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:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the attitude I see more often is "This thing is so good and so reasonably priced -- I *paid* for it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You may download..."
"they force you to read/watch."
logic bomb! aaargh! my brain!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Funny)
Who is forcing you to read or watch anything? :'-( You should report their actions to the proper authorities post haste!! ~:-O
It involves Beethoven and eye drops, my dobby droog.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Funny)
So you haven't experienced the DVDs that force you to sit through previews by disabling skip and fast forward functionality. How nice for you.
The DVD isn't disabling those buttons. It's just a plastic disc with some data on it. It has no power over your player.
The culprit here is your insubordinate DVD player, which willfully disobeys your commands.
It might be possible to overwrite the player's firmware to make it more docile. If not, you should consider having it put down. If you tolerate insubordination, that will only set a bad example for the rest of your electronics. Eventually, it could lead to outright mutiny. Best to nip these things in the bud.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only do you claim people are forcing you to read and watch things, but you act as if the fact you refuse to pay for something means you're owed it for free. What a strange position to take.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the implication is that people may say such things, but it's really to make themselves feel better, as if they're "making up" for piracy.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence doesn't support your waggery.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
it's a bit of a problem though... Louis' experiment was a matter of tentatively finding the threholds involved.
basically, though a lot of people are willing to pay for something out of goodwill, there'll always be arseholes that have no good will and will take anything they can because they can.
people steal from charity shops you know... even though the prices are insanely low and the store itself is not for profit, and in many cases the store is affiliated with a charity that will give the same items to poor people, some cunt will actually take stuff for free.
arseholes are why we can't have nice things.
Louis' experiment (and wikipedia's, and radiohead's, etc) is whether one can make a living in spite of the small percent of people that are just cunts for cunting's sake. it looks like there's enough decent people out there to make a living. but one can be forgiven for thinking "you know, if those people had shelled out a measly 5 bucks, i could have made so much more".
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
The arseholes aren't going to pay for it either way. Charging more money and adding DRM is only going to drive the non-arseholes towards arseholish behavior. This is why Ubisoft can't make money in the PC gaming area any more: no one wants to pay for that shit. People will gladly pay, if they get their moneys worth.
Hell, the newest Humble Bundle made over a million in it's first day. No DRM, no minimum price. I paid 20 bucks (although I did send most to charity: first time I've almost felt bad sending money to charity, since I also wanted to pay the developers), well over the average required for the extra games. People will pay for things. Provided the person they are buying it from doesn't insult them, especially not while they are being paid
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
this is my point exactly - pricks will not buy at any price. not because "bawww i'm so poor"... they're on the internet. their basic needs are clearly met (food, shelter, safety), so they can't bleat about being poor. it's a matter of get it or go without. if they go without, they should spend the time they would have spent watching doing something productive.
the good thing about offering it for a very small price is precisely calling the bluff - knowing that people will steal no matter what, but doing the maths on whether you can break even or make a modest profit in spite of that.
Louie's overheads are low - he paid for shooting it, and web hosting, and all the rest he does himself. there's no distributor, he didn't use a post house, all mastering was done in files rather than tapes. you save tens of thousands by doing it yourself.
a feature film might be able to do this, but it'd need enough marketing to get the film out there, and it'd need a low budget. something like Avatar couldn't survive this way (even if it was a good movie instead of a smurf handjob fest).
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing is a big part of it. As with Radiohead, they proved only that if the marketing money is already spent, you can coast.
He can figure web hosting and the cost of the venue and filming into his accounts, but he didn't take into account the money that was spent making him famous: spots on Letterman, Showtime specials, etc.
Unknown people try this experiment every single day on Myspace and Jango and such, and if they're lucky a musician will make enough money to pay for the studio time. They're not famous to start with and can't pay for TV time to make themselves famous.
If Louis CK were still some small-time hack making his way on the comedy circuit, there's no chance he'd have made back even the $200k he spent on this project. And as you observe, that's for the cheapest kind of movie you can imagine: some shmo talking in front of a camera, with no costumes, no effects, no locations, no score, no actors, etc.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Funny)
even if it was a good movie instead of a smurf handjob fest
So THAT'S why they are always fucking singing!! I knew it had to be something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everybody needs to pay. Requiring that is just stupid and misses the point. What is required is that the bottom-line is enough to motivate and fund the artist(s) involved. Depending on the product and the price point, acceptable fraction of paying customers between 1% and 90% can be acceptable. 10% egoists should never be a problem. Of course, with bad products, you can get 0% paying customers, because they will feel defrauded.
