Louis CK's DRM-free direct-sales video experiment pays off

Discuss

88 Responses to “Louis CK's DRM-free direct-sales video experiment pays off”

  1. As Mike Masnick (Techdirt) pointed out, the numbers may be even better than Louis says, because he says he recouped is $170k fee to shoot the show through the show’s ticket sales. He then seems to double-count that number by taking it out of the online sales. Instead of making $200k profit, he may have made $370k.

    • Sean McKibbon says:

      show ticket sales would go to the show overhead, lighting, security, ushers, marketing, insurance, rental of space, roadies, etc. Paying someone to shoot the show would be an added line item.

  2. marilove says:

    I saw Louis CK live back in October and it was amazing. Go see him if you can!

  3. Jesse Krembs says:

    It should also be noted that Louis is one of the hottest comedy stars right now..

    • ChicagoD says:

      True, but *if* he actually got $370K in profits in four days of sales (see Joshua’s comment above), there may be room for lesser entertainers. The $170K start up seems like the problem to me.

      • marilove says:

        If established artists took more newcomers under their wings and encouraged this sort of thing more often (like Trent Reznor does), the $170K start-up wouldn’t be such an issue.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          He puts lots of lesser known comics on his show, for what that’s worth.

          *before somebody says it, yes, if you follow comedy pretty seriously, then most of them are somewhat  known….

          • marilove says:

            Oh I wasn’t talking about Louis CK, just artists of all genres in general. :)  Most comics are actually pretty good about supporting their fellow comedians.

      • joeposts says:

        It’s possible, too, that a smaller artist would need a smaller (and cheaper) distribution website.

  4. Phil Fot says:

    Fucking-A.

    I’m buying one.

  5. esme says:

    I’m really encouraged by this, and hope more artists can do this.  I’d seen one of Louis CK’s other shows, but really would not have sought out a new show, much less paid $20 for it.  But I saw a tweet about this from a friend, and went over and bought a copy.

    I think lowering the price and getting big studios out of the equation are both important factors here.  Lowering the price for a movie to $5 really changes the buying decision for me, and makes it much more likely that I’ll buy something I’m not certain of, not sure if I’d watch it more than once, etc.  Cutting out the middle-man makes me much happier to pay, since I know the artist is actually going to get the money.

  6. GawainLavers says:

    I sure hope people can make this work: it’s what I hoped the internet would turn into all those years ago.  Only four days in, of course, and I’m not sure what the expected sales curve is, but, $200k or even $400k for essentially a year’s (or several year’s) material isn’t exactly champagne-filled swimming pools celebrity income of yore.

    But the real coup, at least for those not as famous as Louis CK, would be the lowered distribution costs.

    http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

    • ChicagoD says:

      I feel like a lot of entertainers would take $200,000, or even $400,000 a year if it meant they got to entertain. A hell of a lot of them do it for a hell of a lot less.

      • mindfu says:

        Agreed. Plus the removal of the hassle of dealing with any studio or distributor nonsense. This is now all pure profit with no hassle, and leaves Louis CK free to do other things.

      • marilove says:

        Exactly.

        Why is it that, unless they are making millions, they aren’t considered successful?  Why is it that they aren’t considered successful unless they can participate in the ” champagne-filled swimming pools celebrity income of yore.”?

        That’s part of the problem, right there.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      $200k or even $400k for essentially a year’s (or several year’s) material

      He does stand-up for a living. He sold a recording of what he does for a living. It’s frosting.

      • GawainLavers says:

        I’m not sure that’s quite the point, although I guess what I’m talking about doesn’t distill nicely to a comment thread.  I’m trying to generalize the case generally for selling IP online.

        For one, I’m always a little skeptical of “artists can make their money touring/selling t-shirts”.  I remember Al Jourgensen once talking about how he loved making music in the studio but hated touring.  I still want someone like that to be successful.  So I guess what I’m saying is if minus the ticket sales this thing paid for itself and met Louis CK’s expectations of sales/income, then that’s very hopeful.

        Second I think what internet distribution, if successful, might initiate is a serious fragmentation of the entertainment industry, with the end of the multi-platinum Billboard #1 act and a diffusion into a large number of niche acts making a high-end professional income.  Which is cool!  But maybe it changes “rock star” into something different than an elite few living out the dreams of the many.

