Louis CK: Over $1 Million In Sales In Just 12 Days For DRM-Free Download

from the polite,-awesome-and-human dept

Thu, Dec 22nd 2011 1:11pm — Mike Masnick

As you probably recall, comedian Louis CK kicked off a brilliant little experiment in getting people to buy his latest comedy special, by being polite, awesome and human. He offered up a direct-to-fan offering, with no DRM, from his own site for $5, and he did so while being totally open about the process and his thinking, which only endeared him to more people. After four days, he had brought in over $500k, and twelve days in, he's surpassed $1 million, and he's got the screenshot from PayPal to prove it:

Once again, his writeup shows that this has been quite a success, as he admits that he's never had a million dollars suddenly dumped on him like this. Also, again, his writeup reinforces what worked about this in the first place, the fact that he's being polite, awesome and human:

So it's been about 12 days since the thing started and yesterday we hit the crazy number. One million dollars. That's a lot of money. Really too much money. I've never had a million dollars all of a sudden. and since we're all sharing this experience and since it's really your money, I wanted to let you know what I'm doing with it. People are paying attention to what's going on with this thing. So I guess I want to set an example of what you can do if you all of a sudden have a million dollars that people just gave to you directly because you told jokes.

He then explains what he's doing with the million dollars. $250,000 will go to pay off expenses related to the website. Another $250,000 is going to his staff and the people who helped work on the show. As he says "I'm giving them a big fat bonus." Then he's taking $280,000 and giving it away to a list of charities:

What's interesting is he notes that he learned about some of these via recommendations people made to him via Twitter -- once again, showing that he's reaching out and connecting with fans.

Finally, he's keeping the rest for himself:

That leaves me with 220k for myself. Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my childen. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million.

I never viewed money as being "my money" I always saw it as "The money" It's a resource. if it pools up around me then it needs to be flushed back out into the system.

He also notes that he's a little uncomfortable with all the news this is making and he plans to stay quiet for a bit. Again, this highlights a few key points:

Being polite and sounding human can be incredibly powerful. It's amazing how simple this seems, but so many things are first run through so many layers of PR people and publicists and the like that it's still pretty rare to see someone famous come across as being human. It's entirely possible that Louis is running all this through PR people and publicists before it's going live, but if so, they're doing a good job in making sure it really sounds like it's directly from Louis. If I had to guess, I'd say that's because it actually is directly from Louis. From everything I've seen, heard and read about him, this really does match his persona.
Fans don't resent content creators for getting a ton of money. We keep hearing entertainment industry bigwigs and copyright maximalists insist that people claim that the reason they infringe is because content creators "have too much money already." But as we've seen with Louis, nearly everyone who's taken part in this is positively thrilled with his success. I haven't seen anyone complaining that he made too much money at all. Do some people complain about rich stars? Sure, but if you're polite, awesome and human, and actually connect with your fans, they want you to succeed.
Having a charitable component is kinda cool. Yes, in this case it's after-the-fact, but it's still cool. We've shown in the past that pay-what-you-want works better with a charitable component, and I'd guess it's because it fits with the reasons that people are willing to buy in the first place.

This is a pretty huge success and shows what can be done by going direct-to-fan, while really connecting with those fans. Meanwhile, over at Step2, we're discussing why this worked, and whether or not "polite, awesome and human" are really the key three components. Feel free to weigh in...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: awesome, business models, human, louis ck, polite

135 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:16pm

He better keep about $300,000 of it to pay taxes... that's the going rate on 1 million these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't worry too much about where exactly he cuts the tax line since he's plowing a bunch of it into charities and he already has a some cash saved up. More often than not a large chunk of charity donations can be deducted from the net taxable income. I'm not sure what the limit is though. It would be a shame for him to simply break even after taxes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Since it's "the money" and not "his money" as he states in TFA, he shouldn't mind paying whatever the government asks for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, when he makes a little money, it's cause "he's an exception, so it's irrelevant". But when he makes a lot of money, he should "pay what the government wants, as he's the exception".
      
      Gotcha.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re:
  Besides the charity donation, he will be able to take deductions on the business expenses for the web site, and depending on how it is done the bonuses could be a deduction as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Clay (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re:
  With half a million in tax deductible business expenses, and another quarter million in charitable donations, it's quite clear that you don't know how taxes work. With a good CPA he could probably end up paying less than you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: He better keep about $300,000 of it to pay taxes... that's the going rate on 1 million these days.
  Well since he probably has an accountant and a lawyer who told him to incorporate and run this through the corporation (he has a staff), he won't be liable for anything near $300,000.
  
  It's been a while since my accounting 101 and 102 classes so please forgive and correct any inadequacies.
  
  Revenue: $1,000,000
  Payroll: $ 250,000
  Overhead (the website): $ 250,000
  
  Profit: $ 500,000
  Charitable Donations $ 280,000
  
  His tax liability will be based on $500,000 Minus whatever he can deduct for the donations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re: He better keep about $300,000 of it to pay taxes... that's the going rate on 1 million these days.
    Close, but that is still a 50% earnings before taxes (EBT) margin, which seems high to me. Screw the charitable donations, even without them he probably won't have an unresonable tax contribution. I think that charitable donations should not be tax deductible. That would truly make it a "charitable" donation, not widnow dressing. No deductions for interest payments on your house either. You wanted a house, you bought it, pay for it. Why should I subsidize your desire to live in a house that you funded with debt?
    
    One of my biggest pet peves is people thinking that revenue is what you pay taxes on. Stupid fuckers. Just like Joe the plumber and all the dumb fucks that bought that shit hook, line and sinker. His dumb ass probably did not bring home $100k in gross income, but there he was, along with the other idiots, complaining that ending the tax cuts would affect them negativley.
    
    /Rant
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - xenomancer (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: He better keep about $300,000 of it to pay taxes... that's the going rate on 1 million these days.
      You wanted a house, you bought it, pay for it.
      One of my biggest pet peeves is people who think I should pay for something over and over again after I paid what the seller requested. If its paid for, its paid for. Why should I have to pay the government rent on a structure that I already paid for? All it does is incentivize my clever use of debt to reduce a rent that should not exist in the first place.
      Why should I subsidize your desire to live in a house that you funded with debt?
      Where does this grandiose sense of entitlement to equal suffering under our tax quagmire come from? If its broken, fix it. Don't get pissed that its not equally broken for everyone.
      
