Suck a bag of d*cks

Not only was the special really funny and honest, I love what he's done surrounding it. Awesome.

No Hero tag? If not for this, then what is it for?

rotsky: No Hero Harrow tag? If not for this, then what is it for?

/sorry, pet peeve.

cameroncrazy1984: rotsky: No Hero Harrow tag? If not for this, then what is it for?

/sorry, pet peeve peave.

I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.

ecmoRandomNumbers: I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.

This week's TWIT episode talked about this and I think went the wrong way with regards to the piracy issue. One of the pundits (I can't remember who) said that if he had sold it through traditional DVD release, he would have made 10 times as much. (I'm sure that number was pulled out of his ass, but the theory seems legit to me). Anyhow, everybody on the show seemed to agree that 1 million vs. 10 million was an OK compromise, used that as an argument that piracy isn't harmful.

I hear plenty of these anecdotes about big stars who can afford to take the risk, but haven't heard much with regards to small artists. Is there any good research out there on whether this scales to lesser-known performers? Making $1 million instead of $10 million isn't that big of a deal, but what if it was $10,000 instead of $100,000? I'd probably consider a different line of work.

he got 5 of my dollars. well worth it. really glad it's working out and he's being transparent with his results. i hope others with the fan base to support this business model start doing more of it.

serial_crusher: ecmoRandomNumbers: I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.

This week's TWIT episode talked about this and I think went the wrong way with regards to the piracy issue. One of the pundits (I can't remember who) said that if he had sold it through traditional DVD release, he would have made 10 times as much. (I'm sure that number was pulled out of his ass, but the theory seems legit to me). Anyhow, everybody on the show seemed to agree that 1 million vs. 10 million was an OK compromise, used that as an argument that piracy isn't harmful.

I hear plenty of these anecdotes about big stars who can afford to take the risk, but haven't heard much with regards to small artists. Is there any good research out there on whether this scales to lesser-known performers? Making $1 million instead of $10 million isn't that big of a deal, but what if it was $10,000 instead of $100,000? I'd probably consider a different line of work.

First of all, without knowing the economics "10 times" is total BS. Lets say 4x- even though I think that's a stretch. Are 3/4 of Louis' fans only able to consume media via DVD, and have no idea how to download and burn a DVD (or have access to someone that can?)

In traditional media, you have to pay for the physical media, the distribution, all the people involved (including high-paid execs.)

I don't think even the biggest stars get 10% of the cut. (Oh, by the way... 10% of the cut would negate this dude's nutty 10x argument exactly.)\

I don't know about comedians, but I heard once in the traditional music industry... only stars of Madonna's caliber make 10% of CD/DVD sales.

downstairs: serial_crusher: ecmoRandomNumbers: I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.

This week's TWIT episode talked about this and I think went the wrong way with regards to the piracy issue. One of the pundits (I can't remember who) said that if he had sold it through traditional DVD release, he would have made 10 times as much. (I'm sure that number was pulled out of his ass, but the theory seems legit to me). Anyhow, everybody on the show seemed to agree that 1 million vs. 10 million was an OK compromise, used that as an argument that piracy isn't harmful.

I hear plenty of these anecdotes about big stars who can afford to take the risk, but haven't heard much with regards to small artists. Is there any good research out there on whether this scales to lesser-known performers? Making $1 million instead of $10 million isn't that big of a deal, but what if it was $10,000 instead of $100,000? I'd probably consider a different line of work.

First of all, without knowing the economics "10 times" is total BS. Lets say 4x- even though I think that's a stretch. Are 3/4 of Louis' fans only able to consume media via DVD, and have no idea how to download and burn a DVD (or have access to someone that can?)

In traditional media, you have to pay for the physical media, the distribution, all the people involved (including high-paid execs.)

I don't think even the biggest stars get 10% of the cut. (Oh, by the way... 10% of the cut would negate this dude's nutty 10x argument exactly.)\

I don't know about comedians, but I heard once in the traditional music industry... only stars of Madonna's caliber make 10% of CD/DVD sales.

That's relatively true. It depends on if the star owns their own record label, any publishing agreements in place and/or they wrote their own songs. But for the performance only aspect of the record, they might get royalties of 10-15%.

/Most artists get nowhere near that. It is quite common for artists to have a gold record and not make a dime (after their record advance is paid off).

downstairs: serial_crusher: ecmoRandomNumbers: I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.

This week's TWIT episode talked about this and I think went the wrong way with regards to the piracy issue. One of the pundits (I can't remember who) said that if he had sold it through traditional DVD release, he would have made 10 times as much. (I'm sure that number was pulled out of his ass, but the theory seems legit to me). Anyhow, everybody on the show seemed to agree that 1 million vs. 10 million was an OK compromise, used that as an argument that piracy isn't harmful.

