Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:56 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - sondheimobsessed7090 12:14 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I could just as easily say that you need a good deal of education. I don't know you and you don't know me so let's just deal with what we don't have to make assumptions about. Some of this takes us pretty far afield from this thread and this board so I will try to keep it short and sweet. First of all, no one doubts that, in terms of present dollars, TV/film pays better. That is partly because of the revenue differential and also because of the copyright belonging to the studio. Nor does anyone doubt the long term value to the writer of a successful Broadway show. Second, there is no direct comparison with the landscape in another country where, often, a corporation owns the copyright, and/or the compensation looks quite different. Likewise, we function in this country and while one can lobby, it is important to understand that the proposed legislation, even if passed, would not make DG a union. Moreover, it is of course naive to think that adding to existing upfront amounts would not have collateral effect on total potential compensation. Third, what you say about DG renegotiating a non-existent collective contract makes no sense. There is no contract, just a model, and that model can and is updated whenever it is deemed appropriate. Fourth, what you say about your clients and what is (partly) in that letter does not jibe. Allowing the DH to function as a union would not alter the dynamic; it just allows collective rather than individual bargaining but in no way suggests what you are saying. Moreover, what you say will come as news to anyone who reads the DG website or other materials that is clearly mindful of what is and is not possible and also of the bedrock primacy of copyright and authorial control. I encourage you to spend a little time when you can understanding the laws, the legislation, and the DG. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 01:40 am EDT 06/03/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 12:56 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| As I said - in the countries that I referenced the author owns the copyright and they have a union collectively bargaining for them. You can look up the Union negotiated deals in Canada and the United Kingdom and see that property rights are included in them. The proposed legislation would not make DG a union, it would give Dramatists the ability to form a Union while retaining copyright, and/or for the DG to start a process to becoming a union. The situation with the APC being an outdated agreement is complicated, but I realize that there's just not enough room to explain it here, but as someone who has negotiated them, I can tell you that what you're saying is not accurate. I'm confused by you saying that something that I literally pulled from the DG's website, (and they release a letter like these basically every year, to revamp an argument about that legislation) doesn't jibe with what's on the DG website and other material.....that just doesn't make sense. Basically you're saying this comes as news to you, and because you hadn't noticed it on the DG website before it didn't exist? But whatever - you seem to just want to say you're right, if you want to continue to make points that contradict actual facts, I suppose I should give up on trying to communicate to you. |
|
| reply to this message |
Time to render: 0.011415 seconds.