Writers Guild Members Look to Internet Distribution

stevedcc writes "The Guardian is running an article about members of the Writer's Guild, still on strike, creating their own ventures to deliver content over the internet. The intention is to get their work to consumers while bypassing the movie studios. Their effort will include actors and directors, and it is not the first step they have taken to expand their interests during the strike. One particular project is said to include A-list talent, and will be released in roughly 50 daily segments before going to DVD. This is also relevant to the strike because, as the article states, 'at the core of the current dispute is the question of how to reimburse writers for work that is distributed on the internet.'"

The internet and control

[stevedcc]

"The internet is a place where they can't maintain control," he said. "They are trying to introduce an old-school control-orientated way of thinking into a system that rejects and repels that tradition of control."

Thank god this writer understands - the studios really donät seem to

Re:The internet and control

[lgw]

Can't the Writers Guild and the Producers Guild just settle this on the PvP server like gentlemen? Nothing worse than guild drama ...

Re:The internet and control

[Original Replica]

The idea that they have a union is absurd

Perhaps the idea that the writers wouldn't get the same percentage of compensation for an internet release of their work as they would get for a DVD release of their work, is absurd. You would have never heard about this, except that they do have a union. People who know that their company is heavily dependent on them and yet do not feel treated well at that company, and talk about "screw this I'm gonna go somewhere else" in the breakroom but never do it; they are absurd. One singular worker thinking that their protest march of one is going to change the bottom line hunting of dozens of executive level managers; that is absurd.
That you think that an industry halting is "ludicrous" and that this is something that the studio heads "allow" tells me that you are either: a)wealthy and powerful enough that you actually consider yourself better that those who work for you. b)operate under such a surf's mentality that you think it is wrong to publicly disobey Master.

Re:

[Orange Crush]

Perhaps the idea that the writers wouldn't get any percentage of compensation for an internet release of their work as they would get for a DVD release of their work, is absurd.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:The internet and control

[hedwards]

I hate unions, I think they're by and large full of selfish, greedy people that don't give a damn about anybody not in a union. But in this case the union is pretty much dead on. So no, it isn't just "leftist Hollywood limo-liberal crowd" or even mostly, it is just people that believe that doing an honest days work should come with some sort of benefit. I'm sorry if your brand of "conservativism" is lacking in compassion; I'll be sure to lend you some of mine.

The belief that they shouldn't be compensated for any use of their work for which their bosses are being paid is just absurd. The average screen writer makes very little money in the first place, then to deny them any of the profits from redistribution in a digital form on the internet is just stealing.

The media conglomerates make such a big deal about how people distributing copyright works without paying are hurting the artists but guess what, the writers are some of the artists, and the suggestion that I shouldn't download a movie so that the corporations can steal from the writers instead of me is just plain ludicrous.

The average screenwriter makes so little anyways, I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that they'll get a piece of any additional revenues that are made just because they felt like writing for the movies/TV or whatever. Because it's awfully hard to come up with quality programming if nobody writes it. I for one would not want to watch only improv and reality programming all day everyday, I'd cancel my satellite, sell my tv and never watch the idiot box again.

Re:

[Anspen]

Good post but this caught my eye:

I hate unions, I think they're by and large full of selfish, greedy people that don't give a damn about anybody not in a union.

This preception, which I've seem among more posters, is a big problem in keeping the big companies in their place. I can understand the sentiment, I was quite perplexed when someone explained the concept of "closed shop" to me. But Unions in general doen't have to be like that and many aren't. And even if they where at least they do help the emp

Re:

[ravenshrike]

Unless, of course, you live in Chicago. In which case it's almost mandated.

Re:

[hedwards]

Yes, but they don't seem to care at all about the non union employees that are working at the same job site. Of course, my point of view may very well be skewed, but I've noticed a tendency for unions to spit on contracts which most other people would be grateful to have.

In this case I have yet to hear about the union helping out the employees that work in non union jobs, that is jobs that don't even have a union to belong to, who are out of work because of the strike. I can understand that they have to kee

Re:

[sydbarrett74]

Yes, but they don't seem to care at all about the non union employees that are working at the same job site. Of course, my point of view may very well be skewed, but I've noticed a tendency for unions to spit on contracts which most other people would be grateful to have.

My only personal experience with unions is when I was an extra on the set of Iron Jawed Angels [wikipedia.org] back in '02. SAG [wikipedia.org] members treated us non-SAGgers like shit, for example insisting that during meals we only get the leftovers. They would go through the buffet queues piling their plates with food and then ostentatiously tipping most of it into the wastebins. Please someone tell me most SAG members (and union members as a whole) aren't as boorish.

