• Mr_Will@feddit.ukEnglish
    1·
    10 months ago

    I fully support the workers protesting for whatever form of payment they want. There’s no reason why streaming services shouldn’t pay residuals if that’s what the workers want.

    That doesn’t mean they’re entitled to additional compensation for labour they’ve already done. If they did the work for an agreed price that wasn’t linked to the future profits then they shouldn’t complain just because the future profits are greater than expected. Equally if you take your compensation as a share of the future profits, you can’t complain if they’re lower than expected.

    The grey area in all this is when contracts have been badly worded and the rights holders are trying to use these loopholes unfairly. If someone negotiated to be paid $X every time an episode is aired, it creates a big problem with the rise of non-broadcast TV. It’s not realistic to claim that a show is ‘aired’ every time a single person streams it, but equally it’s not fair say they aren’t being aired at all just because they’re streaming on demand instead.

    I don’t know what the best solution is. Future contracts will certainly be worded with streaming mind, but what (if anything) should be done about previous contracts is a much more difficult issue.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      22·
      10 months ago

      The best solution is shooting all the CEO’s in the process of overthrowing capitalism and de-comodifying entertainment so everyone’s needs are met and we can make art for the love of beauty and not because it’ll make some rich person even more money.

    • autismdragon [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      20·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, see, the problem is the old contracts were made before streaming was a thing so its hard to say “you agreed to the contract so you deal with the consequences”.

      Also I think my other comrades point about “the value of art is fungible” is really important here to respond to “they shouldn’t complain just because the future profits are greater than expected” part of this.

      Plus tbh I’d just rather the money go to the actors who actually put in the work to get these projects done than the suits who did nothing at all and are useless to society lol. Profit sucks. Anything that takes away profit and gives it to the workers is good to me.

    • Dr_Gabriel_Aby [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      16·
      10 months ago

      You do realize projects are budgeted, and the studios say. “We don’t have money to do that” so they don’t pay people a lot upfront, and offer the actors and writers packages to get paid once the project is completed. This is how it worked for a century and then streaming came in and offered these two groups nothing.

      People are paying for the streaming services for the content of shows and movies they hold, not because of software choices by streaming services. So if those are the breadwinners, and Netflix is making ads showing off their breaking bad content, then I thin it’s okay for them to want royalties from these services.