Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Multimedia, Odds and ends, Steve Jobs, Apple
Eisner blames Jobs, and Radiohead cleans up
From the "whatever you say, Eisner" department, Engadget brings news that former Disney honcho Michael Eisner is blaming the guy who originally wore the black turtleneck and jeans for the Writers Guild of America strike, of all things. In an interview with a CNET blog, Eisner says that Steve Jobs is taking media companies "to the cleaners," and that Jobsy's the one to blame for the writers' low pay on digital media distribution. "If I was a union," he says, undoubtedly making union leaders' heads everywhere fold back in on themselves with the irony, "I'd be striking up wherever he is."Strange then, that this same day, we also get a story about how Radiohead is doing with their online distribution deal. You'll remember that they passed on iTunes to distribute their music themselves, and now we're hearing that, after all is said and done, Radiohead earned an average of $2.26 per album by asking listeners to download the album for free and pay them whatever they thought it was worth. "$2.26 per album?" you say. "They got screwed! iTunes charges $10!"
Ah yes, but apparently Radiohead would have made about $1 per album if they'd gone through traditional channels. So actually, the creators doubled their income per sale. Eisner's crazy-- Jobs isn't to blame for this strike, it's content distributors who don't pay content creators enough for digital distribution. But given that Radiohead is cashing in (and gaining public goodwill to boot), maybe the Writers Guild have a lesson to learn here as well.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Greg G said 12:19AM on 11-08-2007
I downloaded radiohead's album for free. But I would have gladly paid $5 for it, if I wasn't in a rush between periods of internet access. (Shoddy wireless at my school).
Reply
Jon said 9:42PM on 11-07-2007
Well done Radiohead. Not only did they make more, but they lost $0 to piracy.
Reply
Michael Long said 9:52PM on 11-07-2007
Lost $0 to piracy? According to the numbers, 9 out of 10 were unwilling to pay the going rate for the music, and 6 out of the 10 that downloaded the album couldn't be bothered to pay anything at all.
Although that could a question of semamtics I suppose. If you're one of the 60% who got and kept the album for free are you a pirate or just a freeloader?
Reply
Ben the Dog said 9:55PM on 11-07-2007
Going slightly OT here, but until the morons running the studios realise that they don't actually need to pay stars $20m per film, and that some ordinary joe will do it for a fraction of the cost, writers will continue to get screwed.
The majority of costs on a movie (correct me if I'm wrong) are in respect of the stars' salaries. Given that there are literally thousands of out of work actors and actresses, how hard would it be to cast the net a bit further, pay lower salaries and then pay the writers better? Sure, there is the "pulling power" of the stars, but until people wake up to the fact that the stars wouldn't be there (and demanding these mental salaries) if not for the writers, the better. More money for writers = better writing is how I see it. It's not the cost of distribution, eggheads, it's the fact that by paying sh*tty-overhyped-miscellaneous star $20m up front, that's another $20m you've got to make to get closer to breaking even.
Re music - way to go Radiohead. Kudos for cutting out the middle man.
Apologies in advance for the ramblings :-)
Reply
Jon said 10:30PM on 11-07-2007
Piracy is when you illegally download something for free. If the band *allows* you to download it for free, how can that possibly be piracy?
Reply
michael said 10:53PM on 11-07-2007
ummm, that radiohead story your linking to is kinda screwed up... cause its only taking into consideration what comScore users did. another topic it doesn't mention is the disc box sales either. also, i would love to see an actually pr from radiohead as to how many people actually paid for the album. eh, sorry but i actually got into a discussion about that yesterday in one of my classes.
Reply
DaveS said 10:30PM on 11-07-2007
If you paid nothing, then you made a choice that Radiohead is ok with. You "bought" it. However, the source for that study is dubious. samples were given rewards for participating, so I think that skews the data. That is NOT from the band. If anything, I think that indicates that Radiohead received even more per album.