I hear plenty of these anecdotes about big stars who can afford to take the risk, but haven't heard much with regards to small artists. Is there any good research out there on whether this scales to lesser-known performers? Making $1 million instead of $10 million isn't that big of a deal, but what if it was $10,000 instead of $100,000? I'd probably consider a different line of work.

First of all, without knowing the economics "10 times" is total BS. Lets say 4x- even though I think that's a stretch. Are 3/4 of Louis' fans only able to consume media via DVD, and have no idea how to download and burn a DVD (or have access to someone that can?)

In traditional media, you have to pay for the physical media, the distribution, all the people involved (including high-paid execs.)

I don't think even the biggest stars get 10% of the cut. (Oh, by the way... 10% of the cut would negate this dude's nutty 10x argument exactly.)\

I don't know about comedians, but I heard once in the traditional music industry... only stars of Madonna's caliber make 10% of CD/DVD sales.

He actually talks about this on his website. If he did a "traditional" deal he would have made maybe 2% of sales. It would have been safer for him, because he would not have invested his own money. Also, according to Louis, he's never had $1 million, let alone 10x that.

cameroncrazy1984: He actually talks about this on his website. If he did a "traditional" deal he would have made maybe 2% of sales. It would have been safer for him, because he would not have invested his own money. Also, according to Louis, he's never had $1 million, let alone 10x that.

Cool, thanks. I didn't read up on his site yet... kept meaning to.

I think he gets paid all of $200k for each SEASON of Louie. Still a heck of a lot more than the comedian at your local Laugh Factory... but yeah, this experiment blew all that out of the water.

downstairs: I don't think even the biggest stars get 10% of the cut. (Oh, by the way... 10% of the cut would negate this dude's nutty 10x argument exactly.)\

Well, except that you're comparing his 10% cut of the hypothetical 10 million vs the total 1 million in reality, as opposed to his 25% cut of said million. But yeah, I see your point.

For some reason I was misinterpreting his business plan here. Thought he was doing the same thing that (was it Nine Inch Nails?) did a while back, where they said "the album's free, but we'd appreciate it if you gave us some money".

Now that I read more up on his... this is more a "do the record company's work on your own" kind of situation. Which I guess works, depending on how much you have to invest upfront.

Oh come on, who the hell would pay $5 to pay attention to the deluded rantings of- oh wait. Nevermind.

Because of this, I might consider capitalism less than a complete failure.

Music and entertainment industries: Go F*ck Yourselves!

/so sad ^{dear leader} couldn't have seen this

downstairs: I think he gets paid all of $200k for each SEASON of Louie

On that, he took a lower $$ amount in return for more editorial control over the content. Which turned out to be a great move.

I often wonder why apps for my phone don't have optional pricing. There are so many free apps I've downloaded that I would toss a few bucks toward after the fact.

ecmoRandomNumbers: I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.

But the heartless corporate entities backed by the government need to be able to restrict free trade and free expression in music. Otherwise, we'd actually have music with meaning and artists that were musicians! Perish the thought! It's not like the "artists" could start earning their money for what they're supposed to do instead of just touring?

/they say jump, we say bring us a steak

ecmoRandomNumbers: I hope the MPAA and RIAA are shiatting themselves. This needs to become the norm.


Agreed. Three cheers for effective crowdsourcing!

rocinante721: Suck a bag of d*cks

came here for that....left satified.

blackminded: cameroncrazy1984: He actually talks about this on his website. If he did a "traditional" deal he would have made maybe 2% of sales. It would have been safer for him, because he would not have invested his own money. Also, according to Louis, he's never had $1 million, let alone 10x that.

From his website:

The show went on sale at noon on Saturday, December 10th. 12
hours later, we had over 50,000 purchases and had earned
$250,000, breaking even on the cost of production and website. As
of Today, we've sold over 110,000 copies for a total of over
$500,000. Minus some money for PayPal charges etc, I have a
profit around $200,000 (after taxes $75.58). This is less than I
would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the
show and let them sell it to you, but they would have charged you
about $20 for the video. They would have given you an encrypted
and regionally restricted video of limited value, and they would
have owned your private information for their own use. They would
have withheld international availability indefinitely. This way,
you only paid $5, you can use the video any way you want, and you
can watch it in Dublin, whatever the city is in Belgium, or
Dubai. I got paid nice, and I still own the video (as do you).
You never have to join anything, and you never have to hear from
us again.

It's nice to see a (somewhat) big name acknowledge that people are tired of legitimately buying a product and still being treated like a criminal.