United Hollywood has a pretty good breakdown of the DGA tentative agreement -- in that they seem to understand it roughly the same way I do, so caveats all 'round -- here.
Short answer: this is not a bad deal for a Guild that doesn't really give a crap about residuals. Which, for a variety of reasons, is precisely the DGA. Note the candy up front for production.
Now, "distributor's gross" definition of "gross", that's magnificently important, if it's indeed enforceable.
Yet there are a multitude of traps in the ad-supported streaming/rerun sections, in that shifting definitions of terms and tech can strand the writers with worst-case/0% situations. Personally, I'd stay on strike until we get internet payments based on percentages rather than sliding flat fees. How hard is this? "If you make money, we make a wee tiny bit. If you make no money, we don't make any either." That offer from the WGA is patently a better offer than flat fees ... unless, of course you're a company that knows through intensive market research that you're going to make boatloads of cash on the internet. Ahem.
Also, the .7% bump after first window in electronic sell-through -- depends on how TV shows are packaged. If I download a full season of LOST, does that roll the counter on each individual ep's dowload, or will they count downloads of "LOST Box Set" and "LOST epsiodes" separately? (This leads to another dicussion. Will get to that in a post in a bit)
.7% is still crappy, and the fact that the .3% is even still on the page ticks me off. If it were .7% flat, I could live with it (grumbling and pissy, but live with it), and personally I'd stay on strike until 1% flat is somewhere in there. .3% is based on an outmoded production model. Distributions costs for the studios on electronic sell-through will asymptotically approach zero as tech progresses. I don't care what "facts on the ground" are. If every contract negotiation were defined -- not constrained but defined -- by "facts on the ground", there'd be no purpose to them, in any field.
At the very least, if this is what the AMPTP is willing to start with, we're in a good place. If they are indeed willing to negotiate in good faith.
And this is a sticking point worth mentioning, particularly to some people now crowing "See, you aren't negotiating. so you're stuck with the DGA deal." The WGA weren't the ones who walked out of the negotiations. The AMPTP Negotiating Team has not negotiatied in good faith up to this point, and they walked out of negotiations without provocation. This situation we're in was the AMPTP's doing, and indeed I believe their fundamental negotiating strategy.
Personally, I believe the strike gave DGA leverage (the agencies in LA seem to hold this view also, according to a couple phone conversations I've had). Also, the strike gave SAG cover to support us, implying that they will also take a hard stand in June in a way that forces the AMPTP to take a strike threat seriously in a way that they wouldn't before. This is actually important -- you have no idea the number of times I heard in July/August, from mid-level executives "Oh, come on, there's no way you'll really strike", even as we were buying duct tape, posterboard and markers.
Assuming that rumors are true and this is the starting point for new negotiations with the WGA, not bad.