      /re:rant
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  Oh woe is mr. CK. He ONLY made $700,000 in 12 days.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re:
  The government can be a pretty great charity. Public libraries, schools, arts, space exploration, scientific research, the internet, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If only the gov't gave equally to such endeavors as they do to defense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DS, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or didn't waste most of it before it got to spending it on the useful bits.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joshua Bardwell (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:56pm
  
  Re:
  I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that things like website expenses and paying employees count as business expenses, for which you don't pay taxes. You only pay taxes on profits, not revenue. Or he'd pay personal income taxes on whatever he pays himself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Abby G, 22 Dec 2011 @ 6:33pm
  
  Re:
  He won't pay taxes on the 1million since he's expensing the majority of it. He will pay taxes on the 220k that he's keeping.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brendy, 15 Jul 2012 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Please, tell me what the "majority of it" he can expense actually is? I don't think there was much cost, even 50K's worth, in what he did. You have to actually show you spent money to deduct it, or at least be able to prove you did. You can flat out lie with a good accountant, but meh, point is the same.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sinnerfold, 9 Aug 2016 @ 7:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well it's the website that undeniably is an expense that takes 250k and donations 250k are not taxable normally (although there may be a limit depending on jurisdiction). There may be a discussion on other service providers that he is giving another 250k, but bonuses are also an expense (again some limits apply)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sinnerfold, 9 Aug 2016 @ 7:14pm
  
  Re:
  Not an expert but taxes are due on profits, not on turnover. His profits are 250k and therefore by your calculations his tax should be around 83k.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:19pm

.. and cue the apologists...
.. who are going to invoke Masnick's Law and say "Oh, this only worked because he was already famous - if he was a nobody he wouldn't have made anything, and so the whole thing is a complete failure, despite it being wildly successful! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: .. and cue the apologists...
  You forgot the main problem they complain about. "If it weren't for copyright, he would have made $2 million"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:26pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    "If it weren't for copyright, he would have made $2 million...."
    
    "Which we would keep all to ourselves, while he still owes us 1 million. Since you know, we own his soul and all"
    -Copyright industry
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: .. and cue the apologists...
  It isn't "Masnick's law", it's a fact. If it isn't, let's see you put up video for sale and see how quickly you make a million dollars.
  
  Anyway, the subtle inference Masnick has made during this whole thing is that it is pirates that allowed this experiment to succeed, because CK was nice about things, didn't use DRM, etc., when the reality is that he is hugely successful and made a it easy for his fans to watch his show cheap.
  
  Even the suggestion that this had anything to do with anything else is hugely offensive, but pretty much what we would expect from a guy that constantly tries to tie the pig to the princess, and vice-versa.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    The only difference between a pirate and a fan is disposable income.
    
    The only difference between a passionate pirate and a publicist is you have to pay a publicist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    No the subtle inference is that he produced something that people wanted and offered it in a way people could easily use at a reasonable price. That's why he emphasized DRM free and $5.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    Anyway, the subtle inference Masnick has made during this whole thing is that it is pirates that allowed this experiment to succeed, because CK was nice about things, didn't use DRM, etc., when the reality is that he is hugely successful and made a it easy for his fans to watch his show cheap.
    
    Huh?
    
    It was successful because Louis CK gave his customers what they wanted...a connection to his fans and a reason to buy. Is this really that difficult to understand? He offered something for a cost that his customers could afford and a value that was worth the cost. People will still take his offering for free -- who cares? This is all Mike ever said, that he made a lot of fans and thus a lot of customers by connecting with his fans (and treating them nicely.)
    
    I am still waiting for the copyright maximalists to say "yeah, this works well for someone who is good at what they do, but how do you expect us to make millions off of our mediocre artists?"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    You obviously have not paid attention at any of the CWF +RTB discussions at all have you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      Connecting with fans- giving them "a reason to buy" is a concept that has been around since before Mike Masnick was born.
      
      While I'm sure it isn't difficult for him to sell the age-old tactic of personalized promo as his own invention, especially to youthful idiots that have no knowledge that there was ever entertainment prior to the internet... to anyone else, it's just snicker-worthy, and quite obviously nothing but an occasional diversion from his usual rants against piracy enforcement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        But even than, it was a viable model - or have you never heard of patronage? It's the same thing, with a few added bits: some perks, others drawbacks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Connecting with fans- giving them "a reason to buy" is a concept that has been around since before Mike Masnick was born.
        
        And your point is?
        
        While I'm sure it isn't difficult for him to sell the age-old tactic of personalized promo as his own invention
        
        Oh, I see - you're too stupid to actually go *look up* what something means before you comment on it! That certainly explains a lot!
        
        Hint: if you don't know what something means, don't comment on it, or else you look like a fool. Seriously - do a Google search for "Masnick's Law", read the definition, and then give yourself a big headdesk when you realize that you made a complete fool of yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        "While I'm sure it isn't difficult for him to sell the age-old tactic of personalized promo as his own invention"
        
        Perhaps not, if he ever tried to do such a thing. He came up with the "equation" to try and explain it to idiots who seem to think it's a new thing that can never work. I don't believe he ever claimed to have invented the concept itself. None of this would even be necessary if the **AAs and their sycophants weren't trying to pretend it could never work.
        
        But, intellectual honesty and ACs never really go together, do they.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killercool (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    No.
    
    No.
    
    No.
    
    There was no "subtle inference" of that manner.
    
    The only "inference" possible is one based on what has actually been said in his works.
    
    That is, it's not that "the pirates made it possible."
    
    Try "When you treat your customers as human, and act as such yourself, the pirates don't matter."
    
    Who cares if every single official paid download was matched by a pirated one? Who cares if they were outstipped 2-to-1?
    
    He made a million dollars in 12 days ANYWAYS.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killercool (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      Also:
      
      "tie the pig to the princess" was earmarked in the 2012 edition (January) of the "Troll du Jour Calendar."
      
      If you guys keep skipping ahead like that, how are the rest of the trolls supposed to earn their Shill Dollars?
      
      You may just end up sued...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        And I might use the word "inference" with your sorry ass, except you made the mistake of writing this:
        "When you treat your customers as human"
        
        You're suggesting that you when you rip people off that their objecting is inhuman?
        
