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."

Comments

I don't get it

[zero.kalvin]

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...

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't say he didn't make any money. They said he chose not to 'monetize.'

You probably don't know what that word means.

You monetize content when you license it to a big studio and they take all your money.

Re:I don't get it

[don depresor]

post to undo wrong moderation...

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Monetize. As in "Now, now, Louis, be a good boy and bend over so we can continue monitizing you and your peers"

P.S. the captcha is "spreader," now that's just gold.

Re:I don't get it

[justforgetme]

Apparently Monetization is creating an environment (or set of rules) for a thing that isn't money so that one can use said thing like money. Like the well known phrase "I'll pay you four van Goghs for that ratburger".
Which is kind of odd really for the Entertainment industry to go that way since you usually monetize non precious things (common metals or rock, hemp etc.) to monetize representations of art like music files, video recordings or image files is openly admitting that those things do not have a value other than the perceived/mandated one and that production of said forms of legal tender is negligible (aka you can't steal an mp3 or gif because it has no value of its own).

Re:I don't get it

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Monetizing means squeezing the maximum amount of money possible out of something, and letting everyone and their brother get their fingers into it. Much like Al Perry's mom, heyoo!.

*ahem* Anyway, it's unlikely Louis CK would have made a penny more (and pretty likely he'd have made a lot less less) if he'd have gone with Paramount. But we would have paid at least $20, so four times as much, and gotten a DRM'd-to-hell-and-back file, if we were even lucky enough to get one that can be played more than once. In return, Paramount promises to "promote" his shows, so he theoretically makes it up in volume. Paramount would make a bunch of money, the artist would have made less and pissed his audience off at the same time, everybody (who counts, i.e. the Paramount execs) is happy!

When Louis becomes over-saturated because Paramount would rather have $10 today than $2 year-after-year and can't sell tickets anymore, well, sorry bud, guess you're just not funny. Nope, it has nothing to do with the fact that we forced you into a terrible TV show because of some shitty clause in your contract and let Comedy Central rerun your specials until everybody knew them word for word and spent all of your money on over-promoting your stand-up shows that you don't have time to write new material for because we're running you ragged "monetizing" your every breath. Not our fault, the numbers don't lie. Next!

Re:I don't get it

[notgm]

while this is a subtle sarcastic jab at the big studio, it's not far from correct, but it isn't entirely insightful, either.

to monetize is to turn a profit. If Louis CK paid all of the salaries of all the workers (including himself), paid all appropriate fees and whatnot, and sent all of the surplus from the gross proceeds to charity, he didn't monetize. Al Perry is right in saying that he didn't monetize, because there was nobody to turn that profit over to.

HOWEVER, his assertion that profit should drive art/entertainment is what we should take issue with. profits are for corporation or group-funded ventures, not individually founded enterprises. the whole corporation=person loophole has killed his perception.

Re:I don't get it

[iluvcapra]

In this context "monetize" means transforming the content demand into something that can be resold -- viewer eyeballs are resold to advertisers, thus ad-supported media is "monetized." Youtube is "monetized," Louis CK's videos aren't "monetized" yet but if they continued to move like the first one did it's a possibility, as advertisers see the videos as a useful way to piggyback their messages.

Going to see a movie at a theater used to be the gold standard "non-monetized" form of entertainment, until they started inserting product placements, music, placing ads before the shows, and reselling the movies characters as brands for toys, games...

Re:I don't get it

[Tharsman]

to monetize is to turn a profit. If Louis CK paid all of the salaries of all the workers (including himself), paid all appropriate fees and whatnot, and sent all of the surplus from the gross proceeds to charity, he didn't monetize. Al Perry is right in saying that he didn't monetize, because there was nobody to turn that profit over to.

Actually, my understanding from wikipediaing is that monetizing is the process of converting some property in some sort of currency. If I dont monetize, lets say, my digitally recorded music, then it's not a crime to copy it because it has no value.

If I do monetize it, then it is a crime to copy it because it's as bad as copying money.

It does not seem to be a popular definition but I think this is indeed how studios see it. They use a word that intentionally sounds luring to creators (we will monetize your stuff!! Does that not sound like you will get money?!) While internally they are telling each other what they actually mean in keywords.

