8 ms·

I really hope people don't turn this into a "Louis CK did it, so you should publish without DRM!". I agree with the anti-drm sentiment a lot of people hold, but

I really hope people don't turn this into a "Louis CK did it, so you should publish without DRM!". I agree with the anti-drm sentiment a lot of people hold, but this experiment only worked because it's "rare". Every time something like this is done people use it as evidence of the viability of the idea (Radiohead's pay what you want comes to mind too) and that really shouldn't be done. The only reason I heard about this experiment was because it's an experiment and I would personally bet that if this wasn't an experiment a huge portion of these sales would never have happened, I hope in the ensuing celebration of the success of this people don't forget this important fact. "Louis CK published without DRM and made $500,000 sales in 4 days, therefore if you publish without DRM you too will break your own sales records"

Lagged2Death 15y ago
Isn't iTunes all DRM-free MP3 these days?
- lukifer 15y ago
  To be pedantic: DRM-free AAC and Apple Lossless.
  - dillona 15y ago
    You can buy Apple Lossless from the iTunes Store?
    - ugh 15y ago
      No, you can’t. Only AAC.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- guelo 15y ago
  What about iTunes video?
  - phil 15y ago
    Undoubtedly, Apple would do it if they could get the licenses. The movie industry still has a little fight left in it, though.
lukifer 15y ago
A proper experiment is repeated, over and over again. Some indie bands are managing to make money from "pay what you wish", and a great many more have been thriving from customers paying for easily-torrented, DRM-free downloads. Video, on the other hand, has had few other tests of the notion that (most/some/enough) people are willing to pay a reasonable price for a good product, even when they don't have to. Instead, our choices are streaming services (to authorized devices only), or physical artifacts (with five layers of encryption). This is the first digital video purchase where I felt like I truly owned the movie I was buying. Give it time for others to try the experiment and see how they fare.
lukev 15y ago
Disagree. I've never bought a comedy DVD in my life, because frankly, an hour of humor isn't worth $15 + the overhead of receiving a package and storing a physical artifact in perpetuity. But $5, I can have it in seconds, and forget about it until I want it again? Different story entirely. So I bought it. I don't think I did it because it was an experiment - if every comedian released stuff like this, I feel like I'd regularly spend money on comedy which now, I frankly don't.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  You're proving my entire point. You bought this because it's an experiment, you wanted to validate the experiment.
  - lukev 15y ago
    Of course this is personal analysis of my own motivations and thus hardly scientific, but yeah, my whole point was that I think I would buy this even if it wasn't an experiment. I didn't buy Trent Reznor or Radiohead's experiments because I don't like their music, but I did want to see this show, so I bought it.
    - natep 15y ago
      Because two points make a line and therefore are irrefutable (ha ha), I'd like to add that I also passed on those experiments and bought the DVD. It was $5, just like the games I tend to buy on Steam. But if it were $15+, I would have passed, like I have on the rest of his DVDs.
  - gillygize 15y ago
    But there is also the lower price to consider. Even if the rarity of the event brought more purchases, with $5 vs the $15 or $20 it would have cost in a more tradition method of sales, the price alone would certainly bring in some customers who would not have paid the higher price.
  - r0s 15y ago
    Unless he likes the business model, and it meets his needs. The novelty of the model is unrelated to it's efficacy.
phil 15y ago
That's bunk. It boils down to saying, "sure, it worked for Louis CK and Radiohead, and Cory Doctorow and Humble Bundle. It worked for Trent Reznor, OK Go, and pretty much everyone funded by Kickstarter... But it could never work for you." This stuff doesn't because it's sprinkled with magic experiment dust. It works because the authors are doing good work, they're able to build a fan base, and they're able to make the case to their fans that the way to keep getting new work is to buy it. There's no reason that won't scale out.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? She would outsell all her other releases because "whoa DRM free this is incredible!"? I don't think so, her average fan (vs average fan of Louis CK or purchaser of Humble Bundle) do not give two fucks about whether or not music is DRM free or independent and would treat it just like DRM music is treated. The reason this was succesful for Louis CK is because it (for want of a better phrase) "went viral". People spread the existence of this around because he is being edgy, because he's doing something nobody else has the balls to do. If every artist released their creations independently, DRM free and without any "major label" backing this would have flown straight under the radar and been a resounding "meh" in sales. This sold because it "went viral". The story of what he was trying to do, the desire to prove people wrong. This had the absolute perfect marketing; better marketing than money can buy, but this isn't a group of buyers with endless supplies of money. If what he did became the standard it would no longer succeed like this did. How many years ago was it edgy to release an album on the internet? I wasn't on the internet back then so I can't provide any examples, but I'll put money on this happening and back then it being a guaranteed success because the people that wanted to prove that selling online could work bought it. I'm going to try and find one.
  - nl 15y ago
    The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. That's exactly the point. I think you are trying to argue that people outside Loius CK's fanbase bought this because of the desire to prove people wrong. You might be correct in part, but that isn't the whole story. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? There are plenty of popular artists who have done similar things and had massive success. Lil' Wayne exclusively released (free) mix tapes between 2006 and 2008 which built his profile to the point that his next actual album sold more than a million copies in its first week of release, and gave him his first number 1.
krelian 15y ago
