TV is dead.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Nov 12 2007, 01:19 PM)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

That link requires a login but your title gives me enough to go on. My son has been insisting for years that TV is dead and he goes on to say that "his generation" (25 years or less) looks at my generation and simply does not understand why we want to watch a movie or read a book since it always ends the same way. For him he sees the video game adventures were he influinces the out-come as much more interesting. So dad has been saying under his breath (yeah but the video games alway work out the same way too). Well that was I was saying before about two weeks ago. So when I was a wee-babe my parrents used to invite friends over and do the "slide shows" with 35mm slides. The reason i bring up the slides shows was the week before last my son showed me some of the saved images from Halo3 were he and his girl-friend/common-law wife had been working as team. Before long I thought I was back in my parents living room watching yet another slide show. Sure, instead the "kids next door" there were "brutes". So my son would agree with the topic of this thread. Hmmm..... I think I'll read The Tolkien series again from the begining (fro the fifteenth time), maybe this time it will end differently.

Ben

[Michael Aivaliotis]

I added a PDF version to the original post. PDF version.

[hooovahh]

I may not know much about it but I don't think the writers should see a kick back from downloads from itunes or where ever. Maybe I'm misinformed (happens more than you'd think) but aren't the writers getting paid for a service? I thought the writers were getting paid to write for a show. But they don't own the show, they shouldn't see any thing out of it right?

Maybe there is some thing in the contract that I'm not aware of which gives the writers some ownership, I have no idea. If there's not any thing in the contract then the writers should stop striking, and when ever doing new work they should make sure that they keep some ownership, ensuring some royalties.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

The contract is between film and TV producers and the Writers Guild of America. The writers already have a contract via the union walking in. The current contract does not cover online or portable media issues. The writers already get a cut from broadcast and film releases. The main issue is that the concept of "broadcast" is changing... What about youtube?

I wonder if the idea of a LabVIEW programmers union has some traction...

[Aristos Queue]

QUOTE(hooovahh @ Nov 12 2007, 01:47 PM)

I may not know much about it but I don't think the writers should see a kick back from downloads from itunes or where ever. Maybe I'm misinformed (happens more than you'd think) but aren't the writers getting paid for a service? I thought the writers were getting paid to write for a show. But they don't own the show, they shouldn't see any thing out of it right? Maybe there is some thing in the contract that I'm not aware of which gives the writers some ownership, I have no idea. If there's not any thing in the contract then the writers should stop striking, and when ever doing new work they should make sure that they keep some ownership, ensuring some royalties.

The writers are, today, equivalent to book authors. Authors are paid royalties based on how well their books sell. Yes, sometimes they get an up-front fee, but that's only for the top writers who are proven talents. The majority get paid in royalties if things go well. In television, you have much the same situation. It is more common to have a basic stipend, but the majority of their income comes from the royalties that get paid if the show reaches a large audience or sells well on DVD. As far as the writers are concerned, if you transmit the show over the Internet, that's no different than a broadcast over airwaves or cable or purchase on DVD. They should get royalties when that event occurs. But the studios don't currently pay anything because the current contract covers broadcast (defined as the studio showing the content at a particular time which viewers tune in for) and sales of physical media (tapes, DVDs). In the Internet transaction, there's no physical media. And users can download it at any point, so there's no broadcast. Thus, there's no royalty. And the studios argue that there shouldn't be any because they contend they don't make any money from the downloads. The studios argue that Internet downloads are loss leader items -- products that are deliberately sold at a loss so that you can attract people to the store. Milk is frequently sold at a loss at grocery stores because they know if you come in for a necessity that you can get cheap, while you're in the store you're likely to buy other stuff. The studios claim that the downloads are just publicity for people who will eventually go buy DVDs. That logic stinks to the writers (and to me) because what person is going to go buy the DVD after they've already downloaded the content, especially if they downloaded legitimate content that they even paid for ($1.99 on iTunes, for example).QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Nov 12 2007, 02:07 PM)

I wonder if the idea of a LabVIEW programmers union has some traction...

My dad has more than once encouraged me and my friends (many of whom are programmers) to form a union. He was hearing a lot of us talk about ridiculously long work hours when a release hits crunch time and not getting any overtime pay because we're white collar. Dad recognizes that some types of work take an ambiguous amount of time and so a union contract that says "we only work this many hours" is ridiculous. But the Writers' Guild is a content generator just like programmers, and certain work rights can be seen as reasonable. Suppose I develop patentable work for NI. Under the terms of my employment, I get a fee when NI files for the patent and a second fee if the patent office approves the patent. And that's it. Is that reasonable? If the technology leads to a massive explosion of NI's income, should I get a share of that? We could have that debate all day. But as a union, a band of developers might demand more ownership of technology that leads to a patent. How about non-compete agreements that keep me from using my programming talents if I leave a company? NI's policy is very reasonable, but I interviewed with a company whose non-compete agreements basically prevented a programmer from programming *anything* for two years after leaving. That's ridiculous. When I was interviewing, it was the height of the dotcom boom, and that company just couldn't attract talent. Anti-union people would rely upon market forces to break such companies -- no one goes to work for them if they're too draconian. But come 2002 any job was a job, and frankly, you could hire a programmer at just about any terms above starvation. A union keeps such abuses from occurring when the economy turns against employees. Honestly, it isn't a bad idea at many companies. I'm actually surprised that a Game Developers Union has never come into existence, given the abuse that those guys suffer. But when I talk to them, they all see it as the price they pay to do something they really love doing, and most of them are just happy that someone is willing to pay them to do it. So the abuse continues. I remember reading, long ago, about problems at Pixar as the programmers interacted with animators. I don't remember how that all worked out -- it may be that programmers at Pixar, Disney, etc, may have a union, or be covered by one of the other Hollywood unions. But I don't recall.