The studios here are just trying to make creators think they would be missing in even more money than CK made if they don't monetize the way they did.

I can see it now: Studio exec talks to creator:
Hey Bob, what you rather do... profit of your music... or monetize your music? Seriously, what sounds like would make the most money to you?

Re:I don't get it

[j3p0]

Or as Eddie Murphy once observed:
"Net points is monkey points, because they always make a monkey out of you"

Re:I don't get it

[erroneus]

If ever there was an indication that the entertainment media publishers need to be committed to a mental institution, it's this.

Louis CK (whoever that is) did something that did not involve the media publishers and made a very quick $million. (Oh I just googled him... I've seen him before... just never cared to remember his name... pretty funny... not quite George Carlin, but nobody can be George Carlin... not even George Carlin since he's dead now... I think he might be rethinking his 'respect for life' monologue now though) That's $1,000,000!!! Now he just needs to do that two or three more times so he can afford to pay the taxes on the first million. Then he can easily live the rest of his life without working in reasonable comfort. It's a LOT of money and it's certainly "enough" money for most people unless you're one of those sick greedy bastards who would prefer to see nations starve to death while their bank and investment accounts reach the trillions.

And what do the media publishers say? "Well, we didn't make any money, so he didn't make any money." I think both Louis CK and the IRS will both disagree with the morons at the media publishing companies.

Re:I don't get it

[jmauro]

That's the problem the studio is complaining about not being allowed to take their cut, mainly because they were cut out of the process entirely.

Re:I don't get it

[AngryDeuce]

Of all those things, the commercials they show before movies now is the most egregious thing in my opinion. I can't say for sure when I saw my first ad before a movie at the theater (but it can't have been before the mid-90's, because I don't remember it happening when I was growing up) but it's pretty much ubiquitous now.

Still, I guess it doesn't really matter much to me because I go to the movies maybe 3 or 4 times a year, mainly because it's getting ridiculously expensive on top of all that "monetizing" going on and it's hard to justify the expense for a couple hours of entertainment when the shitting movie is going to be out on Bluray within a few months and Netflix and Cable a month or so after that.

The only movie I even care to see this year in theaters is The Hobbit, and that's mainly because I've been following the production diaries and am intrigued to see what the quality of the film and the 3D work is going to be given the extensive amount of technical expertise involved in the filming. Nothing else, not even The Dark Knight, has me excited to go to the theater. I probably spend more time watching home made shit on Youtube than I do consuming Hollywood crap these days, honestly...

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he utilized copyright laws. The whole "make something and offer it for sale" model intrinsically utilizes copyright laws. That's why he made $1m instead of everyone just going off to TPB or whatever and downloading it for nothing. Without copyright laws there would be no moral environment in which paying $5 for something would be remotely interesting to people. People paid because they respect the moral principle from which copyright law derives. This moral principle is often lost amongst all the shouting about how studios rip everyone off. Here is proof that people want to pay creators. Everyone needs to stop using things like this as "proof" that copyright law is wrong.

I'm not even sure who this guy is anyway. Who is Louis CK, and how did he get famous off his own back without the assistance in any way shape or form from the copyright-based corporate businesses he's now apparently a poster-child against? [Google] *sigh* Oh, he didn't. He's just another guy who got famous working within that system and now seeks to undermine it once it's no longer any use to him. Jeez, how original :p

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

The TV-commercial-before-the-movie thing, as we know it, started in the late 90's. Before that, all you had were concessions and movie trailer ads. It's possible that they used to do it back before I was born (late 70's)... like when they did little news reels, but I wouldn't remember that. 80's and 90's were largely commercial-free at the theater.

Of course product placement has been around far longer.

Re:I don't get it

[Hentes]

Just because he chose to donate more than half of the profits doesn't mean it wasn't profit. Also, whether he pulls out the money as salary or profit is a theoretical question for tax optimisers, the amount remains the same.

Re:I don't get it

[residieu]

No, if they'd produced his show for him. They wouldn't have made any money either. If they made money they'd have to pay him, so they'd insist to both Louis CK and the IRS that the show did not make any money whatsoever.