Reply
Mazi said 10:36PM on 11-07-2007
be skeptical of this if you want, but some people are apparently deferring their payment until the special (and expensive) box set release of In Rainbows comes out
Reply
Joseph said 10:30PM on 11-07-2007
Eisner has no clue. Jobs is on the Disney board and is the single largest shareholder of the company. Disney and iTunes are like Hertz and Ford Motor Company.
Reply
Alex said 10:51PM on 11-07-2007
Isn't this the same Eisner that was expelled from Disney because he was driving it into the ground? Isn't he the same moron who soured the deal with Pixar? Why would anyone listen to what this moron has to say? Eisner is just a sore loser who needs to point the blame elsewhere, less anyone notice how he screwed up.
Reply
Mark 2000 said 11:03PM on 11-07-2007
I don't understand how making extra money through a new channel is being teken to the cleaners. TV shows are still on TV making the same amount. Movies are in the cinema and on DVD making the same amount as always. E-distribution is just sauce on the goose. No matter how low it is its money.
Reply
Todd said 11:07PM on 11-07-2007
Sigh. I really wanted to download the radiohead stuff and pay for it, but it's compressed with a lossy algorithm. I'd happily pay $10 to download a truly CD-quality album.
Reply
Todd said 11:10PM on 11-07-2007
Eisner's just pissed that Jobs is a big influence on Apple now after Eisner was tossed out on his rear.
Reply
harrywolf said 11:38PM on 11-07-2007
It needs to be stated that PIRACY is NOT necessarily a bad thing.
If those in power had their way, nothing would ever change. You would be listening to the same music and watching the same movies over and over, and paying heavily for it.
Piracy, or the act of disturbing the status quo, occurs as a natural and healthy response to the endless threat of Oligarchies (rule by old farts).
If the public say that music is too expensive and they download it for free, it means that music is too expensive.
Thats why movies are rubbish lately, too. Lots of old 'stars', lots of greedy and pruned-out writers and nothing new. Try Piracy and see if that wakes them up.
Pay for a crappy hollywood movie? No thanks, they are NOT worth the price of admission.
Folks, try to understand that a corporation always wants all the cash it can get for the least effort. Corporations, even when backed by Law, are not your friend - they are a greedy bunch of wankers that MUST be watched and sometimes challenged.
How do you challenge a government? You vote against it.
How do you challenge a corporation? You pirate its goods until it behaves better.
Is piracy illegal? Yes. Does that mean its wrong? NO.
Altogether now - GET THE F**K OFF YOUR KNEES!
Breaking the law is the only way things change, especially now, when so much law is written to protect monopolies and bad business models.
Why do we allow corporations to control gasoline distribution when its such a precious resource? Its another example where Law defeats the people.
Think.
Reply
johnny said 6:45PM on 12-29-2007
With respect to Mr. Iain Collins comments [and no i'm not a corporation, i'm a freelance actor & writer/director, and no, my name isn't johnny] I have a few things to say regarding his point of view re: theft by piracy.
Firstly, I am fortunate enough to be able to say I make my living as an actor.
I have achieved success in this otherwise insane pursuit through immense, hard graft, slaving in bars for years to put myself through drama school, and simply taking the chance to face overwhelming odds of failure, not to mention inevitable ribbing from friends and family alike, for simply havign the courage to chase down a dream -- something most people like I imagine Mr Collins here are too afraid to do -- and a dream that fortunately paid off.
But what does Mr. Collins do for a living, I wonder? Is he "on the dole /welfare", sponging off the government? Is he independently wealthy and therefore some kind of champagne socialist harping on about a business he clearly knows nothing about? Or is he a working stiff stuck in a miserable job he never imagined he'd sell his boyhood soul out to do, whilst attempting to make up for that quiet inner-rotting through writing uninformed nonsense in blogs like this?
The only other option available is he has, in fact, like me, actually followed his childhood dream, and currently makes his living as an actor, musician, writer, director, producer, or combination of the above.
