Slashdot Mirror
Paramount Claims Louis CK "Didn't Monetize"
Weezul writes "Paramount's 'Worldwide VP of Content Protection and Outreach' Al Perry has insinuated that Louis CK making $1 million in 12 days means he isn't monetizing. Al Perry asserted that 'copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations, and that even if people like Louis C.K. decide not to do so, that's a choice and not a requirement.' Bonus, Slashdot favorite Jonathan Coulton apparently grossed almost half a million last year."
He got a million in 12 days, how is is not gaining money ? Wait I get it, he sould have made 20 million 19.99 of them goes to them and he only get 10000$ ?? Ok sorry apparently I don't know much about buisness...
What would Hollywood know about monetizing anything? After all from what they keep saying it's my impression that they loose hundreds of millions on every production just to have their hard work stolen by Evil Pirates(tm). So sounds like he made at least $1 million more than they ever do
Copyright does not give creators the "right to monetize their creations," it gives them a limited duration (hah) in which they can control duplication and redistribution of their work. Louis C.K. monetized his creation in the way he saw fit and it paid off handsomely. It might not have turned into many many millions of dollars, but it turned a healthy profit, sans DRM and other industry pushed bullshit.
Fuck you, Al Perry. You're deliberately blind to his success because it points out that you're completely wrong.
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "monetize" that I hadn't previously been aware of.
Would it have killed the submitter to include about three to five words informing us who the frack "Louis CK" is? Yes, it's just a Google away, but it would have been nice to mention it in the submission. (Or the editors could have added it.)
You mean Louis C.K. has enough respect for his fans that he decided not to soak them for all they're worth? Stop the presses, this goes against everything my MBA taught me!
Not monetizing *for whom?*
He made a mil in 12 days. For most of us that is a lot of monetizing. So for whom is it not monetizing, and why?
C|N>K
Louie said on the Opie and Anthony show that he's never seen any of the money from the sales of his comedy specials.
"monetize" - You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Based on Al Perry's comments do we assume that "monetize" is defined by Paramount and the rest of the MPAA/RIAA as the use of extortion tactics to gain revenue from copyrighted materials, or maybe it's not monetizing unless the courts are involved?
The fact that Louis CK was able to make one million dollars in 12 days yet not meet Al Perry's definition of "monetize" implies this.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Great article. I'll save the media production bashing to those already on the trail and go to what I thought was an interesting theory by Lewis CK. "The key to success is being polite, awesome, and human".
I don't think the first one makes that much difference. Lewis Black makes me laugh so hard I cry, and he's not polite. He is awesome, and to me funny. Steven Write is polite and human, but not what I would call awesome. Monotone is something that many people just can't handle.
Anyway, I think that being human is probably the biggest factor. Glad to see something positive coming out of all this!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It appears that one of the previous job held by Paramount's worldwide VP of content protection and outreach was working for Saddam's information ministry, where he provided Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf with material to use in all those insightful broadcasts. Do you know the "there are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!" quote? It must have been this guy who was behind it.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
This is a translation error from the original Hollyaccounting language.
The correct translation is Worldwide VP of Content that is made Out-of-Reach
Sorry for the error. FTFY.
"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."
Al is just pissed that a neophyte producer was successful without him.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Is that he wasted time concentrating on being intellignet and funny, instead of trying to squeeze as much money out of his fans as possible.
And Hollywood wants to know why they're losing the war against piracy....
turn his work into money while while also giving his viewers get a good laugh. Shit not that I think about it, I got a two for one deal for my $5 and LCK got a new fan.
Thanks LCK!
Also didn't he donate some of the profits and share quite a bit of it with his staff? Good god we should hang him for such charity and make him lose his copyrights.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
These poor entertainment executives have multiple sports cars and trophy wives that aren't going to fund themselves.
We need a site/app where people like LCK can post info of up and coming self produced shows to get the word out. I bought his special but only by chance when I saw a post about him on Michael Geists websites. $5 was a hell of a deal and I'd be willing to buy buy buy at that price.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
new line refused to pay Peter Jackson for Lord of the Rings saying it did not turn a profit and you hear about record companies getting naive bands to sign bad contracts all the time. Are you really stealing from people who often stole what they are selling?
Is this the new Slashdot meme?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
If you invent a word, then you get to invent the definition. I say Louis CK succeeded 100% in flrduburging his material.