We should feel lucky that despite the fact that even the biggest blockbusters don't make money, all these media companies stay in the business and keep putting out movies and music for us. Less generous companies would look at all the money-losing movies and get into another line of business.

Re:I don't get it

[AvitarX]

If you were early, there was a slide-show that was 50% local adds, and some random facts/trivia.

Not as obnoxious as adds after the lights go dim, but there were adds as long as I can remember (late 80's I suppose).

Re:I don't get it

[jellomizer]

I wonder where the fine line between Product Placement, and placing a product to add to realism.

When the movies make fake brands during their show, it somehow feels like it is breaking the 4th wall, to say that we couldn't get permission to use this product.

I mean we use brand name products all the time in real life.
I am currenly using a Lenovo Think Pad Laptop, drinking water out of a cup with Duncan Donuts label on it. Typing on a Logitech external keyboard, and using an HP extra monitor. Next to me I have my JVC headphone, a NEC Telephone, an empty Diet Coke bottle, a Poland Springs bottle (that someone left during the last meeting) and a Mr. Coffee Coffee maker, Expo white board markets,

It is amazing how many trademark labels are with us all the time.

Re:I don't get it

[iluvcapra]

*I* remember the slides, I used to load them up when I was a projectionist at the UA in Roseville, MN :)

You're right, the exhibitors always did this, it's the production and distribution getting into the game that's sorta different. Also, it used to be that "monetization" was ancillary to the primary goal of selling tickets, but ancillary has become such a huge profit center that it's been re-termed "monetization" and it drives decision making throughout the old-line entertainment and Internet/new media industries.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiring a sidekick on slashdot, to say it for you, is cost prohibative.

Re:I don't get it

[robot256]

The moral principles behind copyright law are totally fine. Where your argument breaks down is where you assume the present scope of copyright law is in any way consistent with its moral basis. When people paid for what they could have got for free, they did it because they respect the moral principles, *not* because they respect the law. When I enjoy your work, I have a moral obligation to help you stay alive so that you can produce more work. I do not have the same obligation toward the corporation that bought the rights 60 years after your death. The additional incentive during your lifetime would have been so negligible that society is much better off with free access than they are with providing that incentive.

For your second point, are you suggesting that artists who become famous by having the music companies promote them while taking all/most of their profits for the first N years somehow owe those companies for the rest of their lives? Have you not considered whether fame is a finite commodity for which a finite payment should be rendered? If anything, CK should be applauded for showing that the corporations do not have a monopoly on ways to make money from art. He engaging is classic capitalism: He decided that the services they rendered were not worth the price they charged. If the corporations really provide something of value for other artists, then his actions won't affect them. If everyone bails, and is the better for it, then it was only bullying and monopoly pressure that kept the corps in business and they deserve to fail. If everyone bails, and is no better for it, then I guarantee that the industry will regrow in short order, but with significant and beneficial changes. It's a win-win-win a far as I can see.

Re:I don't get it

[nine-times]

Right, essentially he's saying Louis CK was merely selling his work as a product instead of arranging all kinds of side-deals and whatnot. You might think that your record label is just interested in selling you music, or movie studios are just interested in selling movies. They're not. they're all wrapped up in all kinds of licensing deals, advertising, cross promotions, and product tie-ins.

Re:I don't get it

[SiChemist]

When I went to see "Brokeback Mountain" with some friends, there was an advertisement for KY warming lube before the feature. I lost it. I started laughing and everyone looked at me like I was nuts. Some of my friends finally got it.

Re:I don't get it

[erroneus]

That's an interesting point and I hope you get modded that way. The publishers don't want the IRS and the others out there to see that they can make serious money by keeping the publishers out of their business... and the IRS too.

The IRS has attempted to investigate their dealings in the past. They just can't seem to get past the magical "anti-semite" force field.

Re:I don't get it

[Caratted]

This is easily the most annoying things about ads within any video-based entertainment these days, be it cable or the ads before the movie in the theater. Drives me totally nuts. I remember a snippet saying commercials/ads are allowed to be as loud as the loudest moment within whatever show or movie they are contained within. My ears are sensitive. These days I won't even watch things that aren't DVR'd yet, or will come back 30m later, so I can skip them, for this reason alone. Seriously advertisers, WTF is with your audio.

