Writers get their online video share
Hollywood’s writers have won a piece of action in the coming boom for movies and TV shows online. Assuming there is a boom.
Their union early Saturday secured a percentage deal for revenues from online distribution of TV shows and films, starting in the third and final year of a new contract. For years 1 and 2, writers will get $1,200-plus as a flat fee for Internet runs of a one-hour TV show.
The 2% share of revenue is seen as a guarantee writers will share in any spike in online revenues for the networks and studios. That share may not mean be all that rich in three years, but it will set a starting point for future contract negotiations. (Writers felt they’d been screwed when they failed to see DVDs as the video medium of choice.)
Writers also fear that network use of reruns will fade as current and catalog shows are being routinely uploaded for free viewing, cutting off residuals.
The flat residual rate for online video had been agreed upon earlier in the year, but the writers prolonged the strike seeking the percentage. (Directors accepted the flat residuals.) Early Saturday, the deal was made.
The networks and producers argued, with some justification, that the economic model for making money online hasn’t been found, and the costs of getting online distribution to work fall to them alone.
Writers have to ratify the deal — a no-brainer given the misery index here in L.A. — and could be back at work as early as Wednesday, guild officials said.
Also under the deal, movies and TV shows sold online — such as those on the iTunes Store — will provide a doubled residual rate for the writers compared with DVDs.
The Writers Guild of America also won jurisdiction over bigger-budget Internet programming.
The guild told its members, “It is an agreement that protects a future in which the Internet becomes the primary means of both content creation and delivery. We believe that continuing to strike now will not bring sufficient gains to outweigh the potential risks and that the time has come to accept this contract and settle the strike.”
My pal Bill Braunstein recently weighed in on the reality and animation writers‘ situation over on Write for Blogs.
‘Jackass 2.5′ punks cinemas, debuts online
The first two “Jackass” movies grossed something like a combined $140 million in theaters, but the exhibitors aren’t getting their mitts on the next installment.
Paramount is heading straight for the gross-out gang’s core audience by deploying “Jackass 2.5″ online, starting Wednesday with exclusive streaming on Blockbuster’s Movielink.
A week later it’s on to DVD
Blockbuster shareholders will be delighted to hear the rental giant reportedly paid $2 million for this chance to spotlight its movie download service. With a film featuring liberal ass, dick, shit and piss.
The online units of MTV and Paramount say this is first major studio movie to debut online. That’s not counting “Sicko” and “American Gangster,” both victims of major leaks to Bitstream Nation. The scheme also promos the new jacksassworld.com
“Jackass 2.5″ is just what it sounds like: outtakes and deleted scenes from “Jackass 2.” Damaged goods? Nope, this is another balls-to-the-wall effort from Johnny Knoxville and the boys. Making it about as funny as disgusting humor gets — strictly for those with the inability to be offended.
Knoxville says in the that “2.5″ is due to “my and the boys’ inability to stop shooting ‘Jackass 2.’ ” And so we have stunts such as anal-bead kite flying, fun with snapping turtles, a Russian prostate massage, a cobra-infested bed of nails, the smelly powder “poof” and the “rattlesnake salad toss.”
The best bit is fat man Preston Lacy dressed as King Kong, balancing atop an outhouse while fending off radio-controlled airplanes. His love interest is Wee Man, as Fay Wray.
In between bits, the boys talk about each stunt and how much the victim Jackass guy hated doing it. They say things like, “We filmed this atrocity … ”
Here’s Knoxville with a pitch for this major Viacom corporate initiative:
iTunes and video iPods: Where’s the fire?
NBC’s divorce from the iTunes store is official. The TV content that made up something like 40% of video sales has left the iAuditorium, as foreshadowed last fall when NBC Universal and Steve Jobs went to war over the network’s desire to test $2.99 pricing for some of its shows.
That primetime content now can be found on NBC.com, the new NBC Universal-Fox project Hulu and via a couple of other routes. For free.
Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey ponders the fate of video on iTunes in an eyebrow-raising piece posted on CNET. Interesting not only for its analysis, but also in the way it reflects big media’s linear thinking.
The distribution model that made the iPod, iTunes and related products so successful in music can’t be ported over or adapted to video, he notes. Blame it on the Hollywood studios:
“Most of them have still not agreed to sell new releases through iTunes — either from fear of building an Apple monster, or because of exclusive commitments to other partners in paid TV or elsewhere. That’s why, despite the back catalog of movies that Paramount, MGM, and Lionsgate feature there, the result is a stunning lack of movie content for purchase.”
Certainly the amount of content on iTunes is an issue. Output deals always are fluid; the stuff comes and goes. You still can’t buy the Beatles via iTunes.
But this think piece wanders off with the interesting idea that without these movies (or TV shows), “the value of an expensive video device is dramatically lessened.” Wonder how many video iPod owners would go along with that statement.
One commenter on a Silicon Alley Insider post had this to say about NBC and iTunes:
I have purchased numerous NBC television shows via iTunes and while I have thoroughly enjoyed them (especially because they are ad-free), I will not be pursuing that content via other distribution methods. … I watched NBC content because of iTunes/iPod, I didn’t buy my iPod because of NBC!
