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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
You: third party boutique consulting firms that pay the same if not more in cash
The "same", or even a little more, is not the same as "significantly higher". To give up all recurring revenue in return for "the same if not more in cash" is a bad deal, and I suspect that's why you don't take it, unless you're deliberately screwing yourself financially, which seems unlikely. So I don't understand why you allow yourself the better deal while chastising the writers and actors for also wanting the better deal.
I also know what our partners bill rate is and I know what people who left ProServe to start their own consulting companies are charging.
Finally, I know what we bill customers and the gap between my pay and the bill rate. I choose to accept my total compensation because while the reward is lower so are the risks.
> So I don't understand why you allow yourself the better deal while chastising the writers and actors for also wanting the better deal.
I am not chastising anyone for trying to negotiate their market rate. I’m going to negotiate a lot more compensation based on my market value when I leave AWS as a cloud consultant specializing in application development based on my track record than I could as a run of the mill C# developer just like Shonda Rhimes can negotiate more than an unknown writer based on their market value.
> 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
> 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 choose to accept my total compensation because while the reward is lower so are the risks.
There is more risk working for a smaller consulting firm or going out on my own than there is working for the second largest employer in the US. But the reward could be potentially higher working for a smaller agency or independently where they would get a smaller cut (an agency) or working for myself.
There is also a risk/reward calculation between more cash up front vs less cash + residuals.
This is the problem. You have consistently said in previous comments that taking higher upfront cash is less risk, and you claimed that's what actors and writers should be doing, instead of asking for residuals. And now you turn around and admit that taking higher upfront cash, which you say you can get from consulting firms, is actually more risky.
So your words seem inconsistent, and somewhat hypocritical, because you're taking the recurring revenue while saying that actors and writers shouldn't.
In any case, it's not clear why you think that working for a BigCo is less risky, because there have been a ton of layoffs lately, so BigCos could fire their employees at any time, and have been doing so. (A lot of them over-hired the past few years.)
> My base pay is far lower than I could get working for another consulting company.
> 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
> Why should they get residual checks? ... If anything they should negotiate a higher up front payment.
> 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)
> The writers are negotiating based on 3. I would be negotiating based on 1.
> 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
There is no inconsistency. When you negotiate your compensation you consider the risk/reward benefits of your decision.
If you rank different scenarios as far as risk reward with some being theoretical.
1. Least risk/least possible reward - work for AWS all cash - no risk of downside. But no upside potential
2. More risk/more potential upside - cash + stock. Amazon isn’t going out of business. But the stock has gone from a high of $150 split adjusted to $90 and now back to $130. It could go up. But it definitely won’t go to zero (my choice)
3. Working for a small consultancy and getting paid a cash salary - the consultancy could go out of business. But I also could get paid more.
4. A completely made up scenario: a managing partner in a consultancy where I own a share of the company where I would be promised dividends (ie residuals) of any future growth potential in exchange for lower cash now.
See, that's the problem!
Your "Least risk" scenario of Amazon offering you a significantly higher base pay than you make now does not exist and will not exist:
> 1. Least risk/least possible reward - work for AWS all cash - no risk of downside. But no upside potential
Likewise, as I said elsewhere, "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." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927858
> Amazon isn’t going out of business.
That's not the risk. As I said in my previous comment, the risk is that Amazon lays you off. Or maybe they'll put you on PIP and force you to leave.
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-...
> 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?
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 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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.