Louis CK's Internet Experiment Pays Off 309
redletterdave writes "Comedian Louis C.K., real name Louis Szekely, took a major risk by openly selling his latest stand-up special, 'Louis C.K. Live at the Beacon Theater,' for only $5 on his website and refusing to put any DRM restrictions on the video, which made it easily susceptible to pirating and torrenting. Four days later, Louis CK's goodwill experiment has already paid off: The 44-year-old comic now reports making a profit of about $200,000, after banking more than $500,000 in revenue from the online-only sale. The special, which has sold 110,000 copies so far, is only available on Louis CK's website."
Pirate attitude (Score:5, Interesting)
Louis CK said in an NPR interview [npr.org] earlier this week:
I've noticed this attitude as well. It's really, really annoying.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I like it! (Score:2, Interesting)
Every time an artist does something like this, it pays off greatly.
The most surprising thing here is that anyone finds this surprising.
Artists have been doing just fine in the face of rampant piracy for decades now. Every industry affected by piracy has continuously gotten larger and more profitable.
The only things that have ever hurt these industries are the same things that hurt *any* industry: poor quality products, poor marketing, poor judgement by the manufacturer in setting the MSRP, etc.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:1, Interesting)
I will NOT pay $20+ for a DVD full of DRM/malware.
Honestly, if someone took the time to obtain, organize, and catalog enough DRM/malware to fill an entire DVD, I'd pay $20 for it out of pure curiosity. Maybe add in writeups for each piece included, describe them, tell their histories, who wrote them (if known), etc, etc. Would make a neat archive, really.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Interesting)
The "moral superior" attitude comes from paying someone who actually deserves it, as opposed to paying the MAFIAA who create nothing themselves and charge 5 times what something is actually worth, while passing on next to nothing to the people who actually did the work.
I'll gladly pay an artist if his work deserves it, but I'll be damned if I help enable the abusive greedy behavior of the content cartels. They can go fuck themselves.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Although it definitely lacks some content, I too use Netflix for this reason.
It has actually reduced the amount of stuff I have to pirate, because it gives me a moderate collection of mostly-HD TV shows and movies available for $8/month on my Wii, Xbox, computer, and phone.
Rather than waiting for a torrent to download, I can boot up the Xbox, find something interesting, and within 10 seconds I'm watching it in full HD.
I am happy to pay the negligible $8 each month to legally do this.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:3, Interesting)
The "moral superior" attitude comes from paying someone who actually deserves it, as opposed to paying the MAFIAA who create nothing themselves and charge 5 times what something is actually worth, while passing on next to nothing to the people who actually did the work.
I'll gladly pay an artist if his work deserves it, but I'll be damned if I help enable the abusive greedy behavior of the content cartels. They can go fuck themselves.
You DO realize that noone is obligated to create entertainment for you for the price you demand, right? Reading your post one gets the idea that you feel yourself entitled to entertainment.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a perfectly natural reaction. What's odd is the reverse: paying for an infinite resource. It's like paying someone for a "piece" of fire when you can just put your stick into the flames for free.
I find that people who are against digital sharing seem to have this strange attitude of "if I have to suffer and pay for non-property, then everyone else has to as well!".
Whether anyone likes it or not, the free sharing of digital media -- be it movies, programs, books, whatever -- *is* the unavoidable future of computer technology.