I think the Humble Bundle is a good measure to how these kind of experiments will succeed of fail. People are now starting to "complain" that they are released too often, and I certainly am seeing less and less enthusiasm for each subsequent bungle but there are still making a shitload of money on them, otherwise they would simply stop doing this. Personally, I think that in a (utopian) world where media is easily available, not restricted, and is fairly priced (like Louis C.K's video) piracy will still be a major issue. Perhaps it will be reduced but even if content makers manage to compete with the availability of pirated content, they can never compete with the price.
- timknauf 15y ago
  And, at least for the foreseeable future, there are going to be people for whom it is very difficult to pay for the content rather than pirate it (e.g. kids, teenagers, folks in countries without an online payments infrastructure etc.).
- aidenn0 15y ago
  Well there's also the issue of how many games can I play? I've stopped buying from the humble bundles since the combination of that, plus good old games, I have enough games for now. If I had half a dozen unwatched comedy specials on my hard drive, I wouldn't have bought Louis' video.
ddw 15y ago
I think a lot of people bought this because they enjoy Louis CK and not because they wanted to experience what downloading a video is like. The benefit is that he made it easy and cheap. If he went the conventional route I probably wouldn't have watched this special for a year or so until it came out on Netflix (and I've been a big fan for a long time). I don't have cable and it probably would've cost $14.99+ to own from Amazon and maybe $3.99 to rent (for two days). The benefit to what he did was I can buy it now and do what I want with the copy I own.
wvenable 15y ago
I disagree. I like Louis CK but I haven't looked into this at all and probably in a few weeks I'll have forgotten about it without buying anything. But the model I like. I'd love if I could get all my media DRM free over the internet and be able to pay for it. Right now I torrent and PVR a lot of stuff but the continued existence of programs I like are at the whim of those with Nielsen boxes.
dkersten 15y ago
this experiment only worked because it's "rare" I said the same thing about the humble indie bundle, but they seem to be doing really well still!
wpietri 15y ago
I can't say why it worked for him, but it worked for me as a consumer because it was easy-peasy and felt very safe. I'm perfectly happy to pay for content I can get reliably and instantly. Today I gave Amazon $10 for the two Christopher Nolan Batman films because a) it was dead simple, and b) I trust Amazon not to fuck me over. (And I guess c) it works on my Linux box, and d) I love his work.) In fact, I'm even happier with the Louis CK thing because it's just a file. I'm going to buy another copy for my dad for Christmas, something I doubt Amazon will even let me do. So yes, as far as I'm concerned, yes, everybody should do this. They may not break sales records, but they may not do that the DRM way either.
omouse 15y ago
I hope they do turn it into that! We need all the propangda we can get to turn everyone into an anti-DRM advocate!
danssig 15y ago
Also keep in mind it may not have "worked for him". He made $200k less than he would have using the traditional route. Who knows how long it will take to make that additional $200k from this offering (if he ever will) and I'm skeptical about counting "the long tail" because he would have probably had residuals on a traditional DVD as well.
- vidarh 15y ago
  Where does it say he made $200k less? The article says he made $200k profit so far, and that this is less, but it doesn't say how much less. It is also numbers 4 days in. Sales don't stop after 4 days. As for residuals, maybe, but it looks from the post as if he is comparing his (so far) $200k profit to a lump sum payment for the rights, though he's not exactly being explicit about that.
  - danssig 15y ago
    He personally said that. It was mentioned in this thread. EDIT: Ah correction, he says "this is less than I would have been paid". It's the top comment.
SODaniel 15y ago
You do realize that the revenue that a comedian/Musician take home from a major label contract averages somewhere between 4-9% of total right? If Louis CK would have really just sold the rights to comedy central, HBO etc. He could have 'pocketed' an after tax revenue of maybe $100k, with little post-air revenue. When everything is said and done I am willing to bet my beard that this 'experiment' will net him at least $2 million more then a traditional contract. Of course the 'pet project factor' and his timing played in, but seriously; He was NOT first! Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Smashing etc. have been doing this for years and continue to acknowledge the viability of the self publish model over traditional labels. TLDR; This is not a fad, this is not a 'one off thing'. If you make something worth paying for, people will pay for it.
methodin 15y ago
For me personally it would be refreshing to get something that is so deeply personal to the person or persons I support. Any band, for instance, that I enjoy I would feel overly elated to support something they spent all of THEIR time on. It becomes something very personal and I would know that I am supporting THEM only and not the myriad of people in between that have done nothing deserving. It probably won't work for everyone but I doubt everyone would even try it. It takes a lot of effort and knowledge to pull off unless you have a lot of help.
muhfuhkuh 15y ago
Ever hear of JA Konrath? Neither did I at first. He's, at best, a mid-to-back list writer who had a few novels published back in the late 90s and early 2000s. He started self-publishing his old catalog of books once they were reverted (ie, the publishers saw little/no value in holding the rights, and released the rights back to him). He saw not much in the way of sales, but he pressed on, releasing ebook forms of old and new novels as he published them. Then, the Kindle. As of today, every new title he releases goes straight into the Amazon top 100 list. Every single new one. And, he's not alone. Amanda Hocking, John Locke, Michael Sullivan and hundreds of other new and established writers, some who have zero published work or professional experience have made substantial living self-publishing, mostly in DRM-free epub and mobi formats. None of them are running experiments in digital distribution or DRM that I know of. It's a proven method: For apps, for ebooks, for video (ie Louis CK for paid video and Ryan Higa, Freddie Wong, or Ray William Johnson for ad-supported video). We read (some with disdain, I might add) when someone publishes an ebook through ejunkie that sells a tens of thousands of copies at US$30 a pop, yet we don't question whether that's some "experiment" or not. It's the future. We'll all have to embrace it eventually.
gte910h 15y ago
You know what happens if you publish WITH drm? Actual buyers of the content have issues getting to it, and people who want to pirate easily find it online and download it after some random dude removes the DRM.