        • peterblue11 says:

          If you have a complexion like that you cant expect your audience to just accept it and wait to be paid just like everyone else. You have to come up with something that makes it work for you ie have a paid for live stream of your recording session/ frequent podcasts etc

    • David Mobley says:

      If you told me that I could do exactly what I wanted to do with my life, for as long as i was able to do it and make $200k (or whatever the approximate amount would be adjusted for inflation as time goes on) I would without hesitation give up my job and do it.    I would go down to 100k even.  I’m pretty sure most people would figure out how to make it work on 50k.   

      Not everyone needs to drink champagne out of hooker shoes and live in a gold plated mansion.   Most people would be happy just being happy.  

  7. mindfu says:

    Just bought a copy myself. I’m a huge fan, Louis CK’s one of my heroes, and yet i didn’t even know about this deal until I read about it. So I predict this offering will continue to make more sales, as knowledge of it spreads virally.

    In Louis CK’s responses to a bunch of Reddit questions which I read yesterday, he said that if he made $8 million in sales he’d make a sequel to Pootie Tang – the way he’d want to do it, without studio interference. He may have been joking – but let’s hold him to it.

  8. Guest says:

    They’ll nail you to a tree for it Louis. 

  9. bigyup says:

    Love him but this is only a success because he’s a) already famous and b) put so much effort into cultivating good will towards the project in a seemingly sincere way.      Not every artist out there can do the same. 

    • Bigyup, I don’t have the examples to do this argument justice, but Mike Masnick (Techdirt) does. Every time somebody big is successful with a distribution model like this, people say, “Oh, it only worked because he’s big.” When small acts do it, people say, “Oh, it only worked because they’re small.” The fact is that both big, small, and in-between acts have had success with Internet-based, alternative distribution models. Does a small act’s model look the same as Louis CK’s? No. But that’s not the point. The point is not that every artist must use the exact same distribution model. It’s that the Internet enables artists to tailor distribution models that will fit them.

    • Cowicide says:

      Justin Beiber started out by giving away his music videos completely free on YouTube.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_bieber#1994.E2.80.932007:_Childhood_and_youth

      Naysayers.  They lack entrepreneurial spirit.

    • marilove says:

      Justin Beiber wasn’t well known at all, and he blew up because he used YouTube to get the word out about his music.  So the little guys do have some chance.

    • sdmikev says:

      False.
      It’s a success at the least relative to him because he left out the assholes and sold it himself.
      The model may not work for everyone right at this moment, but it can and it does.

  10. ComradeQuestions says:

    Forgoing DRM but involving PayPal seems like kind of a hollow victory…

      • ComradeQuestions says:

        http://www.regretsy.com/2011/12/05/cats-1-kids-0/

        (The happy ending this ultimately had doesn’t really justify PayPal’s existence.)

        • Guest says:

          Do you have an alternative to offer, or are you just trying to find fault?

          • Maeg says:

            Google Checkout, Dwolla, Amazon… and that’s just off the top of my head, from following the Regretsy problems.  Googling netted half a dozen others. 

          • Whether there is a good alternative is irrelevant to the question of whether we should label crap accurately.

          • Guest says:

            Sure Paul, but in terms of being taken seriously, being a helpful critic is a lot better person to be. 

          • jimmoffet says:

            Dwolla looks really good right now, .25 for all transactions for merchants, under $10 transactions are free. The best part is that it skips the credit card payment system entirely and, like google wallet, is starting to arrive in brick and mortar stores. It’s free for users and a $3/mo fee to move money instantly instead of periodically loading your dwolla account. The best part is, if models like this take off, the credit card companies will lose a ton of market share.

            Paypal is the Microsoft of this industry, everyone knows they provide poor value, but they have a virtual monopoly in critical market segments, so it’s incredibly convenient to use them.

    • marilove says:

      It was probably the easiest, simplest way for him to sell it at such a low cost, while making sure everyone is able to buy it no matter where their location, and without having to force people to use a credit/debit card in all cases.  Can you think of a better way?

      • ComradeQuestions says:

        Anything that’s not PayPal, for starters.  I dunno how the pricing compares, but Amazon Payments seems like a nice option.

        • marilove says:

          I didn’t even consider Amazon Payments, and I doubt someone like Louis CK even knows it exists.  You don’t even seem to know much about it, or if it would have worked for what he’s trying to do.

          Honestly, I don’t see this as a big deal.  Paypal is universally known, and it was probably the simplest thing for him to use.  Until something better comes along (and I’m not sure Amazon Payments is that “something better”), this is what we have to deal with.

          I really hope people don’t decide to not buy this show because he used paypal.  That would be silly and a punishment against Louis CK, not paypal.