[eaolson]

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Nov 12 2007, 07:28 PM)

As far as the writers are concerned, if you transmit the show over the Internet, that's no different than a broadcast over airwaves or cable or purchase on DVD.

I'd also like to point out that in the mid 80's the writers agreed to a temporary 80% reduction in their royalties for VHS sales, in order to boost the feasibility of the infant medium. The "temporary" in that turned out to be not so temporary, and lasts to this day.

There's a little video I've seen that has an explanation of the whole thing (told from the writer's perspective). As I have no idea how to embed a YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk' target="_blank">here's the link.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Nov 12 2007, 05:28 PM)

Suppose I develop patentable work for NI. Under the terms of my employment, I get a fee when NI files for the patent and a second fee if the patent office approves the patent. And that's it. Is that reasonable? If the technology leads to a massive explosion of NI's income, should I get a share of that? We could have that debate all day.

Or, how about you get a cut from every copy of LabVIEW sold because it contains some code you wrote. So If I write some text in a word processor, I'm a writer with certain rights, but If I write some text in a programming dev. environment, I have no rights. Hmmm. explain to me the difference...

[jdunham]

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Nov 12 2007, 08:42 PM)

Or, how about you get a cut from every copy of LabVIEW sold because it contains some code you wrote. So If I write some text in a word processor, I'm a writer with certain rights, but If I write some text in a programming dev. environment, I have no rights. Hmmm. explain to me the difference...

Umm, if you author a copyrightable work for hire (in the USA), then the employer owns it. However this is merely the default. That ownership can be transferred or shared by mutual agreement in the form of the employment contract. Money can also be used to grease the skids.

If a programmer (or her union) can negotiate a direct royalty or retention of the copyright, then bully for her. AQ pointed out that different industries have different norms on getting salaries, advances, royalties, etc. I suspect that NI has convinced its programmers that they are better off taking salary and stock options than royalties. http://java%20script:add_smilie(' target="_blank">

[Aristos Queue]

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Nov 12 2007, 10:42 PM)

Or, how about you get a cut from every copy of LabVIEW sold because it contains some code you wrote. So If I write some text in a word processor, I'm a writer with certain rights, but If I write some text in a programming dev. environment, I have no rights. Hmmm. explain to me the difference...

If I write text in a word processor, if that text is work for hire then my employer owns it unless we have a contract that states otherwise. There isn't a difference between a word processor and a development environment.QUOTE(jdunham @ Nov 12 2007, 11:38 PM)

If a programmer (or her union) can negotiate a direct royalty or retention of the copyright, then bully for her. AQ pointed out that different industries have different norms on getting salaries, advances, royalties, etc. I suspect that NI has convinced its programmers that they are better off taking salary and stock options than royalties.

There's nothing specific about NI in this discussion. This is the state of the programming industry. And it generally isn't "convinced" that applies -- most programmers just accept the state of the industry as "the way things work."

[hooovahh]

I don't know about any one else's situation, but if I develop code for money I no longer own the code. The code can be distributed by the people who own the code, the people who paid me to develop it. And since I no longer own it, I can't post it on some community based site (like this lovely one)

[eaolson]

QUOTE(hooovahh @ Nov 13 2007, 08:13 AM)

I don't know about any one else's situation, but if I develop code for money I no longer own the code. The code can be distributed by the people who own the code, the people who paid me to develop it. And since I no longer own it, I can't post it on some community based site (like this lovely one)

I imagine that's because you're doing it as an agent of the company or as a contractor and that's what your contract specifies. I think of writers in Hollywood as similar to songwriters. Singers come along and perform their works and sell the recording. The songwriter gets a cut of that because his creative work is a large fraction of the whole.

I think a lot of new TV shows happen because some writer sits down, comes up with an idea, and writes a script. That script then gets pitched to a studio, who licenses the idea for filming. It's not a straight up work-for-hire that a lot of programming is.

[Justin Goeres]

QUOTE(hooovahh @ Nov 13 2007, 07:13 AM)

I don't know about any one else's situation, but if I develop code for money I no longer own the code. The code can be distributed by the people who own the code, the people who paid me to develop it. And since I no longer own it, I can't post it on some community based site (like this lovely one)

That is a vast oversimplification, and it's incorrect.

In America today, if you generate creative output (such as program code) you automatically own the copyright to it, and the copyright does not transfer to anyone else unless there is an agreement in place that specifies it should transfer. Unless you have specifically assigned the copyright of that work to the entity you're doing the work for, you still own the copyright on it. This is a point that is widely misunderstood, especially among programmers.

An exception to that is a situation where the work you are doing is defined as work-for-hire. Work-for-hire is a very specific contractual concept that basically waives upfront most or all the rights normally granted to you under copyright. But (in the case of contracting) work must be defined as work-for hire. If your contract doesn't say it is, it's not.

Note that the situation is somewhat different when you're working as an employee of a company. In that case, you are typically acting as an agent of the company when you're doing the work. In that sense, you never create the code in the first place -- The Company does. So The Company receive all the benefits of copyright as the original author of the work; no transfer of copyright is necessary.

[crelf]

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Nov 16 2007, 06:31 AM)

Note that the situation is somewhat different when you're working as an employee of a company. In that case, you are typically acting as an agent of the company when you're doing the work. In that sense, you never create the code in the first place -- The Company does. So The Company receives all the benefits of copyright as the original author of the work; no transfer of copyright is necessary.

...and this only covers the creative work when done in the employ of said company, so if you create something on your own time, then it's yours, as long as your not using the IP that belongs to the company (and that's often the sticking point). That said, if you use the company's resources (PC, permises, LabVIEW licenses, etc) then you need to make sure that your employment contract says that its OK.

[Michael Aivaliotis]