Michael Cieply's analysis of the writers-producers impasse was generally excellent.
However, it is a fallacy to equate the two positions: The Writers Guild of America contends that as originators of the product, we ought to have at least a tiny share in the wealth it generates worldwide; whereas the Producers Alliance's position is that writers should forgo this because of some companies' losses.
The average writer (who makes a fraction of what the average studio executive or stockholder gets) relies on residuals for rent, mortgage payments, insurance premiums, etc. . . . but we are not asking to be paid for scripts no one wants to buy.
Is it reasonable to demand that we subsidize companies that make movies no one wants to see?