        • FYI:  some people that like Louis CK and want to buy what he wants to sell do not happen to live in the US. Paypal is available almost everywhere.  Looking at Amazon Payments, when I go to sign up for it it says it’s only available to residents in the US.

        • marilove says:

          Oh, so, we have your answer:  Amazon Payments is only avaialble to US residents.

          Soooo, do you have an alternate to papal that those outside of the US can use?  No?  Thought so.

          • ComradeQuestions says:

            So what you are all saying is that you shouldn’t complain about using a completely unaccountable financial organization with a terrible history of customer service that’s left people scammed out of their hard-earned money because it’s the only game in town?  That’s a good mind-set.

            But you are correct that *despite* PayPal, buying this is a net good in support of a good comedian and a good distribution model. However, that doesn’t mean the model is beyond criticism.

          • jimmoffet says:

            Don’t complain about the virtual monopoly that provides poor value, they might hear you!

  11. wizardru says:

    I’ll pick it up on general principle, alone.  That I think he’s funny is a bonus.  Hell, that’s a fricking cup of coffee at Starbucks and a snack.

  12. coffee100 says:

    So maybe someone can explain to the rest of the web (those of us who apparently are not in on this tall dollars phenomenon) why it is that some digital products get this reaction:  

    “DRM or not, I don’t give one rat fuck what they price it at, I’m torrenting that bitch straight up your ASS.”

    and other digital products get this reaction:  

    “I opened my website at 9AM and retired at 10:45.   Greetings from Pago Pago!”

    Now is it just who is selling it?

    I realize Louis C.K. is Daily Show-level popular among the web audience.  I also know a fair number of people who have quality products (digital and otherwise) available on the web who have to strangle a shark with their teeth to get 100 sales.

    Is not Louis C.K. precisely the kind of artist web audiences routinely avoid buying anything from under the rationale “Nobody wants to pay for downloads.  Do a live show instead.”   I know for a fact getting 100,000 qualified buyers to any web site costs one hell of a lot more than $30,000.

    Does every web business have to aspire to this? Is there room for someone to sell 1000 copies of something and re-invest in the next product or is that person destined to have a mouth full of torrent-shit until they win the Super Bowl? Can products on the web be sold to anyone except college fraternities?

    Is this all part of the “fuck the man” campaign?  Building a giant middle finger to point at Sony, EA and Time Warner?   Are purchasing decisions being made politically now? Should people who have something to sell online align themselves politically so as to become an “approved” retailer of digital goods under penalty of being torrented until they are living under a cardboard sign?

     Should retailers who cannot align themselves politically with this audience (anyone who isn’t in to comic books, video games, “hacking”, militant atheism, obsessive casual drug use, neckbearding as a personal philosophy, etc.) just not bother?  

    I’m honestly curious.

    • TacoChuck says:

      While I barely understand your post, I will point out that Louis C.K.’s show is also being torrented as we speak.

      Again, I have little idea what you are talking about, but I thought it might be relevant to whatever your point is.

      • peterblue11 says:

        How do people nt gt it? I can pay on his site and still torrent it. Its nt the tech thats bad. Olus we are in an age where some ppl will always share online, no way to stop it. Just to establish a workin contemporary business model to support it.

    • AwesomeRobot says:

      I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but you sound like an asshole making it. 

      • Guest says:

        he sounds like Donald Rumsfeld, so yeah, megadittoes. 

      • coffee100 says:

        Apparently you’re new to the “selling digital stuff” debate.   That or you think you detect a hint that I might not be part of the politically approved market and therefore I am an asshole.

        What’s the matter? Did I draw too bold a circle around the hypocrisy of “Louis C.K. makes half a million while this newly independent comic artist takes a boot to the ass on Pirate Bay?”

        Which would answer at least one of my questions.  Questions which were written in English, by the way.

        • Avram Grumer says:

          Coffee100, if you want sincere answers, ask sincere questions. 

          Questions that contain phrases like “mouth full of torrent-shit” don’t come across as sincere. They make it look like you’re not so much “honestly curious” as just venting anger into the conversation. 

          Somewhat more to your point, questions about a business model that seem to assume that the person talking about that business model believes that only that business model should exist, as your questions do (“Does every web business have to aspire to this?”) also don’t come across as sincere.

          • coffee100 says:

            They make it look like you’re not so much “honestly curious” as just venting anger into the conversation.