If he's making money and he's happy with the result, then Paramount can STFU.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Then gave Peter his "cut" of that knock-down price". The company who bought those rights were another subsidiary of the same parent company as New Line.
Therefore New Line got to merchandise from that other subsidiary at huge profit without having to give any to Peter.
In any other realm, this would be money laundering at least.
The primary issue is that a clean quicktime movie is a good, but it's non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Nor is it really a service, since it's mechanically reproducible for marginal cost and no labor. In effect he's like a free-to-air PBS station, and his website is like the pledge drive that guilts you into ponying up there instead of going to bittorrent.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
This article made me go and buy Aziz Ansari's special: http://azizansari.com/
I had always meant to, but it reminded me that a $5 directly to the artist does WAY more than spending $20 on a dvd to a large company. I had bought Louie CK's thing the day it came out, but waited on Aziz's.
So yes, Louie CK did not monetize because not everyone got their pound of flesh, but it's so easy to just sell a product cheaply when there are no concerns about who can watch it. And who knows, maybe those people go see his standup live and we have a decent comedian in arenas, unlike Dane Cook.
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
monetize:
Econ.
1. trans.
a. To establish (a metal) as standard currency in the coinage of a country; to put into circulation as currency. Now chiefly hist.
b.To convert (an asset, debt, etc.) into money, to realize the value of (an asset, debt, etc.) as currency; spec. to convert (government debt) to a more liquid form, as by redeeming Treasury bills or replacing bonds with bills. Also: to assess in terms of monetary value.
2. trans.
To convert to the use of money; to convert (an economy) to a monetary system.
Words mean things. It looks like Al Perry simply doesn't understand the word "monetize." Good thing too, because as distribution models continue to evolve, useless people like Perry and useless distribution dinosaurs like Paramount will be increasingly cut out of the profits that keep them alive.
Since I'm looking forward to watching these parasitic organizations starve to the point of insolvency, I'm very happy to hear that an executive doesn't understand exactly how the ground is shifting underneath his cumbersome, unnecessary business models. We simply no longer need studios for production, distribution, or even PR.
Give this man a cee-gar! He is right on the monetization.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Big Hollywood could teach organized crime a graduate level course on money laundering and shell games. According to one set of books, Star Wars didn't make any money. But, since BH essentially owns both US political parties, this is all perfectly legal.
New?
Sent from my CR-48
Following Louie's lead, Kumail Nanjiani and Jim Gaffigan are selling specials direct to their customers instead of scumbag middlemen. Here's hoping folks like Springsteen, Prince, et al get on board too.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
To me this seems more like the "denial" phase in a different but still well known sequence.
Copyright law doesn't give anyone the right to monetize anything. It gives content creators exclusive distribution rights, which in turn makes attempts at monetization more likely to be successful.
But let me make it even more simple:
No one has the RIGHT to MONETIZE anything. You may have the right to ATTEMPT to monetize something, but that's not the same thing at all.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
The fundamental flaw here is that Paramount and Al Perry's definition of "monetizing" is different than everyone else's definition.
To them "monetizing" mean putting money in THEIR pockets which, obviously, Louis C.K. did not do.
As I recall, both people mentioned in the summary let it be known beforehand they were doing this to specifically prove people wrong. This, in my oh-so-humble opinion, is disingenuous.
Saying "Please pay for this and don't pirate it to show that DRM is not needed" and then saying "See, I made money so it is not needed" is a self-fulfilling prophecy made to happen by appealing to the self-interest of those who would pirate. What is happening is the content owner saying "Hey, if you pay me and don't pirate my stuff, I will tell everyone how DRM isn't really needed, thus helping you in the long run" and those that would normally pirate the content trading a small fee for celebrity publicity.
Doing something to fulfill a prophecy doesn't fulfill the prophecy.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
What the hell does LCK's sales have to do with "business models that do not rely on copyright?" There was nothing even slightly not-copyrighted about that video.
What was unusual (for video) is that he'll allow anyone who buys it to play it (doesn't require a DRM-compatible player). His business' doors are open to everyone who waves money in his face, rather than telling customers he'd rather they go away instead of pay. Having customers may be a novel idea for video, but Techdirt shouldn't imply this is somehow contrary to copyright. The book industry has used that business model for centuries, and the music has almost always used it (with some weird exceptions). Welcoming customers is "normal" for IP industries overall and is only exceptional within a few special cases.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I wouldn't have known about this otherwise. Paid and downloading now. Way to go Louis, fuck 'em!