        What a ginormous, moronic douchebag you are for writing this in front of the world.
        
        Guess what, you sorry entitlement monkey, the world doesn't owe you anything, most certainly an excuse to sit on your ass and consume everything for free while returning absolutely nothing back.
        
        Good luck with your strategy at life. We'll all see how that works out for you very soon.
        
        Karma is the most powerful force on earth and its next visit to you will be rather unpleasant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Saying you should treat your customers as humans = entitled, leeching scum sucker?
        
        You really had nothing to say so you just attack the man? I mean really you flip his words around, infer meaning put words in his mouth and then attack him for the things your just made up. Its cute. I guess you just prefer to look at customers as potential dollar signs and not real people and hate anyone who suggests otherwise.
        
        Keep being a douchebag though I'm sure you will win a lot of people to your side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Loki, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Guess what, you sorry entitlement monkey, the world doesn't owe you anything,
        
        I, on the other hand, deserve to be paid for life plus 50 years.
        
        Hi Kettle. Meet Pot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Loki, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      He made a million dollars in 12 days ANYWAYS.
      
      Hell, as long as the damn pirates stayed the hell away from the Caribbean cruise ship my happy ass would be lounging on, for a million dollars in 12 days the bastards could torrent me 1,000 to one for all the crap I'd care.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    I have developed me an algorithm to predict Troll responses to these kinds of events. Tell me what you think:
    
    /Begin algorithm
    
    Input: Big star uses CwF+RtB and succeeds
    Troll responds: This only works with big stars because they have a huge fan base. Masnick is an Idiot.
    
    Input: Little guy uses CwF+RtB and succeeds
    Troll responds: This only works with little guys because they have nothing to lose. Masnick is an Idiot.
    
    Input: Anyone uses anything that kinda looks like CwF+RtB (like, I dunno, giving a crappy ebook that no on wants) and fails
    Troll responds: See! CwF+RtB I a complete failure. Masnick is an Idiot.
    
    Input: Anything else.
    Troll responds: CwF+RtB never worked and will never work for anyone. Masnick is an Idiot.
    
    /end algorithm
    
    Be warned that, due to the non-deterministic nature of trolls, output may vary, but the general tone and idea of the troll response is the same.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - xenomancer (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      And now to make the six million comment troll... able to leap tall facts in a single strawman, see small and vulnerable personality quirks through clear arguments with douchebag vision, and type at the speed of new posts arriving.
      
      Gentlemen, we have the technology...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    How are they pirates...if they BOUGHT it! The popular definition of a pirate is someone who infringes copyright and doesn't pay. So if these people are pirates and didn't pay...then how the fuck did this guy make a gross of 1 million in twelve days?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - xenomancer (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      Don't ask intelligent questions! They are poorly digested by trolls and shills and will often be immediately regurgitated followed by a few insults about the cook. And pray you aren't around if it comes out the other end a week later. What a mess!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      *pats on head*
      
      Let's see if I can explain this....
      
      No DRM allows the content to be pirated easier.
      
      Even if the content is pirated, there is still money to be made.
      
      More than likely, he received more money BECAUSE he didn't try to lock his content down with DRM. Sure, it's possible his stuff was pirated quite a bit....but he also made a lot of money from it too.
      
      Meh. I give up. Shills have no concept of anything past individual sound bytes...big picture is lost .....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Of course you give up- your attempt at rebuttal was an epic fail.
        
        The entire argument that boneheads like you and Masnick made was that since his video was DRM-free, that everyone would be all like, "yes, you've made your product DRM-free; you've acceded to our wishes- we will now reward you with dollars."
        
        When the reality is that a lot of Louis CK fans bought his video because it was only 5 bux.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Or.....
        
        If his video was sold for 5 bucks, and was heavly laden with DRM, do you think he would have made as much money?
        
        Because of how easy it was to get it out, more than likely he gained MORE fans....maybe people that had never heard/seen it before.
        
        What I don't understand is how the industry can not see how much content sharing is really free advertising for them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Tool.
        
        Five dollars and the owner can watch it on N. E. THING. any device the customer chooses.
        
        No DRM has value, significant value.
        
        Tool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        The only people that give a fuck about DRM are pirates- jackasses that don't pay.
        
        People that pay for digital rights couldn't care less; if anything, it validates their purchase, you fucking idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Actually, the people who really give a fuck about DRM are the people who pay and can't access the content they paid for.
        
        So a big FUCK YOU! to you, sir/madam.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Awesome! A typing tool.
        
        Perhaps we're thinking of two different types of DRM then?
        So, then, why do people who buy or license digital media seem to care about DRM? It would seem, to you, that the existence of DRM at all in this argument is a non-argument. Yet, it is not a non-argument, is it? People do care and it does matter. Whether or not you choose to accept that fact is entirely up to you.
        
        There are idiots and there are willful idiots.
        
        For clarity, when I see DRM I think platform lock. I will not willingly purchase nor license anything that imposes any such limitation.
        
        "validates their purchase" - Wha-hut the fa-huck does that mean? Really?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        For clarity!- when I see DRM whiney bitch- I see tool!
        
        An exact toolbox actually! A complete entitlement monkey douchenozzle-type!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        You what what?
        
        It's now entitlement to have the ability to shift?
        
        You may wish to extract that douchenozzle from your anus. That is not the correct tool and will likely render it useless for its true purpose. But hey, far be it from me to inhibit your entitlement to shift.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        WTF are you on about? Twat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        The only people that give a fuck about DRM are pirates- jackasses that don't pay.
        
        People that pay for digital rights couldn't care less; if anything, it validates their purchase, you fucking idiot.
        
        You have that exactly backwards. Pirates are the only ones who DON'T give a fuck about DRM: every single DRM scheme is cracked immediately, and pirating software means you don't have to deal with any of the restrictions that DRM creates.
        
        Only people who pay for software have to deal with DRM and all of its restrictions like requiring an internet connection or region-restrictions or five-minute-long piracy warnings that they aren't allowed to skip. DRM is one of the most bizarrely misguided ideas ever: it makes your product worse for your paying customers, and has absolutely no impact on pirates beyond the occasional 48-hour delay in getting the cracked version out there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Really?
        
        What's my name and the password to my bank account?
        
        Silly dwarf.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        WTF are you talking about you moron?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        "What's my name and the password to my bank account?"
        