Re:

[iluvcapra]

The frustration I have is that unions don't have to behave like that, in fact I would suggest that they would have much better support if they could look into helping out the other workers that are harmed by their strikes. I mean it certainly does look bad, and contributes to the pressure for them to cave.

It's a contentious issue in the US labor movement in general, the "organize more people and trades" group (with Change to Win and the SEIU) against the more defensive "lobby for better labor laws and get better bennies" group (with the remaining AFL-CIO unions).

The main problem with most entertainment shops is that the labor organizations are split: there's the more militant SAG/AFTRA, WGA and maybe DGA, which are happy to strike over benefits and are willing to cause a huge fuss, because they know their

Re:

[Vellmont]

The average screen writer makes very little money in the first place, then to deny them any of the profits from redistribution in a digital form on the internet is just stealing.

Actually from what I understand, the average writer for television, movies, or cable makes a LOT of money when they're working. But the work is usually not steady, with large periods of unemployment. I'd bet residuals help pay the bills during those times of unemployment. (Which makes them all the more important)

Re:

[ultranova]

I hate unions, I think they're by and large full of selfish, greedy people that don't give a damn about anybody not in a union.

So they're like every other corporate entity, then ?

Just think of the unions as companies specializing in providing manpower.

Re:

[kalirion]

The average screen writer makes very little money in the first place, then to deny them any of the profits from redistribution in a digital form on the internet is just stealing.

You're not going to win lots of support on slashdot with a view that distribution of any content on the internet can be equated to stealing.

Re:

[dwarfking]

This is a true statement, and one of the issues I see with unions, particularly ones like the writers guild. In these cases, the unions end up forcing higher pay even for no-talents just because they are in the union. The talented people don't need the unions as they could get work because of their talent. Unions in this case are there for the benefit of the below-line talents.

So what ends up happening is all costs go up because the union places a strangle hold on an industry.

Today's market does not ne

Re:

[fictionpuss]

Like Radiohead? Seriously though, back up your claims!

Studios arent obsolete

[jorghis]

Hmm, so all the writers need is actors, stagehands, a set, and all the other stuff required to produce a movie and they can make it and distribute it online. Maybe they could organize all these things together and call it a "production company". Thatll show those studios!

This isnt the end of studios, those amatuerish videos on YouTube may be entertaining but you will still need large organizations to produce anything complex. The only thing that will change is that some of the marketing and sales may be different.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, writers could feasibly bypass the studios by doing Red-vs-Blue type movies (forget the name for that type of animation). Presumably there's a software package more specifically tailored for this kind of movie-making so you don't have to use all kinds of workarounds?

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[The Master Control P]

You mean machinima?

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Ah yes, that. Now, the name of the open source software package that's as easy to use as Halo for showing people moving around, but much more extensible?

Re:

[RobertLTux]

big hint time to play "Will it Blend??" you need
1 a target
2 ????
3 a Camera

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[bahwi]

You are 100% correct. But the new studios will not have the ownership, perception of power, and complacency of the old studios. Or at least not as great.

Lots of small indie films that have hit it big have been from small studios or even just groups of people coming together to do it(still takes 10-50 people) but it's doable and has been done before.

Re:

[SW6]

You are 100% correct. But the new studios will not have the ownership, perception of power, and complacency of the old studios. Or at least not as great.

You appear to have misspelt "Or at least not yet" there. Power corrupts.

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[Rie Beam]

The thing is, though, is that while all of those people are necessary for the production of a high-quality product, they are all offshots of the kernel that is the writer's idea. A producer crafts it, the crew helps create it, and distributors help get it out to others, but without that original idea to bloom off of, you're essentially churning out a fake product.

Mind you, this hasn't stopped studios from producing this crap, but still, writers are the heart of the industry. The whole point of this strike is reimbursement for what it is they actually do, whereas the studios apparently seem to feel that, despite being little more than the shiny wrapping for the actual product, the writer's cut isn't as significant.

This is a battle over content versus packaging. I'm not saying that a writer alone can produce something we'd change the channel or file into the theater to see, but that without their help, there's really no chance we'd end up there, anyway.

