So the writer’s strike is in full swing. Fox now plans to postpone 24 indefinitely so as not to interrupt the season and you can be sure this isn’t the last casualty. Lost only has eight episodes to air and who knows how much Battlestar Galactica we’ll get (if any).

Now I believe the various mega-media companies are being tight wads, unwilling to share their growing revenue and profits - growing not only in the current media, but in new arenas. So will all that money, you’d hope people could pay someone to teach them to be civil and share.

But no, instead of sacrificing a couple of percentage pennies from your web clicks, we have to spend an indefinite about of time without our favorite shows and should this go on long enough, seeing great movies a year or two after their intended release.

So what’s gained here? Former CEO and chairman of Disney Michael Eisner had a surprisingly logical point saying: “For a writer to give up today’s money for a nonexistent piece of the future — they should do it in three years, shouldn’t be doing it now — they are misguided they should not have gone on the strike. I’ve seen stupid strikes, I’ve seen less stupid strikes, and this strike is just a stupid strike.”

Eisner goes on to say that even if studios were to agree to digital revenue, they don’t know what to pay since there isn’t any real money there yet.

Techdirt had some excellent insight into truly why the writers’ strike is in more ways than not a mistake.

A one-size-fits-all writers’ contract made a certain amount of sense for Hollywood in the mid-20th century when it was relatively homogenous and dominated by a few large firms. But it’s looking increasingly anachronistic today. Thanks to the Internet, Hollywood is on the brink of a difficult transition…The studios will need imagination and flexibility for the old studios to maintain their dominant position. They’ll need to experiment with new technologies and business models. Given how quickly the marketplace is likely to change over the next decade, it’s a little silly to expect a single industry-wide contract to fairly determine how writers will be compensated for the next few years.

Techdirt goes on to predict unseen consequences of this writers’ strike that couldn’t have taken place during the 1988 strike. With the internet in full swing to level the playing field of independent writers and content makers, many of us missing scripted TV might find solace in original internet content. More attention might be paid to those non-guild members who produce content shockingly without a contract.

Yes the studios are exceptionally greedy. But the Writers Guild of America is just as close minded. The collective bargaining power may have a destructive effect either limiting their own profitability or worse, leaving out new revenue avenues that might develop in the next couple of years (what happens when the 30 second commercial finally dies to their precious residuals?). And from a technology stand point, media companies, already scared to innovate on the web, are going to be even more afraid since now they have larger up front costs to pay to writers instead of negotiating on a case-by-case basis depending on the size of the new product. Something like content for the big rollout of Joost might net a writer more money than a more experiment content system. But until the writer strike ends, we won’t know what could be. And frankly, no one wins in this scenario.