It's a promotion!!

I totally think there is a current digital revenue stream.

That said, the argument I have been given is that the current costs far outweigh the revenue. So digital streaming is still costing the studios more than they are receiving from Internet advertising. That is why the studios are using the "promotion" term.

I don't buy for a second that that inequity will continue for very long and am not totally sold that it exists now.

And this entire argument holds no weight with me in reference to iTunes.

It's a promotion!!

I do love how DailyShow.com has a direct link to the head writer's NY Daily News editorial, Why I went from punch lines to the picket line. As always, the house that Stewart built remains a class act.

If there's no digital revenue, then why are the studios so reluctant to give it up?

Exactly! 2.5% of nothing is still nothing. You'd think they'd be more than happy to, like, grant their demands and then laugh at the fruitlessness.

Both sides are very familiar with the example of home video. Studios initially tried to make home video illegal, and the WGA didn't predict what a huge revenue source it would become, either. Both sides are viewing digital through that lens. So the studios, no matter how much they protest, don't actually view the request as a percentage of nothing, and for god's sake, the WGA is not striking over the potential to make 2.5% of nothing.

So the studios, no matter how much they protest, don't actually view the request as a percentage of nothing

Then can you make them stop saying it?

That said, the argument I have been given is that the current costs far outweigh the revenue.

I don't understand what sort of costs could go into providing digital copies of an episode and allocating some bandwidth that are more than the cost of manufacturing DVDs and packaging and then shipping them and all that other business.

I don't either, PC, but I got into a pretty heated argument about it with a co-worker last night. I was just saying that is the current argument, not that anyone should lend it any credence.

John Rogers has a really good post.

I'm still a little confused about the AMPTP's offer for digital media. Some places, I've heard they offered the DVD rate, and others, I've heard that once the WGA asked for 2.5%, they countered with zero percent. Is there some sort of a timeline issue here that I'm missing?

For downloads only, they've offered the DVD rate.

For streaming content, even if it's ad supported, they've offered zero.

Thanks for the clarification, Kristen.

Is the WGA asking 2.5% for both downloads and streaming content?