that sucks. back when she had her contract written, nobody knew streaming would ever be a thing. hell, nobody knew the internet would ever be a thing except for a bunch of geeks at DARPA and ARPA and a handful of universities. although, a really clever lawyer would have made sure her contract included language such as "or any future form of distribution" or something to that effect which might have been able to encapsulate streaming.

but, times change, and, unfortunately, old contracts don't get to change with them. sure, she could try to renegotiate her residuals, but that may not be possible.

edit: ok, so the show ran until 1995, so they definitely had the commercial internet up and running by then. I don't know when her last contract was written, but foreseeing streaming would still have been prophetic and unexpected. I'm sure that nobody else from that time is getting streaming residuals unless they had some sort of renegotiation or (as mentioned before) clever wording in their contracts.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 33 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I find it ridiculous that the default legal decision is that because the tech was new all income defaulted to the distributor instead of requiring the residuals to be proportional to broadcast or renegotiated.

[–] homes@piefed.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I think that's a valid argument. I think another valid argument is that, after 30 years, the rights for this should be in the public domain.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

See also every new medium needing to re-litigate 'by buying this object with cash, you've secretly signed a contract we made up.'

[+] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

The "default legal decision"? She mentioned that the contract gives her residuals for syndication. Yes, the "default legal decision" is that a contract actually means what it says, not that you can just change it ad hoc if circumstances change in a way that disadvantages one party. The whole point of a contract is that the terms don't change unless either both parties agree or part of the contract is invalid as determined by a court.

Edit: "Lemmy users are given a basic understanding of how contracts work in the US; get asshurt and shoot the messenger" wasn't on my bingo card for the day, but here we are.

[–] Asidonhopo@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They should argue that streaming is a form of syndication

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm sure plenty of more successful, wealthy actors have similar contracts that screwed them over in the streaming era, I'm sure those actors would want to and possess the means to argue in front of a court that streaming is broadcast syndication if they thought they could win, and I'm sure news would get around the industry if there were precedent for that. I'm likewise sure that Sweetin could find a lawyer willing to represent her pro bono for a portion of the winnings if they thought she would likely win. The reality is that broadcast syndication is a real term, not just a generic term for redistribution, and while that unfairly fucks Sweetin over, contracts – with few exceptions relating to their formation – are designed to be consistent, not indefinitely fair. I can't say for sure what's in Sweetin's contract, but it seems like she's assumed that's not a valid argument (and I'd imagine in her position she's at least talked to a few people about it).

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why does the distribution company get to distribute in new ways not covered by the contract?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

'The status quo sucks.'

'Uh excuse me it's the status quo? EDIT: Jeeze it's like you don't understand the status quo.'