Re:

[jorghis]

Yes, and if you ask the actors guild they will give a line about how their contribution is the most important to a film. If you ask the special effects guys they will say the same thing about how important theirs is. And so on and so forth. At the end of the day if you have X number of dollars to produce a movie you have to divide it up somehow between the different parties. If the writers come along and say they think their effort is worth several times what they are currently paid you either have to g

Re:Studios arent obsolete

[Rie Beam]

You honestly expect me to believe that the issue here is that the studios aren't make enough money?

Re:

[jorghis]

That isnt what I said at all. I said that it costs X number of dollars to produce a movie. You cannot substantially increase everyone's pay without going above X. Therefore you either have to reduce someone else's compensation in order to give someone (the writers) a raise or pass the cost onto consumers. (raise ticket prices) Believe it or not studios do not enjoy massive profit margins that they could use to double everyone's compensation if they wanted to. (as an example viacom enjoys a 13% profit

Re:

[chromatic]

You cannot substantially increase everyone's pay without going above X. Therefore you either have to reduce someone else's compensation in order to give someone (the writers) a raise or pass the cost onto consumers.

... or find new markets or sources of income, such as DVD sales and Internet distribution.

This raises three questions. First, if (as the argument goes) a DVD boxed set with commentary from the writers and producers and showrunner is worth more than a DVD boxed set without that commentary,

Re:

[Rie Beam]

"You cannot substantially increase everyone's pay without going above X. Therefore you either have to reduce someone else's compensation in order to give someone (the writers) a raise or pass the cost onto consumers. (raise ticket prices)"

You completely ignore my primary point, though -- that writers are inherently more important to the process than anyone else. 13% profit of hundreds of millions is still a nice chunk of change, regardless of how its measured. I would gladly sack compensation in lesser fiel

Re:

[jorghis]

"So -- Viacom could enjoy at 12% profit margin (still better than retail!) and meet the writers demands of 0.6% on DVD and Internet revenues (3 cents on each $5, wow that's really ball-busting the studios)."

But here is the thing, all the other people who work on the movies get residuals too. (actors, directors, etc.) If you give the writers their .6% everyone else is going to expect their residuals to go up too. So that 12% profit margin will turn into a negative number very quickly if they start tripling

Re:

[Oligonicella]

I write. Not screen plays, but stories. There is a butt-load more writing to do in a story that is to be delivered in print form than in a screen-play, which is really no more than a guideline for the director. The dialogue, scenes and action can and will change before it's committed. Even event sequences change. Given all that, the screen play writer is no more important than anyone else for a movie.

If you doubt me, pull one up online. There are plenty out there. Read it and then compare to the m

Re:

[Rie Beam]

Again, though, everything is coming -out- of the original script. No matter how much it may change, or who sparked the original idea, working without a script is still a laughable thought -- you can't change the script if it isn't there, and obviously there's something going on if the "fleshing out" process is something the producer cannot handle himself.

Not every script is a masterpiece, or even readable stand-alone. But unless you're shooting guerrilla footage, improv or the like, a script is still going

Re:

[ppanon]

Your thesis is quite borne out in certain markets. For a decade, Pixar's movie revenues kicked the arse of most of their competitors including the 800 lb gorilla, Disney, in a medium where the influence by actors is more limited, animation. Why? Because they focused on interesting stories involving engaging characters whereas their competitors had focused on soulless formulaic repetition.

Yeah, interpretation of that story, whether by actors or by animators, can make or break a movie, but even great actors

Re:

[elrous0]

If you think for a SECOND that the writers, director's, actors, production designers, wardrobe designers, etc, don't have a HUGE hand in creating a film too, you're nuts. On a major production, a screenwriter may be important, but he is hardly the "be all, end all" of the film. In fact, the script itself is just a guideline or starting point for many, particularly artistic, filmmakers (think Kubrick, David Lynch, Tim Burton, et. al.).

Let's not overinflate the value of a screenwriter. Their heads are alrea

Re:

[wizardforce]

but you will still need large organizations to produce anything complex.

nonsense. the only thing big companies are capable of doing is creating a movie that costs 200 million to produce, that doesn't mean it's any more "complex" or even "good" all it means is that it is "expensive." granted most of the videos on you tube are crude to say the least but there are also a good number that are at or better than a lot of what hollywood and big studios produce [which as of late isnt all that hard]

Re:

[jorghis]

You cant produce something like Lord of the Rings with a webcam and a youtube account. As long as people are willing to pay 7 bucks for a ticket to see movies like Lord of the Rings there will be a reason for large production companies to exist.