Lagged2Death 15y ago

Isn't iTunes all DRM-free MP3 these days?

lukifer 15y ago
To be pedantic: DRM-free AAC and Apple Lossless.
- dillona 15y ago
  You can buy Apple Lossless from the iTunes Store?
  - ugh 15y ago
    No, you can’t. Only AAC.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
guelo 15y ago
What about iTunes video?
- phil 15y ago
  Undoubtedly, Apple would do it if they could get the licenses. The movie industry still has a little fight left in it, though.

lukifer 15y ago

A proper experiment is repeated, over and over again. Some indie bands are managing to make money from "pay what you wish", and a great many more have been thriving from customers paying for easily-torrented, DRM-free downloads. Video, on the other hand, has had few other tests of the notion that (most/some/enough) people are willing to pay a reasonable price for a good product, even when they don't have to. Instead, our choices are streaming services (to authorized devices only), or physical artifacts (with five layers of encryption). This is the first digital video purchase where I felt like I truly owned the movie I was buying. Give it time for others to try the experiment and see how they fare.

lukev 15y ago

Disagree. I've never bought a comedy DVD in my life, because frankly, an hour of humor isn't worth $15 + the overhead of receiving a package and storing a physical artifact in perpetuity. But $5, I can have it in seconds, and forget about it until I want it again? Different story entirely. So I bought it. I don't think I did it because it was an experiment - if every comedian released stuff like this, I feel like I'd regularly spend money on comedy which now, I frankly don't.