The Forrester analyst wrote, “Unfortunately for consumers, the movie industry won’t let you rip DVDs to iTunes.” OK, but not many consumers give a rat’s ass about what Hollywood wants — just as they weren’t concerned with the desires of their slower cousins in the music business.
Whatever it takes to make most studio content transferable and portable will become routine, just as MP3-related software made music-copying such a breeze. Once the distribution patterns are set, the hacking will go mainstream.
Any kid with some tech savvy can copy movies or TV shows on DVD to the various video iPods — just as the public has done for a decade with their CDs. (Let’s just say the homebound Apple TV is over.)
Just because you can’t download “Transformers” from iTunes doesn’t mean fanboys all over the world aren’t running around with a copy in their back pockets.
Illegal? Whatever. In the court of common sense, piracy is when the content is stolen via, say, BitTorrent — but not when a product that’s been paid for is made portable by the owner.
So it’s hard to buy McQuivey’s (interesting) notion that the Apple video portables are going to be expensive trash now that iTunes lost “Lost.” The real barriers to portable video proliferation are the significant storage issues, as the piece points out.
As for the iTunes store, Jobs and Co. have to make with more video content we want to buy or rent. Shouldn’t be too hard in this video-saturated world. Bet on Jobs.
There are additional obvious things Apple can do, like changing from a download-to-own model to a pay-per-view movie model, a strategy that Hollywood has embraced and that also solves long-term storage problems for consumers. However, the real innovation comes if and when Apple funnels more Web video — both professional and user-generated — into iTunes. Envision ubiquitous “download this to iTunes/iPod” links …
Sounds about right.
Suggest you check out “Perspective: Why Apple can’t do to video what it did to music.”
(BTW I own some Apple stock.)
Related content: Hulu: Working With CBS, Viacom After All
Google video talks with ‘Idol’ maker reported
Super-duper secret talks regarding online video are under way between Google and Simon Fuller, the man who brought us the Spice Girls and created the “American Idol” format.
At least that’s the report from Britain’s The Observer, which quotes undercover sources:
“It’s a big idea on a global scale,” the guy close to Fuller said. “It will change television in much the way iTunes changed the way music is disseminated.”
Fuller did not comment personally, of course, nor has Google had anything to say about this. But that quote sure made the rounds on a slow holiday weekend. (Now it’s here on Download Movies 101, too. Sad.)
Looks like a content deal, most likely on a proprietary format of some kind. Or it’s rubbish.
Google Video, as you recall, folded in a big hurry after the search giant bought YouTube.
Best Buy makes end run on YouTube
Big-boxer Best Buy thinks YouTube has left something on the table — but isn’t entirely clear on what that is.
The retailer has teamed up with British startup Mydeo for a subscription video storage and sharing service, with subscriptions from $7. Unlike YouTube, they say, it’s safe to put up that video of Jr.’s first messy minutes in the world.
The idea of what is basically a high-end YouTube sounds like a great concept. Let’s see if this is it:
Here are the features, straight from the Best Buy Video Sharing pitch page.
- Send your friends & family emails that can play your videos
- Embed a video on any website, blog or personal profile page
- Add a video to an online auction
- Upload videos up to 90 minutes long each
- Share your videos knowing they will never be surrounded by ads, only the message and video content you intended
- Upload and stream videos at any resolution
- Great service, from real people
Real people! What a concept.
The service allows users to control who else is allowed to see the videos, if anyone. YouTube also allows this. Videos can be embedded anywhere, with subscribers in control of their own links. Eh? YouTube also allows this.
The other main pitch is that the videos never will have ads, unlike the increasingly commercial YouTube.
Best Buy also assures users that it makes no claim to have control of the video content, as most free video-sharing sites do, in the small print. Here’s the part of YouTube’s terms of service that should concern uploaders of personal content: “You retain the copyright for your content, but by submitting it to YouTube you are giving YouTube the right to use the material in any form that it may desire.”
A Best Buy plan that allows loading of videos up to 30 minutes in length and with storage of 100 minutes goes for $6.97. The tier that allows uploading of videos up to 90 minutes with 250 minutes costs $10.47. The premium plan, “ideal for small businesses,” includes video email and viewing stats. There are various ways to save a few bucks.
Kevin Winneroski, a vice president at Best Buy, has your canned statement all ready:
“With the growing popularity of video, fueled in part by social networking sites, we’ve actually seen an increase in customer demand for alternative video sharing solutions. Many customers, particularly families with children, don’t want their personal memories available for anyone to see in the public domain nor do they want to share them in a cluttered environment that includes advertising.”
Best Buy has taken a minority stake in Mydeo, apparently because no U.S. company could provide the service.
The TOS includes a ban on copyrighted material, so your dream of a little bijou just went splat, sorry. Also, none of those really private home videos, bucko.
The site also has a free page with some basic but helpful links to information about video editing and streaming and whatnot.
Best Buy also has a digital music store.