             
            Oh, but it was not I who vented anger into the conversation.  For that you can visit any of the 1000-reply threads at various web venues filled with fist-shaking frat-house roars of “I’ll torrent shows I don’t even WATCH until the weight of it all unbalances the Earth and plunges us into the sun if it means those rat fucks don’t get another dime!  Do you HEAR?!?!  NOT ANOTHER DIME!!!”

            questions about a business model that seem to assume that the person talking about that business model believes that only that business model should exist

             
            Perhaps you’re aware of other business models.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a supporter of DRM in any form.  But from where I’m sitting I see two business models: 1)  Leave the store unlocked and hope people leave money in the morning and 2) Lock the doors at night and just be prepared to sweep up the broken glass in the morning.

          • @boingboing-64fe3ebe01e0b59d804e3e7a3a3c4103:disqus Dude, just, like… /no/.

          • miasm says:

            you might need one of these now.

        • The questions that were coherent lacked examples to understand what you were pointing at (your first block of text cites two examples without naming them). The other questions read like you were not asking, but making a point (“Building a giant middle finger to point at Sony, EA and Time Warner?”).

          Let’s try it like this: What is the most important question that you want an answer to?

        • David Mobley says:

          the newly independent comic artist gets a boot on pirate bay because he doesn’t realize that the people on pirate bay don’t know who the fuck he is either, they just don’t have to pay to find out.   

    • zebbart says:

      I bought this, like I bought In Rainbows, because I thought it would be quality product that would be worth the money, and because I want to encourage more of this kind of thing. But since I have more interests than I have money, I usually torrent stuff by artists who are doing ok and distributing through major partners and purchase from artists who are not so successful and who are distributing independently. In a no-loss system I use my money to encourage what I want to see more of, more than to pay for what I take.

    • shannigans says:

      I’ll attempt to answer some of your concerns:

      I realize Louis C.K. is Daily Show-level popular among the web audience. I also know a fair number of people who have quality products (digital and otherwise) available on the web who have to strangle a shark with their teeth to get 100 sales.

      Quality and desirability are two very different things. Maybe your friend’s choir bell rendition of the meow mix song is wonderfully well done, but I still don’t want to purchase the album.

      Is not Louis C.K. precisely the kind of artist web audiences routinely avoid buying anything from under the rationale “Nobody wants to pay for downloads. Do a live show instead.” I know for a fact getting 100,000 qualified buyers to any web site costs one hell of a lot more than $30,000.

      I’ve never heard anyone use that rational. I have heard many people justify torrenting because they spend much money on live shows, and are therefore supporting the artists. Are you saying 30k isn’t enough because of the backend cost of that many people coming to your site? Or are you saying that you need a big expensive PR firm to get noticed and 30k isn’t enough? Either way, you’re wrong.

      Does every web business have to aspire to this? Is there room for someone to sell 1000 copies of something and re-invest in the next product or is that person destined to have a mouth full of torrent-shit until they win the Super Bowl? Can products on the web be sold to anyone except college fraternities?

      No, yes, no, yes.

      Is this all part of the “fuck the man” campaign? Building a giant middle finger to point at Sony, EA and Time Warner? Are purchasing decisions being made politically now? Should people who have something to sell online align themselves politically so as to become an “approved” retailer of digital goods under penalty of being torrented until they are living under a cardboard sign?

      This is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that locked down DRM and limiting user freedom isn’t necessary to sell large quantities of your product. If there were a Louie Political Party I would join, or I wouldn’t.

      Should retailers who cannot align themselves politically with this audience (anyone who isn’t in to comic books, video games, “hacking”, militant atheism, obsessive casual drug use, neckbearding as a personal philosophy, etc.) just not bother?

      Not to get all personal, but you may need to get laid, STAT.

      • coffee100 says:

        I’ve never heard anyone use that rational.

         
        With all due respect, unless you opened a web browser for the first time this morning, you’re on crack.

        Are you saying 30k isn’t enough because of the backend cost of that many people coming to your site?

         
        Assuming a cosmically high 10% conversion rate (for all intents and purposes, an impossibility), one would have to drive 1M uniques to a site to get 100,000 sales.  At five cents a visit (lol) that’s $50k just in advertising to say nothing of the bandwidth and creatives. 

        Either way, you’re wrong.

         
        Well, I’ve been selling stuff on the web since the Earth cooled.  I see the numbers every day.  Now I understand Louis C.K. got a lot of free viral publicity, but in the real world, $30k doesn’t buy tap water.

        This is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that locked down DRM and limiting user freedom isn’t necessary to sell large quantities of your product.