        Authentication, Authorisation and Access Control
        
        or in this specific case - personal records access management, or, more simply, your user account and password.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Really?
        
        What's my name and the password to my bank account?
        
        Silly dwarf.
        
        ...WHAT?
        
        Do you have any idea what DRM actually means? Or are you going to try some sort of silly semantic game to claim that password authentication counts as DRM? Because if that's your plan don't bother - it's pretty pathetic.
        
        You know damn well what we are talking about: digital locks placed on distributed content to limit its use in some way or another. Don't play these ridiculous games - just admit you are wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Not to mention, countless millions of bank accounts get broken into everyday. Chances are, the retards password and id is stolen right now, or will get stolen in the future. Hey retard shill, are you sure you want to use Bank security as an example?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        I will disagree....I should be able to purchase something, and watch it on my laptop, my phone, my computer, my TV...while in my car...or house....or on vacation.....
        
        If I purchased a cassette and put it in my boom box, and went to the park, and played the music, and that wasn't a problem, then why make DRM so locked down that you can't even do that?
        
        It wasn't a public performance, it was me and some friends at the park listening to music.
        
        However, now, with the way DRM is, we can't do that.
        
        THAT is the people pissed off about DRM. THOSE are YOUR CUSTOMERS.
        
        We are just tired of it. Keep your content and your music, I'll spend my money on people that don't care if I want to watch/listen on my phone, Xbox....here or there...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        aikoaiko2, 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        You sir are indeed a tool.
        
        I've got 1 dvd player and 5 televisions. When a dvd comes laden with DRM there is no way for me to watch it anywhere I want because of the DRM. This is true only for legally purchased, restricted content.
        
        "The only people that give a fuck about DRM are maximalists- jackasses that are greedy" FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Really? tell that to all the people who bought ultraviolet movies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Loki, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Or all the people who got infected by the Sony Rootkit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ben S (profile), 14 Mar 2012 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        I pay for my content, I don't generally pirate anything. I avoid like the plague anything that looks or smells like DRM. The reason is simple, in almost every case it makes what I'm trying to use, a hassle to use.
        Examples: Internet connection goes down? No more game/movie/etc. Company DRM server has issues? No more product. Go on vacation, use a hotel, doesn't have a robust enough connection for DRM validation? No more product.
        
        Not to mention how some require registering with multiple services. I spent around 15 minutes just trying to get to the point where I was actually allowed to save my progress on one game, by jumping through hoops like that. I'll be very cautious about buying anything from THQ again.
        
        I'll continue to buy the stuff I like, but from now on, I'll be doing some online searches to see what kind of DRM exists on the product before I purchase it, to see if it will interfere with using the product. Once I see DRM, that's usually enough to make me move on and live with out what ever it is.
        
        I'm not a pirate, I pay for my content, I hate DRM with a passion. So don't assume that hating DRM = filthy, dirty pirate, because it doesn't. Some of us just hate the treatment given by DRM locked goods.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        "When the reality is that a lot of Louis CK fans bought his video because it was only 5 bux."
        
        Do you have a citation, or was that straight from your own arse again like all your assertions?
        
        For me, the $5 helped. I would not have bought a DRM infected file for any price, however, and the lack of region coding also made it possible for me to buy - something not possible for me to do with the morons who enforce such things on physical media.
        
        I suppose such subtleties as multiple selling points and a range of customers with different needs are beyond your simplistic ideas, however.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 28 Dec 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        You are missing the point (maybe hitting in the edges with the no-drm thing). If selling for $5 is what made ppl buy then he's just brilliant and knows precisely how market forces work. I'm astonished nobody in the trolling discussion could mention this simple fact. He talks as if selling for $5 is inconceivable but just as a wake up call: HE MADE 1 MILLION IN 12 DAYS SELLING FOR $5. Do better or shut up, troll.
        
        (PaulT I'm mixing a reply to you with a reply to the troll, don't be offended buddy).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        No problem :)
        
        I do notice that no AC has responded to me. I probably confused them by pointing out that there might be multiple factors involved in any one sale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:19pm
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    "Anyway, the subtle inference Masnick has made during this whole thing is that it is pirates that allowed this experiment to succeed"
    
    Perhaps some people would much rather pay for freely available content than for content that requires people to pay because they don't mind helping out others, especially those who can't afford to pay, by offering them an opportunity to enjoy our culture.
    
    Or maybe, when you stop treating your fans like criminals and pirates, you will have more fans and you will have more fans willing to give you money. Maybe fans don't mind giving people who are generous money and they prefer to give money to people who don't mind their work being 'pirated' since fans prefer to support people who provide socially beneficial work over people who are strictly selfish.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 10:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      Or maybe, when you stop treating your fans like criminals and pirates
      
      See?
      
      Artists don't treat their fans like criminals and pirates. Some of their fans are indeed criminals and pirates.
      
      You need to learn the distinction.
      
      Masnick implies that if CK hadn't played nice with his freetard friends, that his sales wouldn't have been what they were. Which is a gigantic pile of horseshit.
      
      Louis CK's pirate "fans" put the video up on pirate bay within hours of release, objectively proving that:
      
      1. His pirate "fans" couldn't have cared less about how nice he was,
      
      2. They'll still rip off something rather than pay for it, even when it is offered directly by the artist, for cheap.
      
      The success of this project had nothing to do with trying to negotiate with criminals, and everything to do with how incredibly popular he is.
      
      It was an enlightening experiment, alright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 1:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        "Artists don't treat their fans like criminals and pirates. Some of their fans are indeed criminals and pirates."
        
        ...and some of them aren't. Why do you insist on acting as if all of them are?
        
        DRM, unskippable lectures on legally purchased DVDs, region coding, etc. - these all treat legitimate customers as if they're pirates, and give us a very good reason not to bother buying. Not necessarily to pirate - just to learn how to live without your crap.
        
        Why do you insist on not only ignoring, but openly attacking, the people who are willing to pay you money?
        
        "Masnick implies"
        
        ...something entirely different to you predisposed, unfounded assumptions of what he implied. Not surprising, since you regularly attack him as a pirate for trying to help artists...
        
        "Louis CK's pirate "fans""
        
        So, are they pirates or fans? If all his fans are pirates, how did he make $1 million is less than a fortnight? If not all of them are pirates, why is he wrong to focus on those actually willing to pay?
        
