
Residuals are due to market forces.
It feels like you should be arguing against causality0, not me.
Is this a rule that you generally use to determine who has the right to demand profit sharing in a joint venture? Can you explain the general principle you’re applying to thus specific situation?
Just because you make a lot of money now doesn't mean you won't get fucked later by your industry. Gotta protect your interests.
Also, just because you've made a lot of money in the past doesn't mean you shouldn't speak up for the many many many many MANY people that don't or haven't (and might not in the future if the studios get their way!)
Also, just because you've made a lot of money in the past doesn't mean you shouldn't speak up for the many many many many MANY people that don't or haven't (and might not in the future if the studios get their way!)
The producers and financiers of the films, and the companies who own the intellectual property of the films the actors made have net worth of billions.
Net worth estimations are never accurate. Even if they were, it's absurd and illogical to use their current net worth as to why they shouldn't have been paid fairly for the work they did.
Why do you think those numbers are real?
Horse and Buggy Drivers show pay stubs, rant against cars!
Residuals are fine if you can negotiate them. More power to you! But to complain about not getting paid for something without having to lift a finger to earn it is the height of conceit. Do The Work! Entertain us with new and interesting creations! The move towards rewarding work (such as the trends of musicians touring and performing instead of relying solely on recording) is a healthy one!
If the publishers are continuing to make money off selling the work, why shouldn't the people who actually made it get their share?
Because the publishers/producers took the risk. They paid you for your work, didn't they? Move on instead of complaining. Yes, it's hard finding work in the entertainment biz (much like sports and arts), but having to pay more residuals than bargained-for only takes away opportunities for you and others to get more work.
Again, I am not against residuals, but a contract is a contract and the right to contract is between individuals. Any "force" (unions, government) that twists and turns the right to contract is anti-individual, anti-freedom, and most certainly a group vs group powerplay that does not give the average individual any advantages - only the empowered individuals gain anything (at the expense of the unempowered).
Again, I am not against residuals, but a contract is a contract and the right to contract is between individuals. Any "force" (unions, government) that twists and turns the right to contract is anti-individual, anti-freedom, and most certainly a group vs group powerplay that does not give the average individual any advantages - only the empowered individuals gain anything (at the expense of the unempowered).
Only a few people (like here) have had the ability to negotiate an ongoing right to the output) at all.
But the world is built so that if you have the money, you expect to be able to perpetually benefit from things you put it towards. Sure, you might lose investments sometimes, but you have limited liability so you likely aren't losing everything. And you can also lose your ability to do more labor in certain jobs, so it's not like the risk is higher if you're an owner. And the expectation is that you just work work work work, and you'll get snarky shots fired at you from the other poor suckers out there if you try to challenge that.