To paraphrase the CEO of Borland decades back (when they were sending out Turbo Pascal 3.0 with full money-back if you did not like it even for opened packages): "Yes, it is being pirated. We estimate 2 pirated copies for every one sold. But why should we care, our revenue from this product is great!" Of course this attitude will never be rational to a greedy corporate manager. But it should make a lot of sense to an artist. And greedy corporate managers do not produce anything of worth to the human race, but artists do. So I know very much which side I want to win and it seems it it now has a real shot at winning.
But here is the real point: If DRM makes me feel defrauded (and it recently did again), then I will look for DRM-free alternatives.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Paying a REASONABLE price is always preferable to people. and that is the point. a 1 hour TV show is NOT WORTH more than 0.99 to most people. A longer special like the example is worth more.
The problem is that CBS,NBC,ABC,Viacom,etc all think that tv show is worth $$BILLIONS$$ZOMG! and it is in reality not. If I cant view it for free on my TV then THAT is the value of it to me. You had better price it so close to that value that I dont care about the cost 1/2 hour sitcom single viewing? $0.50 is the top reasonable price without commercials. and THAT is far more they are getting per set of eyeballs than any advertising is making them.
They want the cake, the frosting, and then to charge us to eat it and then crap it out later.
and that is why people say "screw it" and torrent them instead.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
a 1 hour TV show is NOT WORTH more than 0.99 to most people
I'd say it's not even worth that. The TV I watch is typically on DVDs. I don't remember the last time I watched a 1-hour show - perhaps you mean a 1 US-TV-Hour show, which is 40 minutes. I get four of these on a DVD. For the price of my rental plan, I pay about 10p (about 15) per episode. Online distribution means that they're not paying the cost of shipping me a shiny disk. If I can make a copy and watch it again[1] then that's worth slightly more, but I rarely want to watch a TV show more than once. 20 per episode, or maybe $5 for a season for a DRM-free download would put things in the impulse buy category - and I'd even be prepared to pay it before they even started filming the season for a lot of shows.
GOG.com has learned that this is an incredibly valuable price point. I have about ten games that I've bought from there and not yet played. Most of them cost about $3 on one of their weekend promotions. I bought them because they looked like they might be fun. Some that I've bought like this before have turned out to be quite boring and I've deleted them after 15 minutes. Some have been so much fun I've played them solidly for days. At this price, I'm willing to take a risk - if it's rubbish then I've only lost the price of a pint of beer.
[1] Legally, I mean - doing this with DVDs is trivial, but not legal if they are rented.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
basically, though a lot of people are willing to pay for something out of goodwill, there'll always be arseholes that have no good will and will take anything they can because they can.
people steal from charity shops you know... even though the prices are insanely low and the store itself is not for profit, and in many cases the store is affiliated with a charity that will give the same items to poor people, some cunt will actually take stuff for free.
arseholes are why we can't have nice things.
Let's stop calling these people by body parts ("arsehole", "cunt") and use the appropriate label:
Sociopath [amazon.com]
Sociopaths are, literally, the source of all the evil in the world.
The sooner everybody knows what they are, the sooner we can build a machine to identify them.
The sooner we can build a machine to identify them, the sooner we can quarantine them.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Informative)
> Sociopaths are, literally, the source of all the evil in the world.
[Citation needed]. Sociopathy is now seen as a subset of antisocial personality disorder. According to wikipedia,
"A 2002 literature review of studies on mental disorders in prisoners stated that 47% of male prisoners and 21% of female prisoners had anti-social personality disorder."
Even assuming all of the prisoners with that disorder did belong to the sociopath-subset, this still means 53% of male prisoners and 79% of female prisoners are *not* sociopaths, while (depending on their crimes) they can still be seen as a source of 'evil'.
It's very tempting to call 'bad' people names to distance yourself from them, fact remains that most of us are capable of terrible things under the right circumstances. While denying this may make you feel better about yourself, you're just sticking your head in the sand.