        You need to work on your logic.
        
        "The success of this project had nothing to do with trying to negotiate with criminals, and everything to do with how incredibly popular he is."
        
        Citation? Of course not, your opinion is truth, ours opinions are wrong, you just won't explain why.
        
        Personally I'd never heard of him before this experiment, other than a couple of passing mentions of his name on some podcasts I listen to. I'd certainly never seen any of his standup, and he sure as hell hadn't been on any TV near me. As far as I know, not one of his gigs has been legally released on DVD in the country where I reside, and there's no legal streaming option available to me. Yet, I bought the $5 download. Explain that.
        
        Oh, and who are you again? Why should we take your opinion over Louis' or Mike's?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        And you also think your lame, willfully blind rebuttals are effective.
        
        LOL
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Another tool. It's like Harbour Freight up in here this morning.
        
        How about effectively providing some value apart from your nonsense assumptions that are conspicuously reality adverse?
        
        Piracy is not nor ever was your real problem. Loss of complete and total control via big telecom and bullshit delivery platforms is your problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Yeah, I just love those unskippable YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR ads on ym Disney DVDS.
        
        Moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        You know, if you weren't such a raving asshole, boot-licking corporate apologist, you might realize that price and convenience matter.
        
        That's what the experiment shows.
        
        Piracy is going to happen even if you offer to PAY people to consume your content. Some people are willing to pay, some aren't, some more, some less.
        
        Piracy has little to do with the success or failure of CK's or any other fucking release.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Ok lets have a look at some of the things folks are saying about the torrent on the pirate bay....
        
        Bought it, but downloading here because site is too slow.
        
        I downloaded LCK's video from another (smaller, and therefore faster) torrent, watched about 5 minutes, then went and bought it from his website. But if I'd seen this torrent first, I would have bought it straight away instead of torrenting it first.
        
        Please everybody. Go to the website and buy the product. It's only 5 bucks and it allows Louis to keep doing awesomeness, such as letting everybody pay a quarter of what a show like this would normally cost.
        
        I agree, this is SUPER cheap and awesome that he did this, BUT
        
        With all that said, I don't even have $2 on my debit card.... No fucking Christmas at my house....
        
        Originally downloaded it from here worked great, the music add in was kinda gay but whatevs. Watched it, loved it, bought it.
        Its $5 dollars i spends that on apps for my phone and this gave me WAAYYY more lolz
        JUST BUY IT I PROMISE YOU BE HAPPY LATER AND ENJOY IT
        
        I'm giving the peers the benefit of the doubt - some people really don't have $5. But if/when you do, please pay for this video.
        
        I paid for 2 copies. One for me and one for one of you hobos who can't afford $5. Enjoy.
        
        Watched the first ten min, loved it.
        Going to go buy it now and pay my five bucks.
        also gonna pay an extra ten for two of you lovely pirates.
        Kinda like buying you a beer.
        I think I will try to figure a way to let louie know I am from the piracy world.
        
        Please support artists directly!
        Five Dollars is pretty cheap.
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Loki, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        Artists don't treat their fans like criminals and pirates. Some of their fans are indeed criminals and pirates.
        
        Some is not the same as all.
        
        You need to learn the distinction.
        
        Ditto
        
        Masnick implies that if CK hadn't played nice with his freetard friends, that his sales wouldn't have been what they were. Which is a gigantic pile of horseshit.
        
        I'm sure it mattered to some people. I think other people only care that he is funny and entertaining.
        
        Louis CK's pirate "fans" put the video up on pirate bay within hours of release, objectively proving that:
        
        1. His pirate "fans" couldn't have cared less about how nice he was,
        
        2. They'll still rip off something rather than pay for it, even when it is offered directly by the artist, for cheap.
        
        At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how many people pirated it, but how many people actually bought it.
        
        He made a million dollars.
        
        The success of this project had nothing to do with trying to negotiate with criminals, and everything to do with how incredibly popular he is.
        
        The success of this project also had nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with how funny and entertaining he is.
        
        Of the roughly 15 people I personally know, myself included, who bought this comedy special, we did so because:
        
        1)At $5 it was a good value.
        
        2)The man is entertaining, and he can't devote as much time to coming up with new material if he's stuck working at McDonald's or some gas station.
        
        3)It had no DRM (and if you think DRM doesn't matter to most people, you need to get out a bit more).
        
        4)Easy access.
        
        It was an enlightening experiment, alright.
        
        I look at it as more of a publicity stunt. And I'd say it worked. I'd heard of Louis CK before, but never saw any of his work. Being able to easily pull his material up on Youtube and check him out was what got me to buy.
        
        (As a sidenote, a coworker several years back turned us on to some Youtube clips of a guy named Jeff Dunham (whom none of us had heard of). About ten of us wound up buying at least one of his DVDs.)
        
        You can rant and rave all you want. Hell, a decade ago, I'd have ranted and raved right there with you. Today I think you just look foolish.
        
        Big whoops. Some of his fans are pirates and criminals.
        
        Some is not the same as all.
        
        That too, is a distinction.
        
        At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many people pirated it. It matters how many people paid.
        
        The bottom line is he made a million dollars.
        
        The success of this project had nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with how incredibly popular he is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
        "Artists don't treat their fans like criminals and pirates. Some of their fans are indeed criminals and pirates. "
        
        Some fans are pirates so lets treat all fans like pirates by putting DRM on the legal copies that the fans who are pirates don't even have to deal with.
        
        Wait what? Why should we hurt the paying fans because some people are going to pirate this?
        
        But but piracy!
        
        But DRM doesn't stop pirates....
        
        but but but but PIRACY!!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
    It isn't "Masnick's law"
    
    Mike coined the law, so it is Masnick's Law - and you're actually proving he's right (by claiming that this wouldn't work for anyone else), and you're proving *me* right by posting it!
    
    It's three fails in one!
    
    Hint: before commenting on something on a term, you might want to look at what it actually means, rather than blathering on and making yourself look like a fool.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 8:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: .. and cue the apologists...
      "Mike coined the law, so it is Masnick's Law"
      
      Actually, if memory serves correctly, a commenter on these boards notice the trend and suggested that it should be called the "Masnick Effect" (a play, of course, on the term "Streisand Effect" that Mike did coin). It then got referred to in later articles.
      
