TV writers are on strike, demanding a cut of the proceeds from the Web distribution of the programs to which they've contributed. Emboldened by the success of iTunes, which signed several networks to monetize their reruns, networks are venturing to create their own Web channels. If writers are missing out on any form of pay-per-view, then they are indeed getting screwed. But by that standard, all of us who creat Many IT creations and innovations generate revenue long after the work is done, the contract is up, and we’re on to the next job TV writers are on strike, demanding a cut of the proceeds from the Web distribution of the programs to which they’ve contributed. Emboldened by the success of iTunes, which signed several networks to monetize their reruns, networks are venturing to create their own Web channels. If writers are missing out on any form of pay-per-view, then they are indeed getting screwed. But by that standard, all of us who create for a living, except for those who can afford to file and enforce personal patents and copyrights, are getting the fuzzy end of it. Most of us who create are paid once.I can’t count the number of companies that hired me to create solutions for them, then fired me as soon as I got the solution working and documented. IT workers who get this treatment — and do you know anyone who hasn’t? — fantasize that the outfit that got a dollar for a dime will come crawling back because they’re lost without us. But if you’re any good at what you do, and you’re not the sort of jerk who hides time bombs in his code, what you create runs like clockwork while you’re looking for a new gig. My creations, innovations, and inventions make money for my former employers day after day. If I could cut myself in for a share of it, I’d be in Bermuda living on my residuals. The reality that those in IT face is that the first entity that pays for their work has purchased it in perpetuity and is free to use it, pass it around, sell it, or do as it pleases. Even now, my creations are traded for a salary, and I haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of seeing continuing revenue for what I create during working hours. But then, I didn’t negotiate that arrangement up front. I got what I asked for. If I return to IT, I may put my personal copyright on work that I produce on contract or salary. I certainly won’t feel guilty, as I once did, about taking what I create with me to my next job. As for writing for InfoWorld, I don’t get a bonus when readers follow a link to content I produced in 2006. Here, too, this was the arrangement. If I demanded residuals (periodical writers took a run at that once), I wouldn’t have this job.I have authored books and produced videos that were sold and have generated royalties for me, so I’m not complaining that TV writers are demanding more than they deserve. In the case of the videos, I produced them for the company that was paying my salary, but I was in a strong position to bargain, and we negotiated the royalties up front. There are some forms of creative product that are recognized as uniquely creative. “The Daily Show” or “The Late Show with David Letterman” would be screwed without their prized writers. But businesses, government, and financial institutions worldwide would grind to a halt if IT workers decided that what they create is, in fact, a creative product with lasting value. IT pays for heads, not for what comes out of them. But even if I could squeeze employers for their use of what I’ve created, there’s no way for me to track how they’ve used it and whether that use made them money. There’s the rub.TV writers are banking on networks’ fantasies that the Internet is a bottomless pot of gold, an endless source of revenue for reruns purchased by consumers. iTunes has given TV networks a model for moderately successful pay-per-view Internet syndication, and networks are taking a fresh run at doing it themselves. In my opinion, there is no argument: When a network or distributor develops new ways to monetize its reruns, then performers, writers, and others engaged in the creation of the resold content are entitled to the same share of revenue that applies to other forms of redistribution. Case closed. Writers will win, and quickly. But any win that writers score will be as short-lived as networks’ ventures into pay-per-view Internet redistribution. Paying customers for iTunes and TV network download sites are grossly outnumbered by the masses that use the likes of eDonkey 2000, Gnutella, BitTorrent, Usenet, and YouTube to time-shift television. Tuesday night’s “Daily Show” is consumed by millions with breakfast on Wednesday morning. There is no traceable revenue, so there can be no royalties. Encryption and legal action won’t change that picture.What will keep people worldwide from simply dumping their cable and satellite subscriptions? There is a fringe that predicts this, but dire predictions abound. Outsourcing was going to decimate U.S. IT jobs. Employers tried and failed to make this happen. Blogs were going to put Time, Newsweek, and InfoWorld out of business. Didn’t happen. The Internet won’t be a moneymaker for TV writers, but they won’t lose any ground to it. Every IT worker who gives blood while being paid for water has also jumped jobs for a big raise. It’s smart to get what you can, but for all of us, the most valuable residuals from employment are continued employment. Technology Industry