Re:I don't get it

[ppanon]

You're a better debater than economist/robber baron. Economies of Scale can be used as a barrier to entry in a market, as part of a strategy to obtain and maintain a monopoly (mergers/acquisitions are often complementary tool in those efforts).

If the market is very large then economies of scale can present substantial barriers to entry. There is a cost of capital for a competitor to be able to establish production facilities at a large enough size that it gains equivalent economies of scale as an established player. Since the established player doesn't need to pay that cost of capital (interest on borrowed funds) they can cut their profit low enough to drive the new player out of business through losses, until they regain their natural monopoly and can increase prices and profit once more. Go through this cycle a few times and investors won't be willing to risk their money in that industry again no matter how much the established monopolist is gouging their clients. Established players are willing to reduce short term profits or even run a small loss to gain a monopoly because they know they can recover the lost income over the long term once they have a monopoly. Now admittedly interest rates are low and the cost of capital is theoretically pretty cheap right now, assuming you can find a banker willing to lend you some money, but that's not always been true and will probably change again.

Another example of a natural barrier to entry are the ever increasing capital costs of semiconductor manufacturing plants for microprocessors. If you want to enter that market and go up against Intel, you not only need one hell of a design team (and a protective patent portfolio which, yes, is a government granted monopoly), you also need to have enough cash to build a fab with a competitive process (in terms of feature size and power efficiency), or you need to take a smaller cut of the revenue of the finished product by letting someone else fab it for you (ARM, and now AMD). The only reason Intel isn't eating everybody's lunch in the mobile market is because they got so caught up in dominating the desktop and server markets that they got caught flatfooted, again, in the small device market where the focus is reduced power consumption instead of raw computing power.

Re:I don't get it

[roman_mir]

Again and again: 19th century up until 1913 proves you completely, utterly, 100% wrong, as prices were falling, choices were increasing and competition was fierce.

You are also wrong for another reason: plasma screens or mobile phones or anything. What makes more profit? Selling 100 at 100,000USD / piece? Selling 10000 at about 5000USD/piece?

Selling 1000000 at 1000USD/ piece?

No. The most money is made selling 1000,000,000 at 50 bucks a pop.

Re:I don't get it

[roman_mir]

Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, by the time it was broken up, there were a bunch of competitors.

In 1870 S.O. supplied only 4% of the market. What was oil used for? It was replacing whale oil, it was mostly used for production of kerosene. They were very innovative, by 1897 their production costs were less than 1/10 (ONE TENTH) of their initial production costs levels of 1869, and S.O. passed the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices further on, they didn't just 'keep the difference'.

The prices for refined oil were 30cents per gallon in 1869 and then 10 cents in 1874 and then 8 cents in 1885 and 5.9 cents in 1897.

How about THAT for 'GOUGING'? HA, COME ON. GOUGING!

There was no monopoly at all, in 1911 Standard Oil had already 150 competitors, I actually had to look up a number of times. This included Texaco and Gulf.

So saying that Rockefeller used predatory pricing with massive losses over decades without achieving the alleged monopoly payoff is just retarded.

Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[Roogna]

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

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Congratulations! This is one of those rare fortuitous occasions where making the "loose/lose" errror still makes sense.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[oobayly]

Exactly, according to them they couldn't make a profit from revenues of almost 1 billion USD (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

I'm starting to believe that Hollywood really doesn't want to make money. After all, why else do they not want to put their films on the UK version of Netflix, when they're available on the US version? In the hope that we'll buy them on DVD instead? Good luck with that one.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[SJHillman]

Movies that Hollywood has claimed a loss for:
- Forrest Gump (as a result, the author refused to sell the studio the rights to the sequel)
- Spiderman (Stan Lee successfully sued over this one)
- My Big Fat Greek Wedding (most of the cast then sued the studio for a share of the profits)
- Babylon 5 ("Basically", says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits.")
- Lord of the Rings (resulted in Peter Jackson not directing The Hobbit, also - 15 actors suing the studio for not receiving their cut of the profits)
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (reported a $167 million loss... which is roughly equal to the film's budget.)