      Not a major thing, but it's worth pointing out. It is sad, however to see these fools carry on doing the same thing years later rather than allow themselves to be drawn into real, adult discussions on the points raised.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:21pm

I think the way he is interacting with fans is great, but I think the real biggest factors for his success are (a) he's an awesomely hilarious comedia and has an great reputation and existing fan base, and (b) he is selling the video for $5.

Even if this were through some traditional distribution mechanism with DRM and whatnot, a Louis CK video for $5 would sell pretty well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, AC who was wondering when Masnick's Law would come up?
  
  think the way he is interacting with fans is great, but I think the real biggest factors for his success are (a) he's an awesomely hilarious comedia and has an great reputation and existing fan base, and (b) he is selling the video for $5.
  *Points up*
  
  Yes, the effect is multiplied if you have a bigger fan base, but the technique is sound no matter who you are.
  
  1. Work hard on making a quality product that draws fans.
  2. Cultivate those fans. Treat them well, keep them close.
  3. Offer products that appeal to you fans, which are:
  a. Reasonably priced, and
  b. Easy and convenient to use.
  4. PROFIT!
  
  Yes, you may not clear a million dollars, but you'll make money, and this is just more proof of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DC, 22 Dec 2011 @ 6:26pm
  
  Re:
  Well, I'd have to say that with more restrictions, or a higher price, or both, he would probably sell less, and make less profit. Basic market economics.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:03pm
  
  Re:
  Even if this were through some traditional distribution mechanism with DRM and whatnot, a Louis CK video for $5 would sell pretty well.
  
  This.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:28pm

Yay! Paywall!
Welcome, Techdirt to the Paywall Lovers of the World.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: Yay! Paywall!
  Yay! Guy who doesn't have the first frickin' clue that there is NO PAYWALL. How could a paywall exist if there's no DRM?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re: Yay! Paywall!
  I'm sure you have a point. I'll be dog gone if I can figure out what it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Yay! Paywall!
  Paywall? Where?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
    Bob is under the impression that any kind of monetary transaction is a "paywall" because Bob is not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
      No. I see you as going through some terrible contortion to pretend that you were all in favor of this from the beginning. A pay wall is exactly that: you don't pay, you don't get the content.
      
      This site has been a big proponent of the idea that you can just cast your content onto a P2P net and wait for the rent money to come floating back to you. Consider this article about the Onion paywall-- an article that doesn't have the initials DRM anywhere in it:
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/17141315444/disappointing-onion-tests-paywall.shtml
      
      Mike says that "If The Onion focused on giving people positive reasons to buy things, rather than negative reasons to "avoid" getting cut off, I would imagine it would work much better."
      
      Or go read the discussion about the NY Times paywall. Again, no discussion of DRM. Nope. It's filled with speculation about how the NY Times might be able to make even more money without blocking people.
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/19193015201/greatest-trick-nytimes-ever-pulled-was-con vincing-world-its-paywall-exists.shtml
      
      So don't go changing the meaning of the terms.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Louis CK gave everyone positive reasons to buy things by connecting with his fans. How is that a paywall?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bob, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        It's a paywall because he won't give you the content without you paying first. The wall has nothing to do with whether he gives a positive or negative reason to buy. The wall is always there and it won't move until you pay $5. Get a clue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        You're confusing retail price with paywall I'm afraid. It's ok, don't stress. I'm just trying to help you out. A paywall is a term typically applied to content that is prescription based access and the like. In our case this is a cost of media acquisition - for keeps.
        
        Here, one sec..
        meh, it's a bit too long to draw for you so, if you don't mind, you read it;
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall
        
        Cost of clue : priceless
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Did he have to mention the letters DRM for there to be DRM? The New York TImes paywall worked by javascript that limited what you could with the NYT website: it limited the number of articles you could read. So in order to stop this negative thing from happening, you had to pay up.
        
        Now, we have this guy, who's given everyone POSITIVE reasons to buy, above and beyond the content itself. He's donating to charity. He's engaging with his customers. He hasn't put DRM in. He isn't artificially limiting what his customers can do with the content. Because of all these positives, these people have given him money.
        
        And again you lie. Techdirt has NEVER, NOT ONCE ever been in favour of "give it away and pray". The jokes on you, for "waiting for the rent money" is exactly what Disney et al do. They make their content and then rig the system so that everybody from now until the death of the universe has to pay them rent.
        
        A paywall is seen as a WALL, as in an obstacle to get by, by whatever means necessary. With the NYTimes, I turn off Javascript. With Louis CK, because of everything positive he's done, I give him money as a reward. I don't see the charge as being begrudging, like he's a street vendor with his hand out, who, if I refuse to pay, will then withdraw his hand and tell me to fuck off. If I refuse to pay, its because he's failed to convince me that $5 is worth it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Killercool (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        DRM: A way to force people to give you money to consume your product. Breaks the product if not found to be authorized.
        
        Paywall: A way to force people to give you money to consume your product. Money must be provided to get past the paywall, and any avenues bypassing such break the product, partially or in whole.
        
        DRM-Free download: A way to support (an) artist(s) by giving you an official (and usually affordable) venue for the consumption of your product. Which is available for free in the exact same format. Literally no change except for the artist getting money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Colin, 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        This site has been a big proponent of the idea that you can just cast your content onto a P2P net and wait for the rent money to come floating back to you.
        
        Is that why this article starts off with "'Give It Away And Pray' Isn't A Business Model"?
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml
        
        Mike doesn't think you can just throw something out there and expect money. You're so damn stupid it makes my head hurt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        This site has been a big proponent of the idea that you can just cast your content onto a P2P net and wait for the rent money to come floating back to you.
        
        Actually, we've said exactly the opposite.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml
        
        And you know that, because just a few weeks ago we had this same moronic discussion and I pointed this out to you. Are you normally this stupid or are you working extra hard at it today, bob?
        
        Consider this article about the Onion paywal
        
        Yes, consider it.
        
        Mike says that "If The Onion focused on giving people positive reasons to buy things, rather than negative reasons to "avoid" getting cut off, I would imagine it would work much better."
        
        Right. Now pay attention. What are we talking about here: Louis CK worked hard at giving fans very positive reasons to buy, rather than trying to lock them out. In other words, the position is entirely consistent.
        
        If you can comprehend basic concepts.
        
