They compensated their people for it.
I'm talking about the fact that the bulk of the material on the Internet is there illegally. If we want to get it there legally, then the broadcasters and the producers and the creators have to agree on a royalty regime that will work in the event that royalties are forthcoming. We have to get away from this idea that we turn broadcasters from aggregators to copyright owners who can then take it and sell it on.
I would argue that the feature film market is an ideal example of how those percentages have been made. The market changes, the dollar values change, but the business model remains the same. Whatever you pay at the box office to get in to see the movie, approximately 55% stays with the exhibitor for the nuts and bolts and heat and light, and then 45% returns to the distributor, who then takes a whopping 35% of that as their commission. So the remainder, less expenses, comes to the producer.
The producer then pays required royalties to the directors, writers, and actors, who are the creators of the material. What's left over is then divided up among investors, and—please God—there's a profit remaining for the producers so they can take a risk on other stuff in the future.
If we start looking at what the new media platforms are worth, and in terms of how we're going to share those royalties and reward the artists and producers who create them and let everybody have their little piece, then we would get in front of the situation. But where we have a situation where the producers and artists are expected to hand over the material for free and allow other people to take it and make what money they can with it, it's simply not going to work. And this is the situation we are in.