I don't know exactly how you're thinking about this, but it seems like it is more of a long range strategy than simply trying to get a larger portion of the current pie.
It seems to me that IPR is only really an issue today because the monopoly is no longer contingent on a capital intensive infrastructure. Or, rather, it is an attempt to prevent anyone else from deciding to invest in new infrastructure. It has always been easy to duplicate these products, but since there has been a monopoly on infrastructure (a limited number of networks are allowed to use the spectrum) there was little threat of competition (except by wealthy Australians--you've always gotta watch out for them) and the reliable network television audience. Moreover, TV was a sort of isolated medium, with a predictable kind of business model. A few networks were given exclusive rights to use a broad swath of the spectrum. Because of this monopoly, those networks--almost all of them commercial--also controlled access to the audiences. Copyright was important, but the threat of a newcomer was relatively slim. They would have to build a network themselves, build a set of shows, build an audience, and be willing to sweat it out until they could get advertisers. The supposed threat of rebroadcasting TV via pirate stations was really only a threat in foreign markets (who's going to buy advertising slots for programs that might get shut down?) and even this was often something the industry (according to Herbert Schiller, in cooperation with the US Military and State Dept) was doing already to build foreign audiences for their programs, foreign markets for US goods and foreign goodwill towards the "American Way of Life." Where they weren't actually complicit in beaming pirate signals, they were dumping US programs abroad for several decades before that became a real trade issue.
In short, they were basically willing to give away the content because the pudding was in the monopoly to the audience and the IPR was basically only important in so far as it prevented anyone else from using "their" content to exploit "their" audience. Shows were sold to networks, networks sold audiences to advertisers; syndication rights were sold to networks, networks sold audiences to advertisers. I don't exactly know where the idea of residuals came from, but it made sense in this model because it meant that shows that were sold again and again (i.e. good shows) if they made money for the so-called owner of the copyright, would also give money to the creative workers behind it. I think the point made somewhere above (by Jerry or Marta) pointed out that this system would certainly be better if residuals were shared by more of the people involved. I actually would imagine that, contrary to your dichotomy between piece rates and residuals, the negotiation for residuals (like the negotiation for pension plans and Health Care in the Auto Industry) only appears, after the fact as icing on a cake. Some backstory would be helpful here, but I'll take the liberty of speculating that the argument was over higher piece rates and they were offered to keep the same rates and get something magical called a "residual" instead--or nothing. They chose the former.
But this--like the Fordist system of pensions and healthcare that was offered instead of wage increases--is changing. The over-air network TV model is leaking like a sieve. Cable, the VCR and the legends of remote controls and channel surfing caused some problems before, but now TiVo is all of those things in one--and it's compounded by a variety of other tech issues coming down the pike. If AT&T and Verizon get their way, they will be distributors as well--in some markets they already are and the upcoming spectrum auction (of all the bandwidth that won't be used after the shift to Digital TV) will make it possible for them to also distribute without wires. Google has its foot in that auction market as well and who knows what they might do with it if they got the spectrum (in fact, I can't help but wonder how this strike is related to the upcoming auction of the wireless spectrum.)
And then there is the internet and the already burgeoning market for DVDs (which, I think, was part of the last package). On the latter, I'm not sure what would happen to the residuals if the IPR owners simply stopped selling the physical copy of the DVD (I don't know how the legal agreement is written or if it would matter) and just streamed it online. The fact is that, in this situation, the control over the pipes has suddenly destroyed that monopoly as it exists today. I'm sure there will still be commercial TV and likely the same networks will produce programs, but the on-air content will likely be just one place where those shows appear, and likely a much smaller part of it. If those companies are then in a position to say, yeah we
So although it now appears as some sort of collusion between capital and labor, and although it would be really swell if they got totally radical and decided to overthrow the whole system of property--intellectual property, that is--this would seem to be contingent on a much broader strike. It would be awesome if they did that, but I can't imagine how that would work in something like a film or movie, where dozens--if not hundreds--are involved in the production.
I'm also not sure who, in this case, the IP system is unjust towards--or how completely abolishing it under present circumstances would necessarily be of any benefit to the union.