Re:

[wizardforce]

You cant produce something like Lord of the Rings with a webcam and a youtube account

I dont care how much money they throw at the problem, if their storyline/plot are bad the movie is BAD. no amount of eye candy and pretty shots are going to fix it. LOTR did well because of the plot not so much because of the effects. take the plot away and you've got a mediocre movie that really isnt worth watching. that being said, money can improve a plot but it can not in its self make a good movie. then there's t

Re:

[IamTheRealMike]

If you did LotR without the graphics, painted scenery, costumes, epic music and special effects you'd have theatre. There's a reason cinema is way more popular than theatre - these things matter and can really take a story to the next level.

Oh, also I don't agree that if the story is bad a film can't be successful. Look at the first Star Wars movie. The plot was derivative, predictable crap. It was an amazing success because it just had that magical something to it, and awesome special effects.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

Wait, by "first" do you mean episode I or IV?

Re:

[wizardforce]

if you did LOTR without a plot it would be fscking awful and you know this. I would rather have a good plot and few effects than a fscking awful plot that was scribbled on a napkin 5 mins prior to shooting the film with awsesome effects and I bet a lot of people would agree. enough in fact that ignoring them is a huge mistake.

Oh, also I don't agree that if the story is bad a film can't be successful. Look at the first Star Wars movie. The plot was derivative, predictable crap. It was an amazing success b

Re:

[Scrameustache]

I dont care how much money they throw at the problem, if their storyline/plot are bad the movie is BAD. no amount of eye candy and pretty shots are going to fix it. LOTR did well

Except that Transformer is nothing but eye candy, and Transformer did well, too.
There's no business like show business. And they know the formula: Throw in pretty people with car chases and explosions, and the teenagers will come and give you money.

amatuerish videos on YouTube

[Presto Vivace]

beats reruns

Re:

[TheMCP]

This isnt the end of studios, those amatuerish videos on YouTube may be entertaining but you will still need large organizations to produce anything complex. The only thing that will change is that some of the marketing and sales may be different.

I agree, but I think some additional considerations need to be made.

The barrier to entry is much lower today. It used to be that just the cost of a couple cameras and a darkroom and film and chemicals was prohibitive. Now you can get all you need to film a pro qual

Re:

[ducomputergeek]

The Studios (TM), meaning those who control production and distribution are becoming obsolete. Production studios (What you mean) aren't. However, there are facilities that you can rent out for several thousand dollars per day/month that have all the equipment. All you have to provide are the actors. Hell, "The Studios(TM)" even rent out spaces from such facilities anymore.

I think Sin City only had most of the actors on stage for 1 or 2 days. I forget the total amount of time they actual shot princip

How far in the future?

[tepples]

Hiring a good PR/Advertising firm and going to digital downloads may be the future.

The distant future. As of 2008, there is still a digital divide [wikipedia.org], and the major studios control the distribution and promotion to the have-nots.

Re:

[elrous0]

Whatever it takes to get the "According to Jim" writers working again is just fine by me. A day without their genius wit is like a day in Hell.

Re:

[dave562]

You miss the point. This is about (not that I've read the article) a shift in power. Rather than the talentless middlemen making all the money, why can't it be the writers?

Because those "talentless middle men" bring EVERYONE ELSE together. Productions are FREAKING HUGE operations. Do you live in Los Angeles by any chance? Have you ever seen what is involved with a production? I work in downtown Los Angeles at a building with a loading dock on Lower Grand Avenue. Lower Grand Avenue is in so many produc

Re:

[jorghis]

I always hear people say things like "running a company that does xyz isnt that hard and could be done a hundred times more efficiently". If you really believe that this is the case why dont you go do it and become a bazillionaire? After all our economic system is structured in such a way that if there actually is a better way to run a company you are free to go do it and reap the rewards.

good

[superwiz]

This is how it's supposed to work. If they don't like the business terms offered to them, they should work on their own terms.

Hollywood learns from Agrentina

[RevWaldo]

If you can't get an agreement with the bosses, just take over the damn factory and run it yourself! http://www.thetake.org/index.cfm?page_name=synopsis [thetake.org] It looks like the strike will be settled one deal at a time, like they just did with David Letterman. ( http://gothamist.com/2007/12/29/wga_update_real.php [gothamist.com] ). The power of the AMPTP has been seriously underminded. The writers will get deals eventually. After all, without writers, how will they make reality TV shows?

Real writers need not apply

[pla]

I have no problem with the WGA sticking it to the studios - If the "rights"-holders have no one to write Rocky LVXII, perhaps they won't subject us to it.

