They got their writers room but not much else, the raises are small, haven’t seen anything about ai yet but still reading.
Edit: clever, they’re getting around the “friends/office” problem I think. This was by far the biggest problem.
E2: kicking the ai can down the road, good.
All programs or motion pictures, including Library Content, made available or exhibited on the Pay Television Service and, therefore, made available on Max shall be treated as though exhibited on HBO’s over-the-top pay television service
That was interesting, but they probably didn’t expect any better.
This is not an unfair deal, with the exception that the raw pay raise across the board was weak considering the inflationary landscape.
What’s the friends/office problem?
People watch the old shows too much, way too much, they leave them on as background noise.
New shows get far less play unless they really catch on, so a lot of the money they’re spending on new shows is just wasted.
Surprised a group of investors don’t fund a streaming version of nick at nite, and buy exclusive access to all the 90s and 2000s shows. Everybody would almost need a subscription, but it probably wouldn’t be profitable, rights to those are stupid expensive.
They’re getting around it by playing metrics games with the viewing numbers and restricting access to the raw numbers, it was the biggest blocker to a deal, the streamers could not tolerate transparency.
What do you think is a good solution to the friends/office problem?
Oh God, that’s far beyond my ability to address, that’s like asking how to reverse entropy or end world hunger.
They’ll find a way to distract and cover it up, but it’s a fundamental problem, people love the classics universally and the long tail can swallow new content.
Eventually those classics will be priced in as more valuable than now, and God forbid we’ll see them try to leverage them more as rebooted franchises :(
We love them because they make us feel like we felt when we were younger and enjoyed them, and brockmire was right about the power of nostalgia being second only to heroin.
Replace residuals with stock grants or simply more money to start. If you really want the lottery ticket effect, then maybe use a bonus structure based on speed to 100 million views or something.
From what I see from reading the summary MOU, they got a total ban on AI. Where do you see that as kicking the can down the road?
And I do think you’re downplaying how big a win this is. You always aim for bigger increases than you expect to get on stuff like basic pay rates. They got the minirooms, AI, and got the studios to share streaming numbers. Those are the three key points where the AMPTP was digging in their heels (this was never about the money for the studios, the money was a pittance; they only fought them down on the raises tobe able to say they got a “compromise”).
As far as I can see, on the biggest fights this was a total victory.
Oh, they got their writing rooms, they broke the Chinese wall of streaming numbers.
The small raises hurt the rank and file, and the streaming residuals are barely noticeable for the rank and file.
The wga management made out like bandits, tons of money for the health care and pension funds, some cash for training, and they know the numbers now.
I don’t think the average member will see much here.
For ai it’s not a ban, it’s that writers cannot be compelled to work on ai drafts, which is good, but basically it’s an admission that ai sucks now, 5 years down when things have changed there’s room for maneuver.
But the studios did admit ai isn’t that big of a threat today, which is a useful negotiating point.
This is what the WGA summary says about the AI provisions:
We have established regulations for the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) on MBA-covered projects in the following ways:
AI can’t write or rewrite literary material, and AI-generated material will not be considered source material under the MBA, meaning that AI-generated material can’t be used to undermine a writer’s credit or separated rights. A writer can choose to use AI when performing writing services, if the company consents and provided that the writer follows applicable company policies, but the company can’t require the writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services. The Company must disclose to the writer if any materials given to the writer have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated material. The WGA reserves the right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.
Where do you disagree with their assessment?
The summary is meaningless, the language is critical, attend:
The Companies agree that because neither traditional AI nor GAI is a person, neither is a ‘writer’ or ‘professional writer’ as defined in Articles 1.B.1.a., 1.B.1.b., 1.C.1.a. and 1.C.1.b. of this MBA, and, therefore, written material produced by traditional AI or GAI shall not be considered literary material under this or any prior MBA.
It means gai material is not covered by this agreement unless a writer is asked to rewrite or adapt it as specified in later clauses.
Gai does not get writing credit, but there is no bar from having a gai written script other than the obvious fact that it would be effectively unwatchable without human editing.
Given that the summary is written by the people who wrote the agreement, presumably under the advise of their lawyers, I think I’m going to trust it over someone’s assessment of what they happen to think a single out of context passage means (and to be clear, the entirety of this MOU - if you’re trying to do an actual close legal reading of it - is out of context because this exists in relationship with the existing contracts that it is updating).
Not trying to be an asshole here, but unless you’ve got access to a LOT more information about this than you’re letting on, I think you’re grossly overestimating your ability to tease out meaningful details from the text. “The people who wrote this are wrong about what it says and I’m right” is a lot to ask people to believe in a vacuum.