If you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_disengagement [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility [wikipedia.org]
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
worrying too much about arseholes are why we can't have nice things.
There, fixed that for you.
The bottom line is that nothing you can do will stop the people that are going to pirate it no matter what. NOTHING short of not releasing it will prevent them from getting a copy for free and thinking they are the hot shit because of it.
Lets say that there are 1000 of those people in the world that want your product, is it worth pissing off the 100,000 people that legitimately buy your "product" with annoying DRM to slightly annoy just one of those 1000 jackasses while he breaks whatever actually useless DRM scheme you PAID EXTRA to use on your product? To say nothing of the fact that you are pumping up that one jackholes ego by giving him some drm to crack!
Well that's all of my.02, I'm off to go buy a comedy album, even though I've never seen this guy. Maybe I'll check out youtube first.
Ya, I think the lesson is clear to anyone that isn't an idiot, or working for a DRM creation company.
Re: (Score:3)
i agree. what i'm saying is Louie's experiment, and others like it are getting some hard data pertaining to what return you are likely to get on a completely open product.
research in this area will allow for robust business models and sensible budgeting for any kind of digital product. the great folly of digital commerce has been distributors getting their lawyer cannons out before they did the hard maths involved in making a business model that doesn't suck arse and can actually work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen. I waited until 2009 before I bittorrented anything. I kept hoping we would win the DRM war before I bought a high-def TV. But eventually I got one, and I was either going to have to be satisfied with watching low-def video on it, or piracy. Both cable TV and movie studios refused to sell me video I could play through my HTPC. The answer was foo.x264.mkv files, and guess what: pirates are the sole source. The studios could have
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The person that upped it apologized and made a modest attempt at justification... for which he was later chastised by a number of other users.
I went and bought it. You got a couple streaming tokens and (iirc) 5, drm-free downloads. There was even a little message to potential 'pirates' right in the checkout process... I should have taken a minute to read it.
Though I'm sure plenty downloaded it, I'm glad he made
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I did. It fits my system set up a lot easier. I've already got the set up to download the file to the spot that I want to access it from on the network, so as long as it's a file format that my devices can read natively, torrenting is a better option.
Torrenting is so much faster downloading than direct file downloading, usually, and particularly with a server like this one where lots of people were reporting futzed d/l's because they were overloaded. So many were screwed up, the site added extra
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence doesn't support my waggery? Are you not aware of Pirate Bay, the Pirate Party, etc.? This thing from Louis CK already has several thousand downloads on Demonoid, and that's just a private tracker.
Pirates want shit for free. They refuse to acknowledge this basic human trait and cover it up with a bunch of freedom fighter bullshit. It's very simple and obvious--humans like to get things for free. To make themselves not feel guilty about it, they blame everything else but themselves--software publishers, the RIAA, Microsoft, copyright law, etc. I realize that Slashdot has become a piracy advocacy site in the last 10 years, but just because your opinion is patted on the back all the time at this one website doesn't mean it's true.
If you're a pirate, just admit reality and say you want to acquire things without having to pay for them. It's so much more respectable than the usual coverup.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's definitely more to it than you're portraying.
Look at me, for example: In 1999, I spoke out on my (crappy) website against game publishers not selling games and forcing me into the second hand market. At the time, I was more than happy to steal anything I wanted, because I couldn't get the right product at the right price and easy to buy and use.
Fast forward 10 years, and I've spent hundreds of dollars at GOG.COM, where they have the right product at the right price and easy to buy and use. I've bought well over 100 games, more than I could possibly play in a very long time, specifically because I so strongly believe that a company fulfilling their end of the bargain deserves to be rewarded.
Those dollars and cents on GOGs balance sheet, is that freedom fighter bullshit?
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't get the right product at the right price, you go without.
Why? What difference does it make if you do or don't go without?
Serious question.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
DO you think there would be 5 dollar downloads if no one ahd been bucking the system for 15+ years? No, it would all be locked up by big companies who may, or may not release it.
Of course, in today's world you're statement is incredibly stupid. Companies can change the terms of an agreement any time they like now.
I can tell you why I pirate when I do
1) I can't return many items if they don't work as advertised.