Taxes are calculated at fixed intervals of time. It is entirely possible for the tax year to close after the money was spent (cost) but before the movie was released. That would result, for that tax year, in a quite legal loss of the entire cost of the movie. Of course, the next year they would have enormous profits, which they will then pay tax on.
Radiohead has proved this already that money comes in from your content and people wanting to give to continue your content production.
If someone will only pay 1$ for a full album, there will be those that can pay more if they so choose...and the combo of it all is where they make moeny....
no drms, no extra fees for piracy protection. Why can we just not go with that?
That's a fairly cynical view. Another view is he provided a convenient way for people to support entertainment they liked. I don't contribute to Kickstarter projects out of guilt. I don't click on the contribute via PayPal links on Open Source projects out of guilt. I do it as a way to reward the people who make stuff I like. I full well realize that they are likely to make more of it if they don't have to worry so much about food and things.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Well some self-referential circle-jerking about the current thread not being news for nerds happens all the time. Usually in the political threads about stuff that actually matters. Given that I have no idea who or what Louis CK is and why I should care, I think the question is kinda valid at this point....
Also, the language police will shoot people using words like "monetize" on sight when the revolution finally comes.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
He should have 20 million for Paramount, then end up OWING them another million and everything he ever creates for whatever tidbits they choose to grant him, as a loan of course.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's a story about copyright law and how the entertainment business model needs to be updated to the modern age.
No, it's not a valid question. It's just a cheap way to get the word insightful next to your post.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It's simple. How much the artist made doesn't count. How much did the bankers and lawyers make?
There are three groups involved in the entertainment business: people who do the entertaining, people who are entertained, and the gatekeepers who prevent us from finding each other unless they get most of the money. Louis CK didn't pay the gatekeepers, so he failed to monetize.
Well, it's two sides of a coin, there's "guilt" on one side and "goodwill" on the other, both create revenue but neither is really a business model. There are people like Louis CK, just like there are people like you, but I think it's evident, at least at this time, that there aren't enough people like you to keep anybody but the Louis CKs of the world paid more than occasionally. It really is just a way for superstars to extract a premium, after making their name on the back of "monetized" media.
As far as OSS is concerned, people give money to projects like Mozilla all the time, but in that particular case they're almost completely dependent on their "monetized" search field revenues, just as MySQL is monetized through a for-pay license tier, Android is monetized through a variety of different revenue streams, and Linux is monetized through support licenses.
Red Hat doesn't depend on goodwill and neither should Louis CK.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I suppose a million dollars in twelve days isn't much to someone who can pull in a twelve billion dollar weekend opener, but I think it's a big deal for the rest of us.
This signature intentionally left blank.
It'd be a shame if something were to happen to your web page, or your servers, or your genitalia..."
Given the gigantic hole Mr. C.K. just punched through the unreality bubble that LA-LA Land executives live in, our hero Louis is probably lucky he hasn't been banned from the talk show circuit, blacklisted and/or shot through the head
I've see Louis talking about this ("I've never had a million dollars before. It's weird...") and he talks like he -expects- to have his career thrown under the bus
Mr. C.K. has done everyone who isn't a V.P. of corporate shenanigans a great service by demonstrating his proof-of-concept. And go Jim Gaffigan!!!
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
Monetization is turning a product into money by selling it to two sets of customers. Louis CK simply sold his works to viewers. He decided not to sell the opportunity to force you to watch ads or CIA propaganda or whatever as well. Remember, money is force.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
There are people far less talented than Louis CK and Jonathan Coulton who survive on the "give me whatever money you can" model. I think in the next 10-20 years we will see a hell of a lot more entertainers doing it, and hopefully the MAFIAA will wither and die.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Well, it's two sides of a coin, there's "guilt" on one side and "goodwill" on the other, both create revenue but neither is really a business model. There are people like Louis CK, just like there are people like you, but I think it's evident, at least at this time, that there aren't enough people like you to keep anybody but the Louis CKs of the world paid more than occasionally. It really is just a way for superstars to extract a premium, after making their name on the back of "monetized" media.
What an interesting set of blinders you wear. Exactly how many people have to be wildly successful with a business model based on goodwill (or I will grant you that perhaps some people feel guilty) before it's considered a 'business model'?
