I'm a sucker for a good cause, but I'm not a save-the-whales guy, a feed-the-children guy, a give-blood guy, a race-for-the-cure guy or a livestrong-yellow-bracelet-wearing guy.

No, I'm a creative guy, a member of the so-called creative class. Actually, technically, the "creative class" was intended to incorporate a wide variety of vocations, such as architects and programmers. I should probably say I'm a member of the super-creative class.

Anyway.

I write for a living -- albeit online news stories -- but I write nevertheless. However, I also produce (online) videos, write for and manage blogs, write music, produce music, write lyrics and play multiple instruments.

Ever since I matured to the point I knew what I wanted (which didn't really happen until my 30s), I have been fortunate enough to be able to work in a creative industry, and whether it's my day job (as managing editor of koco.com, the Web site for the No. 45 market's ABC affiliate) or my the-rest-of-the-time jobs (blogs, videos, music, etc.), I work in a world predominantly shifting toward the Web.

And that's why I adamantly support the Writer's Guild of America in their quest to be compensated for their work, as it's used online. The precedent that would be set in all industries if this group chose to acquiesce to Hollywood's power brokers would be devastating to the super-creative class, to those of us who create content.

No, I don't mean that I should be paid based on the number of views one of my news stories gets. My passion for this has nothing to do with the day job, really. It has a ton to do with how I spend the rest of my time, which is developing content for various media that ends up on the Web, somehow, some way.

Let me offer you an example of how this affects me.

About five years ago, five of my songs were commissioned by the maker of an MP3 player to be demos on his products. All the music was produced at home, and some of it even got radio play. However, I am so low on the musical food chain that I had no choice but to basically give this dude my music for his players if I wanted that exposure.

No money based on player sales. No nothing. And, I was cool with that. Somewhere, there is some kid deleting my music from his Joe Blow MP3 player, and I take pride in that.

On the other hand, if I went to coolsite.com and saw an ad from this company, promoting his player and using my music to do it, I'd be peeved. Our agreement, even if implied, was that Joe Blow MP3 player company guy could use my songs as content on his products, to be listened to for free by end users. Using my music as part of an ad campaign would be a breach of that agreement.

In the same way, television and film writers want to be paid for work that is being posted on the Web. For example, Universal has this new site called hulu.com, and on hulu.com, you can watch episodes of The Office, and watching them a billion times nets the show's writers not one penny.

Furthermore, let's say you buy a copy of "The Office" on DVD. That might net its writers a residual totalling about one-seventh of one percent. Because they know and we all know the center of the entertainment universe is relocating online, writers made some demands.

Big, scary demands.

Like pay us anything for our work on the Web. One cent. Two cents. Whatever.

Oh, and pay us at least two-sevenths of one percent for DVDs.

While I don't begrudge network executives their big salaries at all, I can't see the resistance to paying the people who made them rich. The beauty about being part of the super-creative class is that, regardless of our individual levels of success, our work is what you remember at the theater, on the boob-tube, on the radio -- and, yes -- on the Web.

There is a ton of power in that, and it's why the writers will eventually win this war for the benefit not only of their guild but to the benefit of anybody who creates content that gets purposed or repurposed online.

Enjoy Tim Kazurinsky's segment on WGN explaining the situation: