It's difficult to fully evaluate the DGA settlement with the AMPTP based on the summary that's presently available to us. The fact sheet released so far is a mixture of low numbers coupled with a lot of "Well, what does this mean?" The percentages paid to directors for work downloaded from the 'net are very low and the breakpoint numbers are very high and I can't imagine why they think this will amount to any sort of meaningful financial participation.
It is good that the AMPTP is acknowledging that they must share Internet revenues with the folks who create the programming. Their entire approach to the WGA has been to try to deny that or keep the numbers down to token payments. The terms of the DGA deal, to the extent we know them, seem like a little more recognition that they cannot exclude us (writers, directors, actors and others) from New Media revenues…but the numbers are way below what they should be. The deal still allows the networks to take a show produced for network television — a show which would traditionally pay substantial sums to its writers, actors and director for its rebroadcast — and to instead slap it up on a website, sell advertising and pay us a very low amount of money. And even that's after a "free window" where they can do that without paying anything.
I'm trying to seize upon one good thing about this deal and I may have found it: "Payments for EST [Electronic Sell-Through] will be based on distributor's gross, which is the amount received by the entity responsible for distributing the film or television program on the Internet." One of the six demands that the AMPTP had before they walked out of negotiations with the WGA was for us to drop our demand that payments would be based on distributor's gross. My question then is if there are any other details in the new DGA contract that would enable the studios to fudge the amounts that they report as distributor's gross and whether there's a truly effective way of monitoring payments. The summary assures us that "the companies are now contractually obligated to give us unfettered access to their deals and data." That would be good if true.
Also of some concern is this statement: "Additionally, if the exhibitor or retailer is part of the producer's corporate family, we have improved provisions for challenging any suspect transactions." I'd sure like to see some lawyers check the final language for loopholes before I believe that will arrest a major problem. Corporations like to agree to certain terms with a union, then set up "shell companies" to operate in violation of those terms. If the DGA has secured language that will effectively stop that, good for them.
At the end, it says there's a "Sunset provision" that "Allows both sides to revisit new media when the agreement expires." I'm not sure what that means. It may mean another strike in three years.
All in all, I'm extremely disappointed. I wouldn't hazard a guess at this moment on the mood of the Writers Guild or the Screen Actors Guild. But if I'm given a choice of accepting terms similar to what I fear it all means or remaining on strike, I'll be out on the picket lines until a real offer comes along.