> You mean the union can't fight to change copyright law they can only
> fight to grab a larger share?
> You think pretty poorly of them. I think they have it in them to do the
> right thing and I am ambivalent on this issue because they are labor
> fighting for something unjust rather than capital fighting for something
> unjust in which case I would be actively opposed rather than ambivalent.d
But in this case, aren't they labor fighting against capital fighting for something unjust?
in your later post, I can see some of what you mean...
>
> Why should a cabinet maker have to physically build cabinets his entire
> life to derive an income stream but if I take a photograph that image
> should generate a perpetual income stream for me? Is photography so much
> harder or more important than cabinetry?
No, but the struggle over carpentry has already happened...or at least it had it's day as well. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C05E1DC1630EE3ABC4E53DFB066838B699FDE "CABINET-MAKERS AND PIANO MEN.; A STRIKE FOR A REDUCTION OF THE HOURS OF LABOR--THE CONTRACT SYSTEM. June 6, 1880, Wednesday Page 10, 673 words
Another strike among cabinet-makers is now well under way, and most of the large furniture houses are affected by it. The strike is confined to wood-workers, who refuse to work more than 56 working hours per week, instead of the 60 hours called for by the manufacturers..."
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm "In "pursuit of happiness" through shorter hours and higher pay, printers were the first to go on strike, in New York in 1794; cabinet makers struck in 1796; carpenters in Philadelphia in 1797; cordwainers in 1799. In the early years of the 19th century, recorded efforts by unions to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action, became more frequent."
In states where there are still carpentry unions, they have other kinds of agreements with regard to their long term pay. I also think that your personal feeling about your connection to your work is all fine and good--and in a lot of ways I agree with you--but I also think that other people may have a different feeling about their creative work. I also think it is quite different to have a very open feeling about non-commercial uses of one's work by other artists but to feel a little robbed when someone else starts making money off of your stuff.
Maybe this has more to do with a general problem of how we support cultural or artistic production and I'm sure there is much about current practice that makes it difficult for us to imagine an alternative. I guess you get to this in the last part of your latest post...
> How else could I possibly look at this issue since I have stated I am
> anti-copyright? I am well aware of the problems this can create for some
> artists since our society is already geared to remunerating in an unfair
> manner. That is why I am not hostile towards the writers strike but only
> that my support is extremely unenthusiastic.
My only comment here would be that, since the whole system these workers have relied on is changing, they aren't really trying to get a bigger share of the pie: they are just trying to keep something like the share they have once the pie gets shifted around by the people at the top. You can bet that the producers aren't going to ask for input from the writers when they start moving pieces around on the chessboard. And, as Jerry has said numerous times, in this shifting industry, the contract the WGA secures could have an effect on the contract every other Union in Hollywood gets which, in turn, could have reverberating effects throughout the system. And, vice versa, the failure of this strike would definitely keep other unions from standing up.
In a way, your critique seems to be that, unless the union is interested in the complete overthrow of the capitalist system, it doesn't really interest you. I'm not saying it *should* interest you (though I am compelled by some of what Jerry has said), but I definitely find your position provocative and will have to think a good deal more about this issue. I'm working on a dissertation on Intellectual Property Rights--the very idea of them--and, for the most part, I see the point you're making. I guess I just hadn't completely outlined my own beliefs on the matter yet. I suppose there is a lot that is up for grabs here. Maybe that makes the writers strike a good first step; maybe it makes it a bad last one. History has a way of being unpredictable on these matters. It seems to me that Jerry is using this strike as a symbol for a broader movement so maybe that is the real reason for the energy he sees gathering there.
On this, I'd mention, related to your overall sense of animosity towards IPR, and of, I'd think, a good general interest on the issue of copyright and so on, the League of Noble Peers has finally released a proper (i.e. not the pirated CAM version) of "Steal This Film: 2" It is a nice piece of work and I think you'd find the last 15 minutes or so of it to gel well with your outlook.
It's only available via bit torrent, but if you have a good connection, it's a solid bet you'll get a good number of seeds:
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/
I don't know if it is so close to John's understanding that its juvenile energy will fail to inspire, but I was pretty psyched after watching it.
-s