2) I can't read the EULA until I am installing it; which is too late to get my money back
3) Someone recommends a tv series. For example: Archer* It was recommended. I down loaded season one. I now own the disks. Sometime a show will suck, and I'll delete it.
4) Downloading cost them exactly nothing. SO there is NOT a loss.
And I will continue until the consumer isn't getting screwed.
I prefer to change the terms.
*LAAAAAANA
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I pirate stuff. Games and movies mostly. But then If I like something, I look for ways to support it. Consider Assassin's Creed: Revelations, the game. One site sells it at 900 INR. My hostel mess bill is around 1900 INR/month, the amount I spend eating elsewhere would be 2000/month (say 500 a week). For a PC game, I would be hard put to justify to my parents buying a game priced at 250 (I bought AC I at that price), let alone 800 or 1000+. They simply don't see a 'game' being worth that much money
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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, Insightful)
Of course they're not obligated to create it.
But then, bear in mind, that entertainment as a whole is not something that anyone ever needs to buy. What entertainment we absolustely have to have to maintain our sanity we can generally provide for ourselves.
On top of that, there's such a glut and over-supply of entertainment available these days, it's almost surprising that *any* of them make much money.
Bottom line, it's a buyer's market, more than any industry has ever been before. The MAFIAA et al keep trying to make that not true, but it's just not possible.
So no, they're not obligated to create the entertainment I want for the price I demand... unless they actually want to turn a profit. If you're in the entertainment business and no one likes what you're creating, it is in every sense of the word, worthless.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
When you use terminology like "MAFIAA" or tell them to go fuck themselves, whatever point you were trying to make just sounds ridiculous.
The tactics used by the media distribution cartels are actually quite similar in nature (albeit less violent) to early Mafia tactics. The analogy is an apt one. The fact that it's used to associate a despicable organisation with an outright illegal one is a pretty standard rhetorical trope.
Given the fact that these same organisations have conducted a concerted campaign to make their entire customer base feel like criminals, and given as well that they have a track record of ripping off the very artists you claim to sympathise with, I don't think a healthy 'Fuck you' is at all an inappropriate response.
If you can't engage in a rational argument that's garnished with a few rhetorical flourishes and an expletive or two, I'd recommend you never ever discuss anything of import with the irish, the French, the Scots (if you can find a true one), a goodly number of the British... or pretty much anyone from central Europe.
I'll end this with a smile and a word. As my Irish grandfather used to say:
Fuck you, you humourless cunt and have a beautiful fucking day. I hope the surgery to remove that giant stick up your ass isn't too painful. No, wait - I hope it is.
Like the Shareware days (Score:3)
Back in the days of Shareware there was a similar attitude from people who actually paid the software author. Part of that was encouraged by the authors, they would list people that had purchased their program or thank them personally. The big difference today is the people who created the stuff that is being "shared" via torrent are usually so distantly removed from the purchase that they don't realize or care that some geek bought their CD or DVD. So there is no longer a recognition from the creator of
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I torrented that shit.
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
Habitual pirates buy spend more on media than those who don't pirate AND they are happier with their purchases. Isn't this a good thing?
Re:Pirate attitude (Score:4, Informative)
It is. Except for those that want to tell others what to think and how to live. Typically found in the religious extremist corner, but the copyright industry also makes efforts in that direction. Even the term "pirate" is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I find it nice compared to people that buy BluRay's at the store. They moan and cry how they feel dirty, and need to shower to try and get the feeling of filth off their skin.
But buying a Sony Technology that funds the MPAA does that to people.
I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you give consumers a product that they want, at a price they find fair, in a form factor (format) that is convenient for them, in a location that is convenient for them, they are happy to pay for it!
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a shame that professional publishers, with very few exceptions, don't realize that.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exaactly. Their business methods relate to them being the controlling middleman, and profiting handsomely.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they do realize that - and I think they realize that in many of these models there's no box for "publisher" at all. They're not fighting for artists or consumers, they're fighting for their own existence.
If Louis just sells stuff from his website to people, there's not a lot of other people who get to feed off that.
