I'll admit I've pirated things, and I'll admit that I did feel good about myself for buying this video. The good feeling, in my mind, had nothing to do with having paid rather than pirated. I liked that he was bucking convention, and trying his own distribution model, and the lack of DRM and just eliminating all, or as many barriers as possible. I wanted to support the effort.

He gave the public a clean product, priced it very reasonably (even cheaply), and he made a profit on it. Now, in this case the business model was 'Be Louis C.K.', and it probably wouldn't work for some up and comer, but I was actually surprised to find in this article that he had already made a profit (he said on reddit that he had yet to really push the marketing for this, so I'm assuming there will be additional profit to come for a while).

I'd absolutely love to see Louis leverage the infrastructure he's built for this experiment into something more substantial - licensing other artists to release their works themselves through his site, rolling the profits into new development, and see where it goes.

Maybe I'm just deluding myself, and I'm just masking an "I'm the greatest for not pirating this" attitude behind a veneer of "supporting new media". I don't know. I just know that torrenting this video never even occurred to me. I had heard of this experiment, and thought it was a cool idea. Then, a friend told that he'd really enjoyed it, so I gave in and threw $5 at it and laughed my ass off at the video (if you haven't seen it, I do recommend it).

Yes. I belong to a number of private trackers and out of curiosity I checked to see if it had been torrented. One has an all-out flamewar between people who bought it and people who didn't. Over a thousand downloads.

And some people felt more awesome, because they have bought and download the torrent "to save the site bandwith".

So if this were ever to become the norm, would the equilibrium again shift back to people just plain grabbing stuff again, because efforts like this would not stand out any more?

We're already living in a world where you can easily get a digital product for free, whether it's a movie or a tv show or a song or an ebook, so I think the only thing that's left to do is to radically shift all of these industries so that their content becomes just as easy to obtain legally as it is to pirate.

I seem to recall someone, I think it was Joel Spolsky, talking about Napster, and he said something to the effect that Napster's achievement wasn't that you could get songs for free, it was that you could decide you wanted to hear a song and you were able to hear that song pretty much instantly.

If you make your content easy to obtain legally, and if you remove the DRM handcuffs from those who do obtain content in this way, I think you'll find that a lot more people will choose to pay for it.

The trick is that a lot of this stuff is still complicated, and companies are desperately hanging on to old business models, and things are counter-intuitive to people who do buy.

For example, I don't own a Kindle. I have no real desire to own a Kindle because I'm a really slow reader and I only read one book at a time. If I'm on the bus and want to read, I'll carry that one book with me. If I go on vacation, I'll take three or four books an I won't get through all of them.

My girlfriend, on the other hand, might benefit from a Kindle, since she reads a lot, but I hate the implementation of them.

My understanding is that Kindles, when speaking from the context of Amazon DRM, only read books owned by a single account. If I buy a book on my account, and she buys a book on her account, the same Kindle can't have both books on at the same time without stripping the DRM. So you're left with three solutions:

1. Strip the DRM off the book. This is the same as piracy, from a legal perspective, though admittedly it's harder to get caught. If you're going this route, then why not just say fuck it and torrent the book from the start?

2. Buy all books under a single account, then use that same account on two Kindles. The problem with this is that people hook up and break up. If you break up, either one person loses all their books, or you "pirate" them a la Option 1. Also, if you enter a new relationship and both parties have Kindles with their own accounts, you can't reconcile the two without resorting to Option 1 and breaking the DRM.

3. Buy the book twice. This is incredibly counter-intuitive to most people who are used to sharing their physical copy of a book.

So basically what I'm saying is that there are a lot of problems with digital content that need to be resolved, but the public perspective on these industries has already shifted, and all that's left is for industry to either adapt or die. The people who pirate content when faced with an option to easily buy will always pirate that content. They will also always have the ability to pirate that content, because even after a decade of trying people are still able to easily strip DRM, and people will always be around to break and strip new forms of DRM (not to mention that DRM in general is dying because it's user-hostile and no consumer wants it). I think "the norm" will be "default buy" when content becomes easily accessible legally, but you're never going to eliminate the subset of the population that outright refuses to pay for content.

I also torrent because it is convenient. Price is not the issue for me.

I'm in Australia, which means I typically have to wait for something to come out on DVD before I can watch it legally. I can't purchase through amazon, and Australian distributors don't get American shows until months(sometimes years) after they're released in the States.

I feel good because I got it when it was released, and it was legal.