citricsquid 15y ago
You're proving my entire point. You bought this because it's an experiment, you wanted to validate the experiment.
- lukev 15y ago
  Of course this is personal analysis of my own motivations and thus hardly scientific, but yeah, my whole point was that I think I would buy this even if it wasn't an experiment. I didn't buy Trent Reznor or Radiohead's experiments because I don't like their music, but I did want to see this show, so I bought it.
  - natep 15y ago
    Because two points make a line and therefore are irrefutable (ha ha), I'd like to add that I also passed on those experiments and bought the DVD. It was $5, just like the games I tend to buy on Steam. But if it were $15+, I would have passed, like I have on the rest of his DVDs.
- gillygize 15y ago
  But there is also the lower price to consider. Even if the rarity of the event brought more purchases, with $5 vs the $15 or $20 it would have cost in a more tradition method of sales, the price alone would certainly bring in some customers who would not have paid the higher price.
- r0s 15y ago
  Unless he likes the business model, and it meets his needs. The novelty of the model is unrelated to it's efficacy.

phil 15y ago

That's bunk. It boils down to saying, "sure, it worked for Louis CK and Radiohead, and Cory Doctorow and Humble Bundle. It worked for Trent Reznor, OK Go, and pretty much everyone funded by Kickstarter... But it could never work for you." This stuff doesn't because it's sprinkled with magic experiment dust. It works because the authors are doing good work, they're able to build a fan base, and they're able to make the case to their fans that the way to keep getting new work is to buy it. There's no reason that won't scale out.

citricsquid 15y ago
The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? She would outsell all her other releases because "whoa DRM free this is incredible!"? I don't think so, her average fan (vs average fan of Louis CK or purchaser of Humble Bundle) do not give two fucks about whether or not music is DRM free or independent and would treat it just like DRM music is treated. The reason this was succesful for Louis CK is because it (for want of a better phrase) "went viral". People spread the existence of this around because he is being edgy, because he's doing something nobody else has the balls to do. If every artist released their creations independently, DRM free and without any "major label" backing this would have flown straight under the radar and been a resounding "meh" in sales. This sold because it "went viral". The story of what he was trying to do, the desire to prove people wrong. This had the absolute perfect marketing; better marketing than money can buy, but this isn't a group of buyers with endless supplies of money. If what he did became the standard it would no longer succeed like this did. How many years ago was it edgy to release an album on the internet? I wasn't on the internet back then so I can't provide any examples, but I'll put money on this happening and back then it being a guaranteed success because the people that wanted to prove that selling online could work bought it. I'm going to try and find one.
- nl 15y ago
  The reason it works for those specific groups is because of their fan base. That's exactly the point. I think you are trying to argue that people outside Loius CK's fanbase bought this because of the desire to prove people wrong. You might be correct in part, but that isn't the whole story. Do you think that if Britney Spears tomorrow launched a similar "DRM free pay what you want" sale that and the "viral" element (news articles about how edgy it is) didn't exist she would have the success that these people have? There are plenty of popular artists who have done similar things and had massive success. Lil' Wayne exclusively released (free) mix tapes between 2006 and 2008 which built his profile to the point that his next actual album sold more than a million copies in its first week of release, and gave him his first number 1.

krelian 15y ago

I think the Humble Bundle is a good measure to how these kind of experiments will succeed of fail. People are now starting to "complain" that they are released too often, and I certainly am seeing less and less enthusiasm for each subsequent bungle but there are still making a shitload of money on them, otherwise they would simply stop doing this. Personally, I think that in a (utopian) world where media is easily available, not restricted, and is fairly priced (like Louis C.K's video) piracy will still be a major issue. Perhaps it will be reduced but even if content makers manage to compete with the availability of pirated content, they can never compete with the price.

timknauf 15y ago
And, at least for the foreseeable future, there are going to be people for whom it is very difficult to pay for the content rather than pirate it (e.g. kids, teenagers, folks in countries without an online payments infrastructure etc.).
aidenn0 15y ago
Well there's also the issue of how many games can I play? I've stopped buying from the humble bundles since the combination of that, plus good old games, I have enough games for now. If I had half a dozen unwatched comedy specials on my hard drive, I wouldn't have bought Louis' video.