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about that? Another AC who conveniently forgets, or doesn't know, that Hollywood uses 'creative accounting' with their films.

Please go look up how the movie 'Titanic', actually lost money on the books, through billed well over $1Billion globally. Or how Stan Lee had to sue to get his massive share from Spiderman 1, when they tried to claim it lost money on the books, though billed well over $300 million domestic US in the first few months. Oh, right. Contracts. Has nothing to do with monetize, which is exactly what this guy is ranting about! He didn't contract through us, which is why they're complaining.

What you're thinking monetize is, isn't what the Paramount bobble-head is talking about with this doublespeak.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[teidou]

"resulted in Peter Jackson not directing The Hobbit" Hmm. Are you aware he IS directing it? See the Hobbit Blog for proof, or at least an elaborate ruse. Or is the word 'resulted' evolving into some new meaning of which I was not previously aware?

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[girlintraining]

Movies that Hollywood has taken a risk on, since 1986:

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[geekmux]

Movies that Hollywood has claimed a loss for: - Forrest Gump (as a result, the author refused to sell the studio the rights to the sequel) - Spiderman (Stan Lee successfully sued over this one) - My Big Fat Greek Wedding (most of the cast then sued the studio for a share of the profits) - Babylon 5 ("Basically", says Straczynski, "by the terms of my contract, if a set on a WB movie burns down in Botswana, they can charge it against B5's profits.") - Lord of the Rings (resulted in Peter Jackson not directing The Hobbit, also - 15 actors suing the studio for not receiving their cut of the profits) - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (reported a $167 million loss... which is roughly equal to the film's budget.)

Gee, I wonder how many Hollywood elite are homeless and bankrupt because of this?

Oh wait, that's right I forgot. None of them.

'Nuff said.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't for a very long time while he was suing them over LOTR profits.(100+ million if I recall correctly)

They finally relented when Ian McKellen explained he was getting old and wouldn't be able to do it forever.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is, not all of this is shady accounting. The problem is, people sign a deal where they get a cut of the theatrical profit, and even the most successful film (especially those that are very expensive to create) often fail to make a theatrical profit. Every cost associated with the creation of the film comes out of the theatrical profit. That includes cast and crew salaries, studio executives salaries, investor payoffs (very few films are financed entirely by a single studio), payouts to people who get a piece of the gross, advertising, film prints, everything. And remember, when they say such and such film made $100 million on a $50 budget, that movie is guaranteed to have lost money at that point. The $100 profit is the gross profit, and ignores that the studio has to split that with the theaters. The $50 budget is solely the production budget, and ignores advertising, film prints, executive pay, investor returns, and gross percentage payouts.

Now, it's at this point that people usually say "that can't possibly be true, or no one would make movies". Well, while the theatrical release splits it's profits and takes the lions share of the costs, the DVD, television and streaming releases share very few profits and take very few costs. The DVD version costs a few hundred thousand to produce, the advertising budget might be decent but it's generally nothing compared to the theatrical advertising budget (and they can reuse a lot of assets), and there's generally no payout on the DVD to anyone on the creative side of actually making the movie. On top of that, the retailers selling the DVD generally only take 5-10%, much lower than the theaters take on the film. So while the studios themselves generally take a loss or barely break even on the theatrical release, if the movie is successful they can make heaping piles of money once it leaves theaters. On a huge release like a Harry Potter movie, you can pull in hundreds of millions on the DVDs, tens of millions or more on Pay Per View, then sell an exclusive window to HBO/Showtime/Starz to be the first pay channel for a few million, then get a few million more selling it to the ones that lost the exclusive, then a few million more selling it to Netflix, then a few million more to ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX for an exclusive window on broadcast. Then, once that's all done, you sell the international TV/Streaming rights to some other entity for a few hundred million more, and you don't share any of that with anyone.

