Steve, I believe the writers have already taken into account your line of reasoning, and have incorporated it into their approach to the talks.
From a WGA email to WGA members (link):
> To Our Fellow Members:
>
> Yesterday, the WGAE and WGAW presented to the AMPTP a
> response to its proposal on streaming television programs.
>
> We accepted the framework in their proposal of last Thursday
> for a fixed residual in the first year.
>
> But rather than basing the residual for the entire first
> year on a small percentage of the applicable minimum, we
> proposed that the fixed residual be paid on a higher
> percentage of applicable minimum for each 100,000 streams
> per quarter.
>
> This is a readily ascertainable number. In fact, the
> companies are already keeping records of streams for their
> advertisers. Both the advertisers and the companies are
> already using these numbers as the basis for their business
> model.
>
> We believe these formulas will protect the writer even if
> all television reuse migrates to new media. This is our real
> goal – we simply want to make sure that writers keep up if
> reuse moves to the Internet. If new media reuse turns out to
> be additive, both partners will benefit.
>
> After the first year, following the companies’ proposal,
> reuse is paid on a percentage formula. We held to our
> proposal that the appropriate rate for that payment is 2.5%
> of distributor’s gross and the same rate should also apply
> to streaming of theatrical motion pictures.
As you can see, the WGA is not asking for “a guaranteed slice of a pie that producers are not sure will exist, much less how many it can serve.” They are only asking to be paid for usage of the product that actually takes place – i.e. they are only asking for a slice if and when the pie does exist.
To that one might respond, well, there is no guarantee that anyone will pay to see shows on the Net. But the WGA has taken that into account also – they are asking for a percentage of the distributor’s gross profits – not for a fixed dollar amount against potentially non-existent profits.
It appears that your thesis does not match the facts of the talks.