EDIT: PS. I love NPR

I remember vividly discovering that my PC's DVD-ROM drive was region-locked and that to watch anything from another region I had to allow the region to be changed and that there are was a limit to how many times I could change it.

I discovered this, being unaware of the region-locking mechanism, after buying several DVDs while travelling. It made me disproportionately angry and since then I've seen and noticed the situation getting worse and worse.

DVD: No. You will first watch the adverts.

However, nobody can deny that computers and the internet have irreversibly changed the game. It is simply no longer default that one must purchase information. Information doesn't want to be free, it just is free (for better or for worse).

When comedians say things like this, it's almost always about manipulating their perceived status relative to the audience. That's why you'll see him say the opposite in other situations. It's all just playing games with status. To make different bits work, comedians either need to be perceived as higher or lower status than their audience, to garner the sympathy/revulsion needed to make the surrounding material come off properly.

EDIT: came up with a better way to state this: sometimes you need to be the underdog, sometimes you need to be an alpha-asshole.

Here is the superb Stewart Lee talking about this issue in a recent interview about his new series, which is mostly his standup:

What was Chris Morris's input as script editor?

"He really helped fix a particular problem. I noticed reviews saying that I was arrogant and condescending. I thought, 'That's interesting because it doesn't feel like that live'. In the room I'm able to fabricate some kind of struggle whereby the gig isn't quite working. I'm a lower-status character, so when you criticise someone you don't do it from a position of authority or strength - it doesn't seem arrogant."

How did Chris fix that on screen?

"I wanted some sort of device that would lower my status or make me appear to be under pressure. I spent days on end talking to Chris about different ideas to get that to work. We ended up with Armando Iannucci interviewing me throughout the series in a hostile way - criticising all the material and my role in the programme. That's cut in with all the stand-up and it works really well."

Here's an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-qqtvsNDI

Very few people can manipulate a room like Stewart Lee.

The second show I saw sold out the Chicago Theater on another two-show night.

    * Booking the venue
    * Paying the venue staff
    * Producing marketing materials
    * Doing the actual marketing
    * Transport
    * Hotel
    * Transport for the support acts
    * Hotel for the support acts
    * Fee for the support acts
    * Fee for the support acts' agents
    * Insurance
    * Agency fees

Then of course the money he does take might have to support him and his family through months of zero income while he writes new stuff.

He's selling out shows and has been for at least ~4 years now. If the tours weren't lucrative, he'd raise the face price of tickets.

Sorry, I just don't buy the idea that Louis CK is anything but "pretty wealthy" at this point in his career. Which is great, because he's one of my favorite performers anywhere.

I'm a standup as well, not quite as large as CK but a number of tv spots under my belt etc.

But it's absolutely right. There's barely anything.

You're average split goes a bit something like this:

Depends where you are. On average a theatre takes around 30%. A bit less in Australia (eg Melbourne Comedy Festival) which takes about 20%-25%. A bit more in European theatres (eg Edinburgh Fringe Festival) around 40%-45%.

Booking / Ticketing fee is around $3-$8 per ticket. For the average show ticket price that's about 10%.

Management takes a flat 15%-25%.

Depending on the scale of marketing, on average it's around 15% of the show budget. The industry wisdom is at least 10% of every ticket should be spent on getting people.

If there is a huge promoter behind you, they sometimes take a stake in the show, usually around 30% - 60% and includes the marketing budget. It's not that you're trying to convince people. It's more like, if they don't know you're there, they won't come.

Then all the travel / accomodation costs.

That's if you're doing theatre shows. The other side of the coin is college campuses, corporate entertainment, which pay a flat rate. The largest gig I did was opened in a 30k seat stadium and I made $4,000.... so not a lot.

Plus you're always touring, unable to maintain relationships, getting heckled (few careers involve being openly sworn at by masses, it's not healthy for self-esteem), feeling like a self-promoting whore and constantly wanting to die because you're whole career is shouting into darkness.

That doesn't even include the opportunity cost. It takes 10 years to get to the point where you can reliably book a 1000 seat theatre. That's assuming anybody comes in the first place... Until then you're making nothing.

It's not uncommon to see someone sell out a show and walk away with very little.

Whilst what CK did is amazing. I don't think it can be done by most standups. I think it would have turned out differently if he didn't have a tv show airing already, basically he's at the top of his career.

The scary part is if standup isn't as as lucrative as it's made out to be. Theatre in general is even worse...

But hey, we're all rockstars!