        Or go read the discussion about the NY Times paywall. Again, no discussion of DRM
        
        Did you not even read this post? Nowhere do I say that it's because of or not because of DRM. I talk about the reasons that Louis CK did things to make people WANT to buy. Not try to force them to buy.
        
        So don't go changing the meaning of the terms.
        
        Hilarious from you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Louis CK's "reason to buy" was simply releasing a video, you fucking moron.
        
        You love piracy, so you're trying to spin that he did it DRM-free as if it was some sort of bonus feature.
        
        The people that give a damn about DRM stole the video off Pirate Bay the hour after it was released.
        
        His fans? They bought it.
        
        They bought the video because they like Louis CK and it was cheap.
        
        Your clueless-ness on this matter is yet another example of why you never got that job in the entertainment industry that you so desperately coveted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        You also have no clue on how many new fans he made because of having a DRM-free video.
        
        The problem is the Entertainment Industry can't figure out how to make money off of the social aspect of people in general.
        
        http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57347187-93/pinterest-crazy-growth-lands-it-as-top-10-s ocial-site/
        
        Imagine if you could get a slice of that pie......and that kind of growth. All from nothing more than giving people a sound board to share.
        
        It's out there, but the industry is so far stuck in the past and not wanting to grow......no matter how many different ways we try to show you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        They didn't steal anything, you fucking moron piece of shit corporate cock gobbler!
        
        People bought this for a lot of reasons...some of which include the fact that there were no fucking strings attached, they didn't have to HOPE and PRAY that the video worked for them....they didn't have to wonder whether Louis and the people who made the video were getting paid for this...they didn't have to wonder whether some fat piece of shit corporate exec was going to be able to hire another shill lobbyist to get yet another tax break or buy a vote to get SOPA passed...
        
        You can go fuck yourself dry, asshole!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bob, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Sorry dude. It's a paywall and it locked out people. The locks has nothing to do with whether the people felt positive or negative about the work. The only thing that opened up the wall was a $5 payment.
        
        A tip jar is a payment mechanism that only responds to positive feelings. A paywall demands the cash before you see the content. It could care less about feelings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Again, I sort of get your point but a paywall does not a cost of media acquisition make.
        
        Your argument, it seems, is solely based on: "I have to pay, therefore..". Which, if I may say, is wrong.
        
        If you have another course to take to get to your point now might be a good time to tack.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bryan O'Doyle, 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Hey Bob,
        
        ... pssssst er, guess what, words have meanings, and um... like, when lots of people get the idea that a certain word has like, y'know, a certain meaning? and then you pretend that isn't how things work, um... well, it makes you look silly... whoa! who knew?! but you carry on and say what you gotta say, as we all should :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nastybutler, 23 Dec 2011 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        The locks has nothing to do with whether the people felt positive or negative about the work. The only thing that opened up the wall was a $5 payment.
        
        By your misguided logic, the grocery store employs a paywall. Or the gas station. Or the guy on Craigslist who sold you your benoit balls. Or eBay where you bought your copy of "Logical Thinking for Dummies." Just because you have to make a payment for something doesn't make it a paywall.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Yes in Bob's world anything that costs money is hidden behind a paywall, he still has yet to learn what paywall actually means despite people trying to explain it. He is dense, willfully ignorant, and purposefully difficult all because he failed as a creator and needs some invisible boogeyman to blame otherwise he will just have to realize that he is a completely talentless failure.
        
        So keep refusing to understand the issue Bob and keep chasing your boogeymen and turning peoples around words so they look like your boogeyman so you can attack them too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Yay! Paywall!
        Newspapers are just like comedy shows.
        
        I love how hard you research for arguments in which you misconstrue everything previously said and purposefully put words in peoples mouth and compare apples to oranges.
        
        You could really just save yourself time and write "I don't get it but I refuse to learn and will try my hardest to not understand the arguments. By the way you are all filthy scum sucking assholes because you don't like paying middlemen. Fuck Louie for keeping all his money that should be a studios."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
derek westlund, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:29pm

the key thing to remember isn't how much he made but how quickly he made it

a middle class citizen in the USA will make at least $1million or more in their life time, he did it in 12 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  No, the key thing is "how much of it he gets to keep". In the end, after taxes and all that, it's not really all that much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    At least a couple hundred thou is clearly something in my book, especially if it's made in just twelve days.
    "On the Twelfth day of Christmas, my true fans gave to me...over two hundred thousand dollars"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Apparently more than he ever got from anywhere else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nastybutler, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Okay, Mr. 1%, I guess $200K+ in twelve days is chump change to a snobbish dillhole like you, but to most people, it's not a bad rate of pay.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - mocksoup (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 1:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    On what planet? Most people who live on this one live on less than 1 dollar a day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  To be fair, he spends about a year writing jokes and stitching an act together slowly over the course of a few short sets, and then a few smaller tours, culminating in a larger headlining tour once he he's gotten his act together (so to speak). At this point he is capable of filming the act over the course of a few different shows, and then spending some time editing those shows together into a professional product. Money earned through each leg of the process is then used to fund the next leg of the process.
  
  The reality is that this is a million dollars (and counting) earned over the course of about a year, not 12 days. Which is still pretty good. I'm not trying to suggest that this is anything other than a success, but we should at least discuss it in the proper perspective: a year of hard work, not 12 days of easy internet money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    The reality is that this is a million dollars (and counting) earned over the course of about a year, not 12 days. Which is still pretty good. I'm not trying to suggest that this is anything other than a success, but we should at least discuss it in the proper perspective: a year of hard work, not 12 days of easy internet money.
    
    It's a good point but that's not quite right either: keep in mind he still makes money from the show tickets as well. It's not as if he was taking a loss all year in order to make this video - he's been earning his regular touring fees the whole time, and the revenue from the video is on top of that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that he used his earnings from touring to finance the making of the video. If the video had not been successful financially, he would have taken a beating on the cost of the video production/website. He was able to do this because there was not a tv studio/ record label backing him in this. The revenue from the video is on top of other earnings, after he pays himself back for the production/distribution costs that went into it in the first place. It was the money that he earned all year that was on the line with this. That's how I understood it, anyway.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2011 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nope, he used his earnings from the two special shows he put on with the intention of filming to cover the cost of both putting on the shows, and filming, and creating the website etc etc.
        