If so, and congratulations to him, but why would he write this nonsense when he would know that piracy in fact hurts the little guy FAR MORE than anyone else.
If this basic fact has somehow escaped him, let me remind him that it's us little guys, that 98% of self-sufficient working actors, writers and fledgling directors who don't make "$20M a picture" (literally only about seven people in Hollywood do) depend on RESIDUALS from the movies, tv shows and music - a considerable share of revenue from sales that this gentleman instead falsely purports just goes 'straight to the corporations.' Oh, if i ha d a nicekl everytime i ehard that old chestnut, i'd be makign $20M all right..
So what uninformed people like Mr Collins DON'T tell you is that for every record you steal via the e-waves; every movie you rip off froma friend or download from some shady peer-to-peer service, or buy in the street for a 'hefty discount'; every tv show you don't pay aa nickel for, you are -- and i'm not even being dramatic here -- literally STEALING MONEY from bold-hearted, struggling risk-takers who worked their butts off, risked their LIVES and potential livelihoods by turning down 'real jobs', to work ridiculous hours -- not unusually 18hrs/day -- thinking, dreaming, honing, failing, crafting, musing, despairing, cajoling, praying, working, slaving and charming that muse deep within themselves to bring you the so-called "end-product" entertainment you enjoy..yet so CLEARLY take for granted.
I say shame on you. Really. These people literally live off thier salaries and residual cheques which are based purely on SALES.
Why pay?
For starters, it's the right thing to do. It's not stealing. The alternative means you may as well walk in to your local conrer shop and, smiling at the shopkeeper you know and love, stuff a couple of their chocolate bars down your shorts and walk. same thing, literally. And yes, the law sees it that way too.
From the point of view of keeping the talent flowing and keeping creativity in check, the more movies that sell, the more chances there are for NEW TALENT to enter the pool because this means people are buying, which means we can start to take more RISKS with our storytelling, which means we enjoy makign the movies and - end result - you have a better time at the theater on your date. Sounds like win/win, right? Not to Mr. Collins, or people like him.
In fact, the irony here is that the less movies sell, because more people are too busy stealing them, the less well even the studios do, let alone the Indies; and lord knows, coroporations don't like to lose money. So what happens?
In the end, a movie must be MARKETED to recoup it's costs. When movies frail to recoup, and - say - you were a studio or film financier, and your investors money is on the line, along with YOUR JOB, what would YOU do? Would you be willing to take more risks with that money? Or would you know you have to lessen the risk, knowing your neck is on the block if a movie tanks?
Therefore, by stealing movies, you're actually CONTRIBUTING to the two things Mr Collins purports to be against: a) supporting $20M actors -- in fact you're helping wedge out the little guys and give ALL the big parts to the big boys, even in the Indies (they don't call them BANKABLE STARS for nothing) and b) to keeping movies formulaic and predicatble. "Gimme the same, only differnt" is the resounding battle cry in studios, just in case you're wondering why they all feel the same -- it's because they're supposed to. And it aint rocket science.
But lastly, lets look at all this from what -- for a lack of a btter term -- a purely 'morality-based' perspective, if there is such a thing. Let's suggest a thief actually stopped to consider the unbelievable hassle of, say, the knock-on consequences of the simple act of stealing someone's wallet: the rigamarole of having to get a new license replaced; to hassle of endless waiting to stop your cards, and then order new ones; getting a new library card, and all those other 'cards' we have, like ProCare etc etc; hoping to somehow to replace some priceless photos, or simple memorabilia that means nothing to anyone else but so much to you -- do you think, if they really could freeze time and think for, say, a minute or so if they knew there was another way to get money, or could actually FEEL the other person's pain at the loss -- would they ACTUALLY go through with the theft?