I don't care about A-list actors - In most cases, I prefer second-string actors, for whom "hunger" still keeps "ego" in check.

I love the idea of distribution outside MPAA control, for reasons obvious to any Slashdotter.

But... Going back to my Rocky LVXII, I also have little sympathy for the hacks who keep trying to feed us the same trite watered-down

Here.. here?

[zippthorne]

Well, except for the vulgarities.

I'm glad to know I'm not alone in the "The writers have legitimate grievances, which the production companies should address, but they should probably hire scabs to replace most of the writers, anyway." camp.

Re:

[andphi]

As with anything else, according to Sturgeon's Law, most of what is written for TV, Movies, and internet-direct distribution is crap. We mostly notice the 90%, and wonder why writers deserve more money. However, the current deal seems to give the short end of the stick to the 10% of writers who do their jobs well. Note also, that your 10% of quality and my 10% of quality may be entirely different.

The best way to make sure the good stay in the market is for the Studioes to give them their fair share of the p

Re-Runs ad nauseum

[Migraineman]

I recently had a conversation about the writers' strike. My co-worker was completely oblivious. She had noticed that there seemed to be more re-runs on recently, but otherwise the TV programming seemed pretty normal. Makes me wonder if Joe Sixpack would ever notice if the broadcasters just played re-runs from now on. It'd certainly cut production costs ...

I still fail to see why this particular industry *needs* a union. The whole sense of entitlement astonishes me.

Do it old school

[sokoban]

You know, the writers could always go back to doing what writers did before the advent of movie studios, TV networks, and the like. There are these things called "Books" and "Plays" which are considerably easier and less costly to form into a finished product than movies and TV shows are.

XKCD on writers strike

[Cyberax]

http://xkcd.com/360/ [xkcd.com] - insightful and funny as usual.

Animal Farm anyone?

[EdIII]

Maybe I have just got so cynical over the years.. but the first thing I thought of when I heard this was the book by Orwell, Animal Farm. The writers are going to BECOME what they hate. They now have the impetus to form their own distribution channels. They are not bypassing the Movie Studios. They are BECOMING the Movie Studios. If they do actually pull it off, maybe they will have better compensation packages for the writers in the long term. I am still reminded though, that power corrupts and that

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Salaried professionals

[markjhood2003]

It's my understanding that these writers are on staff, earning regular salaries. How are they in principal different from professional software developers working for Silicon Valley companies? If their pay is miserably low, sure, striking for better pay is reasonable, but why should they get paid residuals every time the product of their work brings in income for their employers?

Re:

[xMilkmanDanx]

Maybe salary, maybe for tv series. And then only if it is a particularly long running tv series. For movie writers, much like authors, there's one decent check every 1-4 years. The residuals are what keep them afloat while writing their next piece and trying to get someone to produce it.

Re:

[Asic Eng]

[...] why should they get paid residuals every time the product of their work brings in income for their employers?

As an engineer I typically get a salary and stock options, in some companies I get a bonus, too. I guess it would be just as reasonable to get a higher salary and no bonus or stock options. But that's merely a contractual detail - it's open to negotiation, just as anything else. So why should the writers not get paid residuals in addition to a salary? If that's the way they want to get paid,

Re:

[Asic Eng]

[...] they should have negotiated better [...] Do they need their hands held?

That's what they are doing just now: they are negotiating. Striking is just a part of the negotiation process. Apparently they don't need help with that.

Re:

[Asic Eng]

Striking isn't negotiating.

I'm not sure how you want to support that notion. If you go to your boss and say "I'm going to quit unless I get a raise", or if you talk to a new company and say "I'm not going to work for you unless you give me $amount" - then you are negotiating.

I mean their personal negotiations. I don't strike when I negotiate my contracts...sigh

That's your personal choice - they made a different one.

WGA Strike - Best Thing To Ever Happen To America?

[Bones3D_mac]

You know... when you get right down to it, maybe this strike isn't so bad. For a lot of us, we're finally being driven to use the "off" button on our tv remotes and start looking at other aspects of our lives that have long since become neglected. Whether it's socializing, exercising or picking up on our old hobbies, it's all a damned site better than the mindless drek we've been staring at aimlessly all these years.

It's almost like waking up after a night of binge drinking, only to find that your one-night

Re:WGA Strike - Best Thing To Ever Happen To Ameri

[kalirion]

Yes, I've found myself averaging more hours of computer games per day than I have since my college days.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Now. Pull up a screen play on the internet, read it and get back to us if it's entertaining or shallow writing.