Now, you can definitely argue the "fairness" of this system, in terms of how much the studios make overall versus how much the creators make, but I have a minimal amount of sympathy for the endless writers, actors and directors who work in Hollywood and definitely should know how the studios make their profits, but then sign contracts that they know won't payoff, and still think they have a right to complain about it.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[dkleinsc]

Actually, it depends who they're talking to:
To stockholders: "Yeah, we made millions"
To anyone with a percentage of the profit: "Sorry, we lost $2 million on that one"
To the IRS: "All our profits were in foreign countries, so we only have to pay taxes there"

And so on.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[UnknowingFool]

The Lord of the Rings is an interesting one because Peter Jackson opted for a share of gross revenue not profit which is the prevailing wisdom in Hollywood to actually get paid. Jackson's dispute with New Line was that they didn't pay him the amount he was owed despite this safeguard. New Line's response was to play the victim of Jackson's greed:

"New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

It was true that they paid a lot; but Jackson's argument was they didn't pay him what his contract says they should pay him by selling rights internally within the studio for less than the real value.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[nine-times]

Part of the reason the Hobbit isn't already out is that it took Jackson and the studio a couple of years to come to an agreement. A big part of the reason it took so long was that Jackson was unhappy that we wasn't getting paid because the LotR trilogy somehow didn't make any profit (according to the studio).

They settled it somehow, but I don't know how.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[nedlohs]

The prodution budget is not the only cost, and since you deduct costs from the gross to determine the profit your numbers are incomplete enough to be useless.

There the $200 million distribution fees, the $131 million on marketing, the $57 million in interest, the $300 million on advances, and so on.

http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/studio-shame-even-harry-potter-pic-loses-money-because-of-warner-bros-phony-baloney-accounting/

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[UnknowingFool]

What? Forrest Gump is the classic example of Hollywood accounting when Winston Groom wanted to be paid for his 3% of profits. The studio claims the film didn't make any profits.. Coming to America is another example. Art Buchiwald's script was optioned then turned down. Then Paramount made a movie remarkably similar to his script. When he won his lawsuit, Paramount then claimed it didn't make any money.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[PhrstBrn]

Basically, what you're saying is, even though the same ads, materials, and movie are used in both the theatrical and post-theatrical release of the movie, they roll all the production costs into the theatrical release, instead of spreading the production costs between theatrical and post-theatrical release. Remind me how this isn't shady accounting?

It's like saying it cost me $1 million dollars to design a new car, I then sell $750k worth of cars to claim a $250k loss, and when the next year comes I add a pinstripe for $100 and claim it's a brand new car and that the investors aren't entitled to their cut of the profits because this car isn't the same car.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[suutar]

The elite are not, true. They have agents who will push for pre-profit payment and enough name recognition to get it. The other 97% of the cast is SOL.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[Hognoxious]

You say it's not shady accounting and then go on, at a not inconsiderable length, to describe all the shady accounting practices involved.

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[tnk1]

You have mastered Hollywood accounting and made a car analogy. Congratulations!

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[jollyreaper]

"New Line already gave him enough money to rebuild Baghdad, but it's still not enough for him."

And lines like that make me see red. To put it another way: "Look, the only reason why we're breaking our contract is because we're greedy fucks but please, let's call him a pig for simply asking for what's contractually owed."

Re:Monetizing... what would Hollywood know?

[ashridah]

Yep. Let's add to this another stunner:

Darth Vader Not Getting Paid, Because Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable. Nevermind that, adjusting for inflation, Return of the jedi was the film with the 15th highest gross to date.

But hey, You know, if it's not making a profit, then you don't have to pay anyone their share.

Idiots

[Microlith]

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.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

--Upton Sinclair

Re:Idiots

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Even better. It points out that he's completely useless.

Re:Idiots

[j-pimp]

You're deliberately blind to his success because it points out that you're completely wrong.

The problem is Louis removed may market inefficiencies created by the RIAA/MPAA, and those inefficiencies create jobs!</sarcasm>

To paraphrase a great man...

[daitengu]

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "monetize" that I hadn't previously been aware of.

And who/what is "Louis CK"?

[sirwired]

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.)

Re:And who/what is "Louis CK"?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

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.)

He's a comedian who released his latest produced video directly to the consumer and DRM-free. He made it extremely easy and friendly to access and made a shitload of money in a very short amount of time.

https://buy.louisck.net/

Re:And who/what is "Louis CK"?

[Jeng]

Considering that googling still didn't pop up the relevant results, the information was not in the article, and this is not a tech issue in the least I agree that a little bit of background would have been nice.

