Ebony's Pearls

Y'all know how I felt about the writer's strike - I fully supported it even to the the point of sending in money to help writers during the strike.

How did the strike affect me, personally?

Other than a bunch of dollars lighter, not really at all.

See, I'm not a big fan of TV. I haven't been dedicated to watching any TV series since The Addams Family (not the movies, I'm not a big fan of those). Usually when the TV is on, it's because someone else turned it on and I never bothered to turn it off.

I fail at any trivia contest that contains lots of TV trivia.

This isn't to say I don't watch TV. I've seen parts of episodes of House, M.D., Numb3rs, some CSI type show (but they keep changing the characters so I'm not sure if it's actually mini-series or an actual series that just roams all over the country), and bits and pieces of some of the reality show things - some dance show, and another one where there are only young women who are always yelling at one another, and some game shows like Whose Line is it? and that one with the comedian and the kids with school questions.

When I travel to cons and stay in a hotel, I always try to catch an episode of Meercat Manor. I think it's the same episode each time, but meercats are cool.

I know more about TV from what I hear other people say and from quotes and reference to them on blogs than I do from actually watching them.

So, as far as TV viewing goes, it didn't affect me at all. There are so many things I haven't seen on TV yet that re-runs for other people would be brand new episodes for me.

My lack of interest in TV is no reason for me to eschew involvement in a writer's strike, even a writer's strike of a union in which I am not a member (and probably won't be - I'm not good at screenwriting). They're writers, people who were striking for something fair and reasonable in the field of their employment.

Now, not many of y'all know my stance on unions. Let's not get into that here, but suffice it to say that unhappiness with the practices of some unions doesn't mean I am against all unions.

The Writer's Guild did exactly what it should have done: publicized a grievous wrong being done to their membership - a wrong that would have repercussions throughout society. If the writers were screwed in the negotiations for payment for work rendered and used in new media, it would spread to other areas. Who's to say it wouldn't have affected not just writers but anyone who created new art - songs, paintings, cartoons, sculptures, performance arts of all sorts? The writers took the heat for something that would affect a great many people outside their guild. They stood up for their rights as creative artists and they demanded that the worth of their craft be recognized.

It's not like the AMPTP was going to lose money. Honest, if the writers were given a nickel for each download, the AMPTP would still be ahead by their 95¢. And if there were no downloads? No one would be making any money at all.

It wasn't about the money, or about the potential earnings or potential expenses.

The strike was about value.

The AMPTP was essentially saying, "What you produce has no inherent value. It's just words." They're wrong, of course. It's like any art - the artist takes the common and shapes it into something interesting, riveting, powerful. A piece of ribbon is just a piece of ribbon in most people's hands. In the hands of an artist, it becomes an enchanting hat or a charming necklace. It's not the ribbon a person pays for, it's the art that changes that ribbon into something unique and beautiful. Words are words until they are put together into sentences, paragraphs, scenes, stories that exert an effect on the listener/viewer. It's not the words the AMPTP is buying, it's the combination of words that transcends their individual meanings into something unique and desirable.

All the AMPTP is, when you come down to it, is a sales agency. The AMPTP produces nothing. They take what other people make and sell it to the consumers. They are the middleman between the artist and the consumer of art. I find it kind of sad that they take such a huge portion of the profit for themselves at the expense of the very people keeping them in business.

The writers demonstrated that graphically by striking.

They showed that without the product of their imaginations, the AMPTP had nothing to sell.

It also graphically demonstrated just how many people made a living off of the imaginations of the writers. Shouldn't the writers, the ones who produce the content that keeps all those industries and their workers gainfully employed, be the ones who see a decent profit for themselves off of their work? Why should they be the lowest paid of the entire production line?

Why should they be blocked out of revenue streams generated by their efforts?

That's why I supported them.

The people at the bottom of any business are the people who keep that business going. Shorting them on their fair share is a serious problem, and it will spark rebellion.

The writers have a union to support them in securing their fair share - their fair share. Or at least - an ability to negotiate for a fair share.

The strike wasn't, ultimately, about the money. It was about their ability to negotiate. The AMPTP thought they had so much power they didn't have to negotiate with the writers. They thought they could set whatever terms they wanted and the writers would accept it because the writers had no power.

That's what the strike was all about.

The ability to negotiate, to demonstrate that the writers weren't utterly powerless.

I'm kind of sad that they didn't get what they wanted, but I am heartened by the fact that they demonstrated just how essential they are to the bottom line, and they opened the way for future negotiations.

That is why I supported the strike.