Re: (Score:3)
In Louis' case, no, there aren't, because he does virtually everything himself. In a lot of other cases there are actors, editors, producers, sound guys, promoters, etc who may also expect to get a cut from the profits. The publisher would get a cut by bringing all of those people together and producing the final package. So, yeah, their cut goes from 50% or whatever they're making now, down to about 10% or whatever finder's fees are going for these days. But I think there's a strong argument that, not
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of the most wonderful and powerful things about technology in our current era. Louis CK does editing and other such work on his television show Louie, and there are loads of artists that basically self-produce their own work (such as Johnathan Coulton).
The only things the RIAA and record labels can exclusively provide nowadays are advertising and a distribution channel that is rapidly becoming obsolete.
Re: (Score:3)
That NPR interview he did explained pretty much that he never sees a nickel for the TV specials, beyond the initial fee, which is a lot. This whole notion that pirates are taking money out of the pockets of artists appears to be BS, because the production companies take everything anyways, at least in Louis CK's case, which I'd surmise is typical.
Reading stories of the music industry, it seems that this is the case there, too. There's a reason Cheap Trick is still touring after all these years, and it's not
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Took me a minute to decide to comment, or mod up.
I will NOT pay $20+ for a DVD full of DRM/malware. If I purchase something, it is mine. I will not subject myself to corporate restrictions on what I can do with my own property. I have gladly paid for DRM-free songs and movies, and will continue to do so as long as my rights to my own property are not encroached upon.
I have even donated more than asked to independent artists, simply because I feel that they deserved to be compensated for producing something I enjoyed.
The typical pirate's attitude is not "yay, everything's free!".
Should $CORPORATION decide to release their movies for a reasonable price and allow me to download it immediately via BitTorrent, here's my Visa.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, that was sort-of what Netflix was for -- a way to leverage the internet to watch movies immediately, legitimately, for what I considered a reasonable price. Alas, it never really lived up to the hype. But I'm still a member, hoping the selection gets better.
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: (Score:2)
Yup. Recently discovered this band MAYDAY! (maydayonline.com) and even though I could find all of their music on Youtube and rip it from there (and already had for dozens of theirs songs), as soon as I found them for sale on their website (bandcamp), I bought every one of them. Why? It's easier than ripping from youtube, they give you any format you could possibly want (FLAC, MP3, AAC, Ogg, even ALAC [wtf is ALAC?]) and you can download them instantly for only $5. Worth it. And I know I'm actually supportin
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
I'll gladly pay if I know it's actually supporting the artist. But what I WON'T do is pay mony that I know will go towards suing their fans. Or pay the same price as a physical CD for an online download. Or pay $20 for a five track EP.
Agreed. Why should I give my hard earned money to a label, that honestly serves less and less of a purpose every day, who in turn leaves a pittance to the actual artist.
Of course, how many bands/singers that are signed by these labels are truly 'artists' anymore? I wouldn't define an artist as someone who sings songs written by someone else to music composed and played by someone else, all through auto-tune.
Now, a band like MAYDAY, or an indy musician like Dan Bull [itsdanbull.com], those are true artists, and deserve to be compensated accordingly.
As for the last part of your comment - you are spot on. Digital media should be cheaper than physical media, and a five-track 'album' is just another ploy by the label to get more money out of the fans.
Re: (Score:2)
When you give consumers a product that they want, at a price they find fair, in a form factor (format) that is convenient for them, in a location that is convenient for them, they are happy to pay for it!
Yep. I bought it right away when I saw it online the other day. I started watching it on my computer but transferred it to my PS3 for big screen entertainment. Im watching it right now.
fat pipe (Score:2)
There were people in NYC getting like 750 kbps download. Ain't no way you'd see that when torrenting.. or even using megavideo's paid version. Very much : Want. Click. Have.
Re: (Score:2)
I get 2.7 - 3 MBps when I torrent.
Yes, Bytes.
Re: (Score:2)
When you give consumers a product that they want, at a price they find fair, in a form factor (format) that is convenient for them, in a location that is convenient for them, they are happy to pay for it!
...and, by extension, if you don't offer it at a price they find fair, in a form factor that is convenient for them, or in a location that is convenient for them, then there are surprising numbers of consumers out there who think that the appropriate (and sometimes even moral) response is "therefore, I am happy to stiff you and get it free off the Internet", not "therefore, I will not pay you any of my money and go without your overpriced, poorly distributed wares."