Re:

[Punto]

what's your point? that "internet fanfiction" is never going to be good enough as the work of "real writers"? it will be once writers start exploring the medium themselves, this guys are taking the first step.

Re:

[Adambomb]

The writers of content are not the ones held responsible for the closed captioning of their transcripts. Don't you notice those message saying "Closed captioning by: ". If they wish to move a significant amount of their content, once it begins in earnest they would have to find a solution to not having standardized CC or face this exact issue.

It's just not in the realm of their focus until theres a significant portion releasing their creations via the internet. I'm not saying it makes your point incorrect

Re:

[Buran]

Actually, the law REQUIRES that you have captions on your show. You can farm out the job or have someone else pay for it, but the law says that it has to be there. The mechanism to show them has had to be built into all TVs 13" or larger since 1991 (and smaller sets can have it if they want; Mom's kitchen TV at her house has a caption decoder that shows really, really small captions. I think it's cute).

The technology to do the same with digital films has been in existence for at least 5 years, and yet almos

Re:

[Adambomb]

Look, I know I cannot understand the frustrations you deal with not being hearing impaired myself. But you're blaming the wrong dog.

Closed captioning allows persons with hearing disabilities to have access to television programming by displaying the audio portion of a television program as text on the television screen. Beginning in July 1993, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all analog television receivers with screens 13 inches or larger sold or manufactured in the United States to contain built-in decoder circuitry to display closed captioning. Beginning July 1, 2002, the FCC also required that digital television (DTV) receivers include closed captioning display capability.

In 1996, Congress required video programming distributors (cable operators, broadcasters, satellite distributors, and other multi-channel video programming distributors) to close caption their television programs. In 1997, the FCC set a transition schedule requiring distributors to provide an increasing amount of captioned programming, as summarized below.

If the FCC had put the onus on the CREATORS of the content from the start, then there would be a reason to expect them to have their changes follow suit when releasing content directly to the internet. The problem is the onus has been on the DISTRIBUTORS not the creators of the content to have them closed captions.

Source: http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html [fcc.gov]

Re:

[Buran]

The end result is the same however and it's the creator's job to ensure that captions are put in. The distributor's job is just to get the finished product to the end customer. I think the actual implementation of the rule (and thank you for the link - I had forgotten that the rollover for 75% of captioning being required is next week) winds up being that distributors will refuse to air shows that don't have captioning, so that they can meet the requirement, so producers are forced to put the captions in if

Re:

[Adambomb]

yeah the end result IS the same.

keep this in mind too though, the internet is global, and as we've mentioned repeatedly on /. the USA doesn't legislate to the ENTIRE world yet. Although i see this as a good thing in general, it does also mean that the good ideas aren't universal either.

Plus there could be lobbyists. One thing the industry might fear would be an inversion of the current process where many copyrighted internet broadcasts are only available to American subnets, but not to the wider world. If c

Re:

[Buran]

Not if the law said that it only applied to American-produced or distributed content meant for American audiences. And don't the networks block non-US addresses from viewing shows already? (I've never looked at their services but I remember reading about such blocks).

Re:

[Adambomb]

thats exactly what i mean, except it'd be the inverse. That'd work fine as legislation, how would they keep all the content for non-american audiences that is just as accessible on a foreign server from being as prevalent as it now. I don't have anything to back this up as its just conjecture, but i think in terms of internet content that would make for a drop in the bucket.

out of curiousity, do you happen to know if video content purchased through itunes carries closed captioning data by default?

Re:

[Buran]

I haven't tried to buy anything from the itunes store, but I've been meaning to try a preview to see if the previews have it. If you try it, do let us know.

Re:

[Adambomb]

Diggity.

I'm actually rather curious now as to whether this is already the case in some respects heh.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

There are always going to be holes in catering to those with disabilities. Someone's always going to be e.g. deaf and blind. For my part, various medical difficulties make it so I can't feasibly sit through a movie (though luckily those problems are getting corrected).

The good news is that voice recognition is improving every day, to the point that closed-captioning could be automated. Also, I wonder what the barriers are to crowdsourcing it? Let bored/low-wage people all over the world transcribe the d

Re:

[Buran]

Good luck - I hope whatever they're doing works. Unfortunately my problem is dead nerve cells in my cochlea caused by prenatal rubella (not listening to an ipod too loud or anything) and is going to require stem cell therapy to fix and the research is still ongoing (I know; some of it is going on at the medical school where I work).

