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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[tnk1]

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

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

[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.

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!

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.

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.

[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?