I got started in standup about 10 years ago and went from doing 2-minutes at an open mic to MC at the DC Improv for Robert Schimmel in something like 4 years. That's 4 years of getting on stage every chance I got and trying to write material that was funny and current. It gets old quick. When it came time to make a decision about comedy (which I loved then and still do), it became more about opportunity cost (as you put it) and lifestyle factors. My next move was to go out on the road and to be honest, that life just didn't appeal to me. Add in the stress of dealing with club managers, never having enough money, and circulating among other comics with various levels of personal disfunction and addiction issues and I opted for a "boring" life in tech.

Show business is a tough life and it's the rare individual who can make a go at it and find success enough to have a "normal" life. My observation has been that the stress of the performer career/lifestyle leads to substance abuse faster than almost any other career choice outside of high finance.

The next time you see a comedian performing in a comedy club, consider this: unless he's the headline act, he probably made something like $50-$75-$150 for his performances for the entire night depending on how long he was on stage. If that sounds good for 20 or 30 minutes of "work", figure out how much time was spent travelling and writing material before you do your final calculation. Nobody gets rich off of middle money.

The "It's Always Sunny" guys as a comparison (also FX) do quite well, despite being obscure. As Louis does more seasons, I suspect he'll also become quite wealthy -- he's the only real 'talent' on the show that he stars in, writes, and directs -- which brings his share of the proceeds up dramatically.

He's really a shrewd businessman, despite the jokes about being poor (which are based on his personal experiences, so I wouldn't call them dishonest).

And edits. In his AMA on reddit yesterday, he revealed[1] that he cuts Louie himself. In season one, there was a second person that helped him, but season two was apparently all him. He could be oversimplifying, and presumably other people at least watch his cut to smooth any rough edges, but it seemed like there was minimal involvement of others in the process.

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/n9tef/hi_im_louis_ck_a...

I saw him in 2008 and he packed the Vic.

He had an hour-long HBO special in 2007.

Lucky Louie was 2006. That's a top-billed HBO show built around Louis CK.

He's only just now getting "Dane Cook Famous", sure, but he's been spectacularly successful on the scale of "performing artists" for awhile now.

"I have NEGATIVE five dollars. That means if something is free, I can't afford it!" Heheh, love his shows.

Also: you've seen him live, right? How much did you pay for the tickets? Both times for me, the face was over $30, and both times the house was packed.

Do the math on how many shows he does. He tours constantly; a new one every year.

I don't think he's hurting. I think he's "only serious" when he jokes about having more money than everyone in the whole audience.

extreme paraphrasing, but I'm sure you all understand.

and if he were rich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO9PwbtlOIU

These were a while ago.

Of course, some might be based on fact, but let's not assume whatever he says happened to him did happen to him, or even happen at all!

Did you watch that interview about his "everything is amazing and nobody's happy" bit? He said that the bitchy guy "sitting next to him" in the plane was actually him!

(I use "envy" as hyperbole.)

"Minus some money for PayPal charges etc, I have a profit around $200,000... This is less than I would have been paid by a large company to simply perform the show..."

If he can get over 200k for show, he may not be mega-rich by television celebrity standards, but he is doing pretty well for himself.

edit: to be clear, I don't begrudge him his success or think that he isn't entitled to sell his material for $5 a pop. I just think that making him out to be a starving artist is a mischaracterization.

Annoying or not, as someone who only has a job because of copyright law, its fucking really important that we're reaching these people. I'm glad that people are saying this. Its great if you can afford to support artists all the time, but a lot of people can't or don't. This shows that people are willing to pay, but only for a product that they want.

Piracy is one thing, but a matter of practicality is another. I never pirate, but other than cable TV and netflix I hardly buy any copywritten works. When I do buy something that is copywritten I do it explicitly to support the person making the art. Its good material, at good price, without DRM, yes fucking please, I like that, want to support that and is finally on terms that I can support that.

I don't care if you want to scoff at people living up to what you consider their obligations after pirating, it is a big deal to the pirate that they paid money, and its should be a big deal to the entertainment industries. Someone who steals and steals and steals but buys this special is voting with their wallet, we need to pay attention to this demographic. If they'll support Louis C. K., who else do they would support if we offered a good product at a good price? We can never get ALL the pirates to come over to the paying side, but given the way we currently enforce copyright, we could convert a good number of them into paying customers.

The MP is $5000, the 50mm is $3700 and the 35mm is $3000.

Edit: Damn it, no markdown!?