Unfortunately, I have no faith in crowdsourcing -- if you want it done in a timely fashion (the appeal of episodic TV is gone if you miss a show and can't see it before the next

Maybe sometimes?

[Junta]

I've watched a fair share of CC, and even on non-live programs, I have to wonder if sometimes some dictation software was used then edited. I can hear and can tell when things are omitted, or off base. Sometimes *really* off base. Examples:
"Seeing my family is very important to me" was what was said.
"Seeing my family is very porn" was the CC.
"Miss Universe" was the audio, CCed as: "Miss Urine Verse"

Or it could have been a person who wanted to slip some humor in...

Re:

[Buran]

Those are live-caption shows where a stenography machine was used. Those work on phonetics which is why you see strange errors like the last one you listed. "Universe" is a less common word than the two that replaced it so the software defaulted to the strange error -- it's a computer, so it doesn't know any better. The operator can override the mistake on the fly, so perhaps you may have seen it corrected later on in the broadcast.

These sorts of things are less likely to happen if the operator has time t

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

I find it hard to believe that, given the right software, a fan of a tv show (or even someone just fluent in the language) couldn't transcribe it. Also, I find it hard to believe they would require more than $30 per hour of programming. Why must they be transcribing in coordination with the production crew? I don't see any errors that would result, assuming they have e.g. character names.

$30/hour of transcription (hour is more like 42 minutes) is above the wage typically awarded on mturk, but a drop in t

Re:

[Buran]

You would think, indeed, but I haven't heard of it having been done. Please do let me know if such a thing exists!

This is not about the Internet.

[SanityInAnarchy]

There are MANY subtitle formats, and MANY container formats. As for "getting paid enough", you obviously haven't been following the story. It's not that they're not getting paid enough, it's that they're not getting paid fairly. This is an industry where individual actors can be paid millions of dollars, so there is absolutely no excuse to cut the writers out. But your credibility goes away when we remember that the writers are "whining" about not getting paid, and you're whining about not being entertaine

Whoops, reposting with paragraphs.

[SanityInAnarchy]

There are MANY subtitle formats, and MANY container formats.

As for "getting paid enough", you obviously haven't been following the story. It's not that they're not getting paid enough, it's that they're not getting paid fairly. This is an industry where individual actors can be paid millions of dollars, so there is absolutely no excuse to cut the writers out. But your credibility goes away when we remember that the writers are "whining" about not getting paid, and you're whining about not being entertained

Re:

[Buran]

If someone is going to do something that doesn't accomodate the disabled, and I've ALREADY SAID that I know the technology exists, but I also said that it never gets used, don't tell me where I can and can't talk about it. The fact that I'm talking about it here doesn't mean I might not have brought up the topic elsewhere. Ignoring the disabled is a SERIOUS issue.

I also don't care if you don't think my argument has any credibility to it. I'd love to see you laugh off the problem of disability access to thos

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

If you think my argument is bullshit, rebut it with actual information such as a plan to ensure that these internet-distributed shows will indeed actually carry subtitles.

Then present your argument better. You started off railing about how there won't be subtitles, then clarified with something like "Oh, but they can do subtitles, but I just know they won't."

As such, it seemed fairly luddite and absurd.

Now, your argument seems to be more along the lines of "I want some assurance that they'll do subtitles

Re:

[Buran]

I should not have to pay for captions. Let me hammer that in again: For a medium that is supposed to replace a widely-accessible medium, captions should already be in place. It is an insult and a slap in the face to the millions of viewers who literally depend on those subtitles. A replacement solution needs to be in place, and it cannot be a windows-only solution. It cannot have a fee. TV doesn't have a fee beyond any cable/sat charges, wheelchair users aren't charged for ramps, elevators, etc., so why sho

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

I should not have to pay for captions.

Did I say you should have to? No, actually, I said:

Something like Captel might be a start.

Now, from the Captioned Telephone website [captionedtelephone.com], we have:

In many states, CapTel equipment is provided free or at a reduced rate to people with hearing loss.

In other words, get the government to pay for it.

it cannot be a windows-only solution.

Agreed. All of the technologies I listed will work on VLC and mplayer, on Linux and Mac, and on Windows, if you insist.

wheelchair users aren

Re:

[Buran]

I'd be stunned if the government did anything to fix the web-media-doesn't-have-captions problem in anything less than a decade, by which time the target technology will be something else... I also honestly fail to see how a telephone captioning service can put captions on a video screen.