Just a little link to a story about his selling direct to customers would have sufficed.

Hold the phones!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[inode_buddha]

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?

Comedy Specials

[Anonymous Coward]

Louie said on the Opie and Anthony show that he's never seen any of the money from the sales of his comedy specials.

Re:Comedy Specials

[j00r0m4nc3r]

which is why he sold his latest special on his own website and made the money he deserves. fuck paramount

Re:Comedy Specials

[Anonymous Coward]

Louie said on the Opie and Anthony show that he's never seen any of the money from the sales of his comedy specials.

Exactly the point the Good People(tm) at Paramount(tm)(r) are trying to make. See, what he did right here was make money from the sales of a comedy show he's selling. That's different from monetizing(tm) it, which is wholesome and good. See, when you monetize(tm) something, you give all the cash to a worthy corporation that writes very big and very complicated stacks of papers to sign. A lot of people need to be paid well to write those papers, which I'm sure you'll agree are very very important. When you make money, on the other hand, you get to keep all that money, which is filthy and wrong, as it doesn't involve corporations being paid to write very big and very complicated stacks of papers.

I'm glad Louis CK appears to understand how irresponsible and job-killing his greedy habit of making money is, and we at Paramount(tm)(r) are certain he will seek our forgiveness.

monetize

[Anonymous Coward]

"monetize" - You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 

Paramount's definition of "Monetize"

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Re:Paramount's definition of "Monetize"

[Chrutil]

I suppose Monetize means using "Hollywood accounting" to pretend no money was made from enormous profits.
No question Louis CK made good money of it (rightfully so), and I really hope others that use the same methods will as well.
Jim Gaffigans recent Mr. Universe, for example (and yes - get it and see it - best ever)

The "Recipe"?

[s.petry]

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!

What a great CV

[GreatBunzinni]

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.

Didn't monetize = Al didn't get paid.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

"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.

Re:Didn't monetize = Al didn't get paid.

[MojoRilla]

Hey....this is the entertainment industry we're talking about?

Louis CK fucked with the system. He wasn't thinking of the middlemen. He stiffed the studio execs. He gave the lawyers and his agent the finger.

Will you think of the poor entertainment industry for a second? Blow and hookers are expensive. Vacation house mortgages don't just pay themselves.

Re:Didn't monetize = Al didn't get paid.

[s.petry]

You just made me wonder.. Did he fuck his career on any and all possible TV, Movie, and/or Radio gigs? Not that he had much anyway, but I wonder how that is used as leverage in cases like this? The movie execs are known to be mafia like in their mentality and treatment of those that try to buck the system. I'd be curious as to the amount of hate mail, death threats, etc.. he is getting from the Holleywood crowd..

Re:Didn't monetize = Al didn't get paid.

[slodan]

No, he negotiated the current gold-standard TV contract for creative artists. This is less money but full control of his great show "Louie" which runs on FX.

Paramount's interpetation:

[kaizendojo]

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....

Wait didn't LCK

[future assassin]

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.

Rather than hoard the vast new profit from the digital download sales, CK said he plans to split it up among various people and organizations. The comedian explained that $250,000 would pay for the standup special and $250,000 would be disbursed as bonuses to people who work for him. Also, CK plans to donate $280,000 to five different charities, including the Fistula Foundation, Green Chimneys, Charity:Water, the Pablove Foundation and micro-loan non-profit Kiva. That leaves CK with $220,000 for himself.

“Some of that ($220K) will pay my rent and will care for my children. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million,” CK said, adding that he’s always viewed money as a resource rather than something you keep for yourself.

Hollywood commenting on alternative distribution

[mounthood]

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Re:I don't get that.

[iluvcapra]

He's selling. That's how he made that money. You know, exchange of goods for services rendered.

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.

Re:I don't get that.

[Lashat]

Give this man a cee-gar! He is right on the monetization.

Re:I don't get that.

[Omnifarious]

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.

Re:I don't get that.

[iluvcapra]

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.

Re:I don't get that.

[Omnifarious]

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?

He's not famous to me...

[sirwired]

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.

Re:I don't get that.

[iluvcapra]

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.