         
        So it’s a sales pattern built on a political message.  Fair enough.  I simply wanted an explanation for the artist who does all the right things and gets thrown naked down a mountain made of broken glass with a torrent URL pasted to his face.

        Not to get all personal, but you may need to get laid, STAT.

        My girlfriend may have written that last paragraph.   You have a real nice day now.   :)

        • Aaron Murray says:

          “Assuming a cosmically high 10% conversion rate (for all intents and purposes, an impossibility), one would have to drive 1M uniques to a site to get 100,000 sales.  At five cents a visit (lol) that’s $50k just in advertising to say nothing of the bandwidth and creatives.”

          There is another assumption that you’re making here, and that is that Louis CK used traditional marketing to draw millions of random eyeballs to his site in the hopes of getting a tiny percentage of them to purchase his product. A more accurate portrayal is one where Louis CK builds a solid fan base over many years and then sets up a web site to sell a recording of one of his shows. Current fans come and buy the show, but they also recommend the show to their friends.  If you can point to all the advertising you seem to be speculating about, that is one thing.

          Also, you are suggesting that Louis CK is straight up lying about the figures when he has no reason to do so.

          ” I simply wanted an explanation for the artist who does all the right things and gets thrown naked down a mountain made of broken glass with a torrent URL pasted to his face.”
          Example?  What artists have followed this model and been driven to bankruptcy (the only real outcome that you could be referring to with your metaphor of the glass shard mountain) due to piracy?

    • Bubba73 says:

       Perhaps it’s because you pulled this argument straight out of your own fundament. 

      Some people who pirate are not going to buy a given product one way or the other, they are not lost sales and they are not depriving anyone of anything. They are just enjoying the free ride like Marty McFly hanging off a car on his skateboard in Back to the Future. They are not doing anything to enrich the people whose content they are copying, but that’s between them and their consciences.

      There are many others who pirate that feel that buying a product should not entitle the seller to characterise them as a criminal by severely limiting the ability of these people to use their legitimately purchased product as they see fit, most commonly by packaging it with stupidly restrictive DRM, while pirated copies are free from such restrictions. These people feel hard done by for having purchased a product that is less user friendly and harder to enjoy than the illegal copy used by the first group. Fancy that! It’s worth pointing out that most DRM is generally defeated by hackers within approximately 2 days of release, often earlier.

      Those in the second group are often quite happy to pay a fair amount of money to someone who does not treat them like criminal scum and does not try to force them to subscribe to a business model that has gone the way of the Dodo. I am in this group, when I buy stuff I like to own it.

      People like Louis CK appear to get this, so do companies like Apple with iTunes, so does Trent Reznor and his ilk and the list is growing. Many firms married to the old way of operating such as Universal do not and their dying spasms can be witnessed in the way they are spending an inordinate amount of time and lobbying cash trying to change laws to suit them rather than trying to adapt to a changing world. Fucking internet, how does it work??

    • sdmikev says:

      WTF are you talking about?

    • atimoshenko says:

      Quality, convenience, price. Get all three right and few people would pirate.

      Louie CK did – his comedy is excellent, the purchasing and owning experience is a breeze (no DRM or other malarky), and $5 is about right for a video of the show. The humble indie game bundles do well for the same reasons.

      EDIT: The quality bit (at least in relative quality, according to one’s interests) is particularly relevant because it is a new dimension brought to light with Internet piracy – many people pirate a lot of stuff they otherwise would have never even thought of buying, in order to see if they stumble on something interesting.

    • David Mobley says:

      I don’t know what you’re trying to say, but the why I think you’re looking for is “because it’s 5 bucks not 20 and it’s easy as hell to buy and download”.   

      Companies, big and small, always try to find a different way to make it a pain in the ass for the legitimate customer and thus rack up the costs in distribution.  DRM is not cheap!   Consumers are easy.   They want easy things.  They don’t want to install a program or be told they can’t put it on their ipod or laptop without logging in on that device that may or may not be connected to anything at all and when you have to start thinking about shit like that the easier alternative is to say fuck it and get a torrent instead.  Those things are free, never come with DRM and you can put it anywhere you want.  

      The second (obvious) reason, is that not everything’s worth buying.  I would pay 5 bucks for a Louis CK video in a heartbeat (and I did).   I would not pay 5 bucks for some random comic who may or may not be worth 5 bucks.   I would not pay 5 bucks if Dane Cook made the same easy to download offer.  Nothing political, I just think Dane Cook sucks.  You may replace Dane Cook with any other moderately popular comic that could release something that you don’t like if you prefer, but that’s mine.  