There are a lot of independent artists that succeed with very little in the way of copyright enforcement. There is practically no webcomic author that sues his or her customers, though sometimes cranky letters are written. There are numerous Kickstarter projects funding various kinds of artistic expression that have been wildly successful (including the Order of the Stick webcome). There's Radiohead and NIN doing 'pay what you want' albums that have been wild financial successes. And, of course, there's the example of Johnathan Coulton.
And Kickstarter projects (as an example) are certainly not wholly goodwill based, and they aren't in the least guilt based. They are based on people getting together collectively to pay for the creation of something they all want.
So, how many have to succeed without the iron bands of copyright before you agree that those aren't necessary for you to be wildly profitable? Seriously. Is there any possible number of counterexamples that will actually change your mind, or do you feel that the only reason anybody does anything is because they will be sued or put in jail if they don't?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I agree. Fan based funding models (patronage being just one example of such) are how creative works will happen in the future. Given the constraints (making digital data non-copyable is like making water not wet), the copyright model is dead.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I have since learned that he is a comedian with a TV show, and I'm assuming many TV appearances. I don't watch TV.
I'm not saying this in an "I'm superior to you because I don't watch TV" way... just a simple statement of fact.
It would have been helpful if the submitter had said, maybe, "the hit comedian Louis CK". That would have been more than enough information. All it would have taken would have been three little words.
This has nothing to do with copyright enforcement. This is about monetization. Webcomic authors have AdSense, they monetize; open source projects use ads and licensing, they monetize. If Louis CK stuck ads all over his movies, it wouldn't matter how many people made copies, because every impression would in effect be more income to him. He did people a favor by not.
Radiohead and Trent Reznor can pretty much do whatever they please, their pay-what-you-want deals keep their pools clean, and they're remix-how-you-wish arrangements keep them on the tips of a thousand hipster tongues, and fill YouTube with dozens of awful remixes of "Reckoner," and since awful remixes are this generations music video, their enhanced notoriety and fame all benefit them when they go to negotiate their iTunes and film placement deals.
All of the ones based on digitally-distributed recorded media are, until they complete and then they're able to monetize through ad-supported channels.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I mean, there's no question in my mind that Free content can succeed as a business, when it can monetize. OSS does it, music does it, TV has always done it, and film is beginning to do it.
The question before us is can it succeed if it does not monetize, as Louis CK did not, or as Radiohead did not with In Rainbows -- notice Radiohead hasn't repeated that particular experiment.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Nice note.
I'll remark that the chief resource against economies of scale is Disruption. "Sure! Build a 100 Million dollar photo processing plant! I'll work on Digital Cameras." Oops - Bye Bye Kodak.
The "smart monopolies" use some of that existing cash to enter the new market. If they can play the politics right and avoid cheap traps, then they shift entire industries. I think GE did this with Jack Welch. If memory of my readings serves, they used to have a small hand in *everything*. Jack Welch cut them down to some 12 product lines down from over 50.
So "the game as it's played" today is our old friend Microsoft, joined by Apple, Google, and Facebook sorta in that order. We need a good new 5th player to really shake it up. I really don't want that to be the state of tech 5 years from now!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
No, they're not. A significant number of people treat them as pre-orders, not as 'goodwill'. I suppose in the back of their heads they know they could eventually get it for free when it came out. But this way they're notified with a download link when it comes out, get their names in the credits and any number of other things, including the feeling that they had some small part in creating it. They aren't 'goodwill' gifts. They're pre-orders with bennies.
And this isn't about whatever you define as 'monetization'. That term is so vague you could make it mean almost anything that involves making money by making art. And that's what this is about. It's perfectly possible for people to make money off their art sans copyright protection. Enough people have accomplished it that you can call it a business model.
Make no mistake, those Kickstarter projects wouldn't get a dime if they all promised the kitschy stuff with no art. What's being sold there is the chance to participate in the artistic process in some way. To feel like you helped make it. That's the reason the Grateful Dead was able to make so much money too.
The model of fan participation is actually a more profitable model for artists. It's also one that permits them far greater artistic freedom. And it's replicable. Anybody can do it if their stuff is good enough or it caters to the right niche. It's a business model, a way to get money for your art. A way to 'monetize' it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Absolutely, and the example I gave with low-power devices/microprocessors is another example of disruption. However in the latter case, the disruption is only partial and Intel may be able to buy enough time from their desktop/server profits to be able to recover on the design phase for the low power market to the point where they can use their advantages in hardware process. Frankly I would be more concerned about an Intel dominance across all hardware markets than Apple/Facebook/Google/Microsoft.