        Which, meant, that from some points of view, creating the vid cost him nothing at all, as if a tv sitcom, covered the cost of the show from the live studio audience before they ever got a cent from advertisers.
        
        Of course, for tax purposes, it is much more beneficial to break it down into separate components, and talk about reinvesting earnings.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someantimalwareguy (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:41pm

Treating your fans like partners...
...has a pull you have only really started to take advantage of and will only get better the more interactive and responsive you become. Being open, honest, and showing you actually care makes the bonds all that tighter going forward.

In a way, this is what I have been trying to do with technical support for the past decade and I can tell you it works; especially when times are hard. The best part of this is that they (customers or fans) will be there when things get tough for Louis if it ever happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: Treating your fans like partners...
  The best part of this is that they (customers or fans) will be there when things get tough for Louis if it ever happens.
  
  Which he even talks about in the routine in that video :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:45pm

Very nice of him and probably the way you should act.
Unfortunately the MAFIAA will not act this way and I will continue my personal boycott of making sure they never see a dime from my wallet.
And no I am not a Pirate I just wait a little and then buy a used physical product.You see "Patience is a virtue".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:46pm

One of these days the RIAA and the MPAA are going to realize that piracy is not their biggest biggest. Their biggest problem is that artists, entertainers, producers, musicians, etc. will suddenly realize they no longer need middlemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  "biggest biggest"
  
  WTF? I meant, "biggest problem."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Biggus Dickus?
    
    Oh, wait, that's already covered by Chris Dodd.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2011 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "biggest problem."
    
    and hopefully after that, they will realise that piracy isn't actually a problem for them at all.
    
    But ... baby steps.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re:
  They do realize this, why do you think we are getting SOPA, which they required to be overly broad?
  
  It was never about the lost sales, it was about demonizing all forms of internet music (original RIAA campaign), and now since people didn't go along with it, it is shutting down threats entirely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ZeeBat (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:46pm

Brilliant!
Good this - and this is precisely what BAM (big ass media (emphasis on ass)) is fighting. They're not getting their five nines.

Piracy? As if. (though I definitely recognize that there is some modernisation that needs to take place specifically as it pertains to BAM)

People of the world - Create it, Imitate it! Confiscate it!.

Hoppy Halidays!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaine (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:47pm

Charitable Component
"Yes, in this case it's after-the-fact, but it's still cool."

I would say that since it's after-the-fact, it's way more cool than if it were used as a pre-sales marketing point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Amazing Sammy, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:59pm

John Stewart, and NPR
Within 24 hours he was on John Stewart and NPR with the same schtick. Not discounting either, but they are venues that I pay attention to. I think this is a huge success for both of them as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin H (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:02pm

How about?
Good going Louis CK. You were willing to experiment and by doing so you made some really good money, and received an overwhelming response to your humanness throughout it all. Kudos to you sir, and I really enjoyed your Beacon Theater show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blatant Coward (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:03pm

But... But... PIRATES!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:32pm
  
  Re:
  uh huh huh huh, You said Butt Prirates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MonkeyFracasJr (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:09pm

But but but ...
... 'how will the people who's content SUCKS make any money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:57pm

50K to invest in cinnabon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 3:15pm

This is what happens to people who instead of paying attention to the 80% who wouldn't pay you for any number of reasons(i.e. don't have the money right now, couldn't afford it, wouldn't pay it anyway and so forth) you focus on the people who would pay you and are willing to give you money for what you do.

On the other hand we have people who can't stand anybody having so fun at all and just want to force everybody to be miserable, would you give money to someone who makes you feel bad and keep trying to guilt trip you every chance they get?

God knows I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:04pm

Who?
Sorry guys, but, who the hell is Louis CK? I have never heard of him. What is his venue?

I am certainly glad that he did well, and I doubt that the trend is over (they rarely stop suddenly). I don't go for the 'newest', 'biggest', 'blueist' (any kind of "ist"). I have patience. I can be entertained with 100 year old books. I don't NEED the latest. At the same time, I don't live in a cave, and I have never heard of him (possibly factored by my currently living outside of the US).

The point is, I am sure I am not the only one to not have heard of him, and yet 200,000 people found him in 12 days (probably more, as I am also sure the 'pirates' did not ignore this entirely). Does this not point out that one doesn't have to be 'really' big to succeed?

And, what about word of mouth (even if it is email, sms, or facebook posts)? In one of my former industries (Hospitality) word of mouth was EXTREMELY important. One positive comment got to about 5 other people, but a negative comment got to around 10.

One other interesting point (related). We had to deal with customer complaints nose to nose and toes to toes. The guest had to be satisfied before they left. We were also hampered with the notion that "The customer is never wrong". We did not buy that contention, but our policy was that the customer "never heard they were wrong" from us. When will other industries finally come to this realization?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:50am
  
  Re: Who?
  Thanks for that input - it's a point that is often lost on the MAFIAA: The customer may be wrong, but never, EVER, tell them to their face unless it's necessary for someone's health.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dbraw, 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:41am

woah........Paypal made a killing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  I half expect Paypal to suspend Louie CK's account and refuse to give out *any* of the money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mermaldad (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:42am

The part I disagree with
Having a charitable component is kinda cool. Yes, in this case it's after-the-f cool.

To me, that it is after the fact makes it even cooler. It means that he's giving to charity because he wants to, not to drive sales. That's pretty high up there on the mermaldad heirarchy of commercial charitable giving:

From lowest to highest esteem

For every purchase you make, we'll make a gonation to the Central Ypsilanti Network for Infants, Children and Lepers (CYNICAL), up to $100,000.

My reaction: That's nice, but if you really wanted to give, you wouldn't put a cap on the amount. This is more about sales than a desire to give.

Help us raise money for CYNICAL by donating at the cash register.

My reaction: I'm glad that you are supporting this cause, but when you present the oversized check, will you remember to mention that the money was donated by your customers?

We are donating $100,000 to CYNICAL.

My reaction: that is nice. No gimmicks, just a nice gift to a worthy cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LIVEJAMHD (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 7:51pm

DIY/Direct to Fan Video
LiveJam HD provides a turn-key service enabling artists/performers to own and sell HD video content on their own website(s). We released 22 titles in 2011 for our partner artists!! www.livejamhd.com Nice work Louis C.K.! Happy Holidays!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]