    • Snarf says:

      I don’t really have any answers, but I’m pretty sure I understood the questions at least :)

      I think there are a LOT of random factors playing in, so I think it’s about working hard until you get lucky. Some people work very hard and never get lucky and others the opposite. Thats why it’s a good idea to try and just do things you love to do, that way it won’t matter so much if you never make big bucks. 

      Well maybe I didn’t get the question and in that case this might make much sense..

  13. zebragoose says:

    A worthy experiment, and he is funny as hell.  +1 sold.

  14. sold. also, it should be noted that bonobos also are capable of face to face sex. just for the record.

  15. lavardera says:

    Nicely done Louis – that took courage.

  16. William Joseph Dunn says:

    I bought it a couple of days ago. $5 well spent.

  17. sdmikev says:

    FWIW in case anyone was wondering, the whole thing is a great show.

  18. Tim Poff says:

    http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantland/player?id=7355722
    here is a great podcast from today w Louie going in depth about the whole thing

  19. robuluz says:

    Well he’s five bucks richer again now. A no brainer.

    You can argue the merits of this approach all you like, but the basic principle is that its high quality content selling in volume for a price that most people won’t even blink at. That part of the model is the future for the entertainment industry, whether they like it or not.

  20. obeyken says:

    Way to go, Louis C.K.  Still, he’s a long way from that $17 million townhouse…

  21. ialreadyexist says:

    He spent $32,000 for that site?  Two words: Rip.  Off.  On a positive note, I’m really happy he did this and that it turned out so well.

    • Snarf says:

      I think if you consider bandwidth costs for all those downloads + not having to worry about if it works yourself, the price if probably fair enough.

    • penguinchris says:

      I’m too late with this comment, I typed it earlier but sometimes Disqus doesn’t work when I use Chrome. But I’ll post it anyway.

      I’m going to guess that a large part of that cost is the bandwidth. Based on the cost of Amazon S3 file hosting (not sure what he’s actually using), for each 100,000 copies downloaded (the file is a little over a gigabyte) he’s looking at between $5,000 and $7,000. 

      Not sure what his sales numbers are at now, but it seems possible that he could exceed that $32,000 in bandwidth costs alone if it continues to sell so well (he’d need to sell 500,000+ copies, so we’ll see I guess).

  22. nixiebunny says:

    The funny thing is that by leaving the big studios out of the equation, it’s as if every single copy he sells is a pirated copy, in terms of the studios being unable to profit from those sales.

    I realize that the studios didn’t make an investment in this film, but that’s beside the point.

  23. kP says:

    It’s worth the $5 just for the Fonda/McCain joke.

  24. Bob N Johnson says:

    I bought this the first day it became available and my FB status update was:

    I just gave this fuck $5, not because I like his shit, but because I like how he’s selling his shit. Fuck the skimmers.

  25. Snarf says:

    I bought it, I loved it and hereby recommend it. 

  26. Lennart Denninger says:

    Good stuff

  27. Binärpilot says:

    Is the price is fair? Is it easy to buy and enjoy? Does the artist get the money?

    Yes, yes and yes. $5 went to Louis CK.

  28. robuluz says:

    OK Just watched it. 5 bucks well spent. However.

    His opening ‘what to do with my dead body ‘ bit was a LOT like this David Cross bit. And then the ‘Chinese’ thing was a bit like a Ricky Gervais bit but not too much, but then he said he was a ‘professional asshole’, and that’s like totally from ‘Fame’, the TV series.

    The parenting stuff was gold though, and I was with him to the end after that.

  29. heybebeh88 says:

    I hope this is the future of media.  Because I think it’s a frickin SIN what I am being asked to pay for shit these days.  I would buy way more stuff if it was fairly priced. $25 for a movie on DVD?  Sorry, I’m torrenting that.  That same movie for $5?  Sold.

    Itunes/amazon mp3 etc has kinda sorta almost maybe done that for music, but even then, they get a cut, and the tracks are coming from the record companies who also got a cut.  I’d rather give my money right to the artist.

  30. erg79 says:

    For all of his earlier concert specials/films, which have been on HBO, Comedy Central, even one premiered in theaters before going onto cable and then DVD sales, Louis said that he personally never made any money off of them. 

    http://www.npr.org/2011/12/13/143581710/louis-c-k-reflects-on-louie-loss-love-and-life 

Leave a Reply