Not that I'm thrilled about the latter either. However, if it wasn't for competitive reviews from the USA and the EU governments, it could get worse. Otherwise, if WP7 and WP8 fail to get traction, Windows 8/Metro tank, and other Microsoft revenues remain mostly static, I could see Steve Ballmer being replaced sometime in the next 5 years and the new CEO willing to entertain a merger with Google. Phones, tablets, search, browser are their big areas of competition. If MS keep on getting their butts kicked by Google in those markets, at some point someone would be smart enough to realize MS is better off working together with Google than against them, From Google's standpoint, MS's cash stash could prove pretty useful in funding new endeavours. That "Don't do evil" credo might be a sticking point though.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Whatever "monetize" definition Paramount uses, they're probably more upset that Louis CK didn't "middle" monetize via Paramount.
That's probably valid, but after it's released, why would a rational consumer pay for it? Again, it's non-rivalrous and non-excludable.
Well that's in the eye of the beholder, I'm not really concerned with the whole "art" question -- copyright models don't guarantee that art will be created over vulgar amusements, and neither does Kickstarter. A big issue with Kickstarter is that it's TOO arty, and it doesn't really work for people who want to make big dumb mass entertainments, which are hugely profitable but generally require huge capital investment, and it's tough to create popular entertainment in a situation where you'd have to reveal your script or your story's hook in public in order to get funding. Maybe J. J. Abrams could go on Kickstarter today and fund his next movie, secret script and sight-unseen, but the next J. J. Abrams would have no such luck, cause he'd be a nobody. I have several friends that write scripts and develop film and TV ideas, and they know about Kickstarter and want nothing to do with it, frankly it's kinda political; at least in Hollywood you only have to make maybe a dozen rich guys happy, and you can tell them your six seasons of ideas without them spilling the beans, instead of having to please the whims of 800 fanboys.
It also sets up this weird dynamic where movies are made to the specifications of a few high-brow types who put their money in, because the whole project is tailored to appeal to a passionate niche, instead of the whole of everyone. Kickstarter is very elitist, just as its fore-runner, PBS is. The basic message of the Kickstarter economy is: entertainment is only for people that spend an hour on Kickstarter every day paying for their favorite stop-motion animation.
I know, it's a machine that turns formerly-respectable artists into Facebooking, Twittering C-list celebrity sellouts, because the only way they can hope to get any funding or attention is by "engaging" their "fans." Now I'm the elitist, but at least I think the artists are rightly the elite, and not their Pale Fire-basking patrons. Patrons have been trying to buy their way into artists' lives for centuries, and this is only the most efficient iteration, a perfect machine for throwing money at flash-in-the-pan shock artists, media whores and phonies.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Here is a quote from his site;
"To those who might wish to "torrent" this video: look, I don't really get the whole "torrent" thing. I don't know enough about it to judge either way. But I'd just like you to consider this: I made this video extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without "corporate" restrictions.
Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I'm just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can't stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way.
Sincerely,
Louis C.K."
I love this guy and I think he is hilarious. You can tell from this quote he isn't very tech savvy, but he understands that there is an ISSUE with the system he uses to spread his comedy. I REALLY hope neo artists of the coming age see this system as an advantage. But the big corporations will probably just find another route to weed themselves into an "open society". Because, you know, innovation is only good for killing jobs.
Also Jim Gaffigan is following the exact same distribution method.
Profit is a huge liability in a movie produciton. Profits are taxable as corporate income. Profits cost money since they sold/promised people percentages of the Net Profit. If a movie makes a profit someone has fucked up hugely and it will cost massive amounts of money.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
There is practically no webcomic author that sues his or her customers
Not a good example of a business model based on goodwill, given that webcomics are monetized (they make money from advertisements).
Why is slashdot always giving me points when there's nothing worth assigning points to yet when I find something worth modding up, my points 99% of the time, expired.
Maybe points shouldn't expire so quickly -- or better, proportional to the time the person has been registered with the site: rationale -- you know they've been around a long time, if they are someone worth giving points to and have good karma, (or have made good choices in the past), then maybe it is worth letting them take the time to make choices their way rather than force them into spending points just to spend points -- making choices that they would otherwise not have done -- thus lowering the overall quality of the grading process.
+1 for Informative or insightful, or interesting (take your pick).
I bet he's crying all the way to the bank. And he'll do it again. Say, if he didn't "monetize" it, is he off the hook for taxes?