Similarly, if you really stopped to consider for thirty seconds how much pain and RISK it takes someone - anyone - that person you once went to school with, friend of a friend, who one day said to their friends, parents or themselves, "forget having a straight job...I have a desire to do something risky and I'm going down that insane road of my dreams 'cause i feel in my gut i have what it takes to make it" -- then consider that only a tiny fraction of those people actually "make it" [and by "make it i mean support themselves with their chosen craft] while the vast majority of those noble risk-takers either end up like trash on the side of the 101 freeway mor begrudgingly return to their friends families and loved ones (who love to say "I told you so" lest we forget).....would you even THINK about stealing the music and movies such people slaved their way to the middle or even just the bottom of the working Hollywood heap to make...movies that give revenue which in turn literally pays their rent, clothes their kids and put them through college, covers their car payments like any other ordinary aspiring individual who wants a better life for themselves and their family?
The reality is stark and simple. there's no grey about it: piracy is STEALING, no matter what you say or how you try and weasel out by trying to justify it.
If you really took into acount the reality of the workaday guy or gal risking everything as they follow a dream and not just toil their way up the hollywood food chain of their dreams, but to entertain YOU, in new and interesting ways, my guess is the very thought of "piracy" as we call it -- stealing for God's sake, let's just call a spade a spade -- would make you shudder to your core with shame, let alone ever consider doing. [Unless you're a sociopath, I suppose, or a master at self-deception.. In which case...read on, dear reader, read on.]
WILL said 11:53PM on 11-07-2007
I am not sure what lessons The Writers Guild has to learn from Radiohead. It is not as if the people who write "One Life to Live" could just release make scripts available on the internet as a pay what you want download and put CBS out of business.
Reply
Quix said 12:04AM on 11-08-2007
"Eisner says that Steve Jobs is taking media companies 'to the cleaners,'"
What the hey is this nutjob talking about??? Hmm, the studios broadcast their shows on TV and on the website *free* for me. Yet I'm willing to pay $1.99 for a show in iTunes. Yeah, I can see how Jobs is really screwing Hollywood. Give me a break.
Am I supposed to believe that a TV studio makes more from advertising from me watching the show for free than it does if I *pay* for the show, without ads? Wow, the movie studios sure have things backwards then.
I can't wait until all these idiots (with Jeff Zucker as Idiot Supreme Commander) are relegated to the digital boneyard where they belong. The day is coming, and they know it.
Reply
samfish said 2:32AM on 11-08-2007
Now I feel kinda silly since I paid about $16.00 for Radiohead's album.
...especially since I'm probably going to buy it when it gets released on CD next year, anyway.
Oh well.
Reply
Crash1105 said 3:07AM on 11-08-2007
GREEDY LITTLE PIGGYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! New!
Since when do movie studios and television studios get a cut of dvd players and
television sales ??????? GREEDY LITTLE PIGGYS!!!!!!!!
They wonder why their viewership is going down at theaters and home television
markets. Why is the love of money so prevalent in our society after all the rich
get richer, huh. Sick world we live in when writers have to strike to get a cut of
their own work and here is Eisner who makes how much? saying its Steve Jobs
fault. What are you thinking Eisner? Get real! Its people like you and your board
of directors that are causing this. GREEDY LITTLE PIGGYS
Reply
FRANKL said 3:08AM on 11-08-2007
I agree with #14. What the heck does this model of selling music have to do with the Writers Guild strike?
For the most part, the writers of TV shows and movies only make money if their writing is used to produce a show. If no one buys their scripts, they make no money at all.
So, when their work is used to produce a show/movie, and that show/movie gets distributed in an on-line format, they should get paid their residuals.
This is completely different than the Radiohead model. Radiohead took control of the both the writing and performance, and decided how they wanted to sell it. The TV/movie writers don't have that option, since they don't have the ability to produce their scripts on their own.
Mr. Schramm, if you don't like the writers strike, say so. Don't try to murk the issue to us readers by saying that the writers should take a page from Radiohead.
Reply