You'd be bitter too if you've had to cope with years and years of bad advice, no matter how well-intentioned, and constantly finding that designers of new technologies failed to consider the deaf in their designs.

Such as, t

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'd be stunned if the government did anything to fix the web-media-doesn't-have-captions problem in anything less than a decade

That is the fault of the government, then, not the web media.

I also honestly fail to see how a telephone captioning service can put captions on a video screen.

It was an example of how the government can help with this sort of thing.

Such as, there's no way to transmit closed caption data over HDMI

So your TV won't be able to do the subtitles directly, but I don't really see the p

Re:

[Buran]

Whoops -- meant to say "we're not talking about some random no-name fan production, no matter how slick the site or movie looks".

Re:

[forkazoo]

I'm partly deaf. Require captions to watch TV and movies. These Internet films never have captions even when the viewers can handle it (I know Quicktime Player can, I think WM Player can too, iTunes has a menu item for it).

Sadly, none of the American TV I download ever has subs/captions. I don't need them, but I can see how they would be useful. OTOH, there is a ton of Japanese stuff that naturally comes with English language subtitles when you download it. You may not be able to find something you like,

Re:

[Buran]

Where do you live? I'd be curious to know if your location has any kind of requirement like we do to caption public TV. It's implemented such that you don't see it if you don't want to so it-s a win-win for everyone. I know that I once saw a Macgyver episode in Greece, open-subtitled in Greek, that I couldn't watch because I can't read Greek and I need captions ... very frustrating! The only reason I could follow the story at all was because I had seen the episode before.

Re:

[forkazoo]

Where do you live? I'd be curious to know if your location has any kind of requirement like we do to caption public TV. It's implemented such that you don't see it if you don't want to so it-s a win-win for everyone. I know that I once saw a Macgyver episode in Greece, open-subtitled in Greek, that I couldn't watch because I can't read Greek and I need captions ... very frustrating! The only reason I could follow the story at all was because I had seen the episode before.

I'm in America, which does require c

Re:

[Buran]

I'm honest, and don't download shows (aside from the captioning problem), but I agree, since solving your problem would solve mine.

Sorry -- thought you were in Europe or something. I'm also in the US.

So how do I add captions on YouTube?

[tepples]

These Internet films never have captions even when the viewers can handle it

My Google-fu is failing me. If I am about to upload a video to YouTube or other similar sites, what's the recommended way for me to add captions that the user can turn on or off? Or should I force captions to obscure the action even for hearing viewers?

Re:

[Buran]

Two different versions of the video, since I think YouTube flattens the video (I've never tried to upload), one with subtitles and one without, is how I'd do it. Also, make sure to make your subtitles white with black backgrounds to be most easily readable against any background color.

You could look in Flash instruction guides, but I've heard enough gripes about how Youtube screws up submissions that I wouldn't be surprised if an additional layer containing captions got lost at upload.

I hope that helps but

Re:

[Buran]

I have 5 out from the local library right now, and have that very book on hold -- they refused to give it to me when the computer told me it had arrived for me to pick up (4 times in a row, sheesh, one email was enough!) - but we'll see. (What's up with the "we won't give you your book yet" thing anyway? I've never had them conveniently tell me it was an "error" before).

The fact that I watch TV (and that the few shows I watch are all rerunning the same shit I've already seen) doesn't mean at all that I don'

Re:

[TaoPhoenix]

Dear AC,

You must be preferring this:

"Hey man. To you and all the other sour posters up there, you should see how they trash the scripts we try to deliver. But that's irrelevant from us making enough to pay the rent, you know? So, try to separate your unhappiness from my occupation".

Re:

[AusIV]

First off, if the internet were a desirable business model for the traditional 22-48 minutes TV program, someone would already have monetized it.

That reminds me of the quote by 1899 patent commissioner Charles H. Duell "everything that can be invented has been invented." Just because something could be a viable business model doesn't mean it already is. Plus, there's never been a better time for Web based programming: the major networks have lost their writers and have been reduced to showing reruns. Now

Re:

[spellcheckur]

As someone close to the situation, I'll bite:

First of all, an increase of costs (writers fees) will do either one or both of the following: increase prices of content and decrease the budget of other areas of production. You can damn well guarantee that even if the Studios and the writers do make a deal, that extra money is definitely not coming out of the Studios' pockets.

Well, this is silly. If the studios have the capability to magically cut production costs or increase the prices to consumers, why h