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you give consumers a product that they want, at a price they find fair, in a form factor (format) that is convenient for them, in a location that is convenient for them, they are happy to pay for it!
The hard part is making that happen in the first place. From the article:
Louis CK used the $500,000 to pay off several costs, including the $170,000 it took to produce the show, and the $32,000 he spent on building and editing his own website.
Leaving aside the possibility of people acquiring the video without paying for it, he had $300,000 of costs (they don't indicate where the other $100,000 went, maybe the $202,000 figure mentioned was the up front cost and the next $98,000 was distribution). Sure, he could have perhaps found a lower cost way to distribute it but it's still $170,000 in production costs. Part of the deal with publishers of any kind is that they're taking on the risk of producing it. If it doesn't sell it's them who will be losing money, not the author or act or band, etc. In this case, Louis CK put himself in a position where he would potentially lose $170,000 at the minimum. It's only established acts who have the opportunity to take that sort of risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside the possibility of people acquiring the video without paying for it, he had $300,000 of costs (they don't indicate where the other $100,000 went, maybe the $202,000 figure mentioned was the up front cost and the next $98,000 was distribution). Sure, he could have perhaps found a lower cost way to distribute it but it's still $170,000 in production costs. Part of the deal with publishers of any kind is that they're taking on the risk of producing it. If it doesn't sell it's them who will be losing money, not the author or act or band, etc. In this case, Louis CK put himself in a position where he would potentially lose $170,000 at the minimum. It's only established acts who have the opportunity to take that sort of risk.
The costs you site are at best loosely coupled to the price of the show, and in many cases not coupled at all.
Round numbers, let's say there was $300k of costs and $200k of profit. In this case Louis took on all the costs, and took home all the profit.
He could have gone to some finance person (anyone from a bank to a full blown producer, and lots of folks in the middle) and cut a deal like perhaps, finance person puts up $300k, Louis and Finance person split the profits 50/50. Now finance person is out th
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
But the question is whether these experimental results can be reproduced.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Being literally the funniest man alive doesn't hurt.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone just starting out has no reasonable expectation to make $500,000 in 4 days. Someone just starting out should be absolutely thrilled if he makes $500 in 4 days. In fact, someone just starting out should be pretty darn happy to be making any money at all in the first 4 days after release.
But that's precisely the whole problem with our IP system in the US. People think that just because they produced some content they should be entitled to loads of wealth, both immediately as well as for the rest of their life for one thing they spent probably less than 100 hours producing.
I could go on, but that's probably enough for now.
Re: (Score:3)
What separated Stephen King's experiment from Louis CK's?
Stephen King's book was a decade ago, before everyone had e-readers.
Re: (Score:3)
> He's admitted that he's making less money than if he did it the normal route,
Did he as an individual truly make less money, or did the *title* make less money? There's a huge difference, when you're forced to work through a publishing company.
And even if *he* made less money, (which I suspect was not true over the long term) isn't nearly a quarter million enough for one performance? [1] How much is enough?
[1] or one set of performances at one place with one set of material, if you wish, because these
I like it! (Score:2)
Re: (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 like it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All evidence shows that's not true at all.
id SOftware made the same mistak everyone makes.
They assume pirated copies makes less money. Hwn in fact the vast majority would never pay for it to begin with.
" the network's technology correspondent Alfred Hermida counted 50,000 peer-to-peer users downloading the 1.5 GB game--$2,749,500 worth of software at Doom 3's $54.99 sticker price. Other reports put the figure between 30,000 and 20,000--$1,649,700 and $1,099,800 of software, respectively.
Whichever figures ar
Re: (Score:2)
Software piracy is one of the reasons the games industry abandoned the PC and moved to consoles. I remember id Software stating that pre-release piracy of Doom 3 on the PC cost them millions of dollars.
I call BS. There's far too many cases of wildly successful PC games both from huge, well-established publishers as well as from small, no-name indie developers - just in the last year alone.
Maybe console games are easier to develop, or maybe they think they have a larger target audience, but you can be pretty damn sure it's not because of piracy.
Proof (Score:2)
Re:Proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't Apple already prove this when they converted their music store to a DRM-free format? It seems like nobody around here gives them any credit for that...
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't feel the same when the "person" doing it is the world's most valuable multinational corporation, and siphons off thirty percent of every sale as a toll, before passing on the payment to more huge multinational corporations to siphon off more, before giving the artists their pittance. I guess for me the DRM is less important than those other things, though still more important.
Re: (Score:3)
SO? Apple makes some money. 30% isn't really that bad when you look at costs to operate iTunes.
Hey, musicians, self publish. Don't sign the contract.
Re:Proof (Score:5, Funny)
- I saved a man's life once!
- Yeah? What did you do?
- I stopped kicking him.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, more importantly, it proves you don't need a major publishing company to make a profit.
Initial offering ususally works (Score:2)
It's trying to continue to make money off it for the next 50 years, which the RIAA/MPAA are trying to do.
Good effort, though.
Re:Initial offering ususally works (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly the point. He gets paid just fine for the work that he just did, but to continue to get paid he needs to do new work. This is how the system should work, as opposed to the RIAA/MPAA model of do a work and then try to lock it up and get paid for it for the rest of eternity. The public domain is being robbed by these kinds of jokers who think that once something is made it should be owned forever, rather than becoming the shared cultural heritage that it really is and belonging to all the people who saw it when it was initially made.
Or you could, you know, make new shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Louis C.K. is real big on that. He claims, and his shows seem to back up, that he tosses his old jokes each year and moves on to new ones. He doesn't keep doing the same material over and over. Means that if he releases a new special, well there is probably a reason to watch it.
Leaving something on the table (Score:2)
Self contradiction (Score:2, Offtopic)
Also (Score:2)
Buy versus steal (Score:3)
Back when allofmp3 was still alive and well, I bought hundreds of dollars of music from them. Even a lot of stuff that I already owned on CD since it was much more convenient to download the album than to find a good ripping program and to sit around and load CD's.
After I lost the ability to add funds to my allofmp3 account, I pretty much stopped buying music at all, except the very occasional MP3 album. At $2.00/album I'm willing to buy lots of music, even bands I don't know well. At $10/album, I'm much more selective to the point of almost never purchasing.
Not to mention the fact that I already have a few hundred albums of music I like, so I don't really feel a strong urge to purchase more. The more music I own, the less I'm willing to spend on new music. If I have only 2 albums, I might be willing to spend $20 on a new one just to get variety. But if I have 200 albums I don't add much variety to my collection by buying something new, so I might want to pay only $5 for a new album unless it's some artist I really like.
Link to the purchase page (Score:5, Informative)
I found it odd that TFA didn't mention the site, or where one can go to get this fine drm-free video.
https://buy.louisck.net/ [louisck.net]
I think it's great, personally. He's getting $5 from me. It's a fair price, and he's a funny guy.
Pay on the way out... (Score:5, Insightful)
LCK says he doesn't get torrents, but I think he does, this is very smart. Many people who watch the torrent version will gladly hop over to his site and pay their $5 and not even bother to d/l again. Movies should be like this, what if you could pay on the way out of the theater after you've seen the movie, wouldn't that make alot more sense?
You know it'll never happen, but it's a nice idea
=D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You cant mod somebody up and then post in the same article!!! Noobs I say!
I wanted to buy it (Score:2)
But the only method is to use paypal.
I had to change my email to get rid of those cretins.
The level of their malevolence I leave to others to describe.
Too bad, I wanted to reward Louis for his efforts.
I've not made a few other purchases for the same paypal reasons.
Direct link (Score:5, Informative)
I bought it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming those numbers follow the standard practice of including production costs, they're about right for the costs of recording his performances (audio and video engineers) and creating the video (editing and other post-processing) in the first place. That might include costs of running the performances as well, booking the venue, paying a manager, etc., although those would have been defrayed by ticket sales, and, arguably could be accounted separately.
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's the problem. Most people, including you, have no idea how much something costs. So when they are told a number, the all scratch their heads. A few , such as yourself, might look into it and get some decent answer. Most people just scream waste and unions.
Filming is expensive. It's probable several performances, edited to gather. so there is editing, sound, post production and so on. Those people should get paid as well.
Re: (Score:2)