ddw 15y ago

I think a lot of people bought this because they enjoy Louis CK and not because they wanted to experience what downloading a video is like. The benefit is that he made it easy and cheap. If he went the conventional route I probably wouldn't have watched this special for a year or so until it came out on Netflix (and I've been a big fan for a long time). I don't have cable and it probably would've cost $14.99+ to own from Amazon and maybe $3.99 to rent (for two days). The benefit to what he did was I can buy it now and do what I want with the copy I own.

wvenable 15y ago

I disagree. I like Louis CK but I haven't looked into this at all and probably in a few weeks I'll have forgotten about it without buying anything. But the model I like. I'd love if I could get all my media DRM free over the internet and be able to pay for it. Right now I torrent and PVR a lot of stuff but the continued existence of programs I like are at the whim of those with Nielsen boxes.

dkersten 15y ago

this experiment only worked because it's "rare" I said the same thing about the humble indie bundle, but they seem to be doing really well still!

wpietri 15y ago

I can't say why it worked for him, but it worked for me as a consumer because it was easy-peasy and felt very safe. I'm perfectly happy to pay for content I can get reliably and instantly. Today I gave Amazon $10 for the two Christopher Nolan Batman films because a) it was dead simple, and b) I trust Amazon not to fuck me over. (And I guess c) it works on my Linux box, and d) I love his work.) In fact, I'm even happier with the Louis CK thing because it's just a file. I'm going to buy another copy for my dad for Christmas, something I doubt Amazon will even let me do. So yes, as far as I'm concerned, yes, everybody should do this. They may not break sales records, but they may not do that the DRM way either.

omouse 15y ago

I hope they do turn it into that! We need all the propangda we can get to turn everyone into an anti-DRM advocate!

danssig 15y ago

Also keep in mind it may not have "worked for him". He made $200k less than he would have using the traditional route. Who knows how long it will take to make that additional $200k from this offering (if he ever will) and I'm skeptical about counting "the long tail" because he would have probably had residuals on a traditional DVD as well.

vidarh 15y ago
Where does it say he made $200k less? The article says he made $200k profit so far, and that this is less, but it doesn't say how much less. It is also numbers 4 days in. Sales don't stop after 4 days. As for residuals, maybe, but it looks from the post as if he is comparing his (so far) $200k profit to a lump sum payment for the rights, though he's not exactly being explicit about that.
- danssig 15y ago
  He personally said that. It was mentioned in this thread. EDIT: Ah correction, he says "this is less than I would have been paid". It's the top comment.

SODaniel 15y ago

You do realize that the revenue that a comedian/Musician take home from a major label contract averages somewhere between 4-9% of total right? If Louis CK would have really just sold the rights to comedy central, HBO etc. He could have 'pocketed' an after tax revenue of maybe $100k, with little post-air revenue. When everything is said and done I am willing to bet my beard that this 'experiment' will net him at least $2 million more then a traditional contract. Of course the 'pet project factor' and his timing played in, but seriously; He was NOT first! Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Smashing etc. have been doing this for years and continue to acknowledge the viability of the self publish model over traditional labels. TLDR; This is not a fad, this is not a 'one off thing'. If you make something worth paying for, people will pay for it.

methodin 15y ago

For me personally it would be refreshing to get something that is so deeply personal to the person or persons I support. Any band, for instance, that I enjoy I would feel overly elated to support something they spent all of THEIR time on. It becomes something very personal and I would know that I am supporting THEM only and not the myriad of people in between that have done nothing deserving. It probably won't work for everyone but I doubt everyone would even try it. It takes a lot of effort and knowledge to pull off unless you have a lot of help.

muhfuhkuh 15y ago

Ever hear of JA Konrath? Neither did I at first. He's, at best, a mid-to-back list writer who had a few novels published back in the late 90s and early 2000s. He started self-publishing his old catalog of books once they were reverted (ie, the publishers saw little/no value in holding the rights, and released the rights back to him). He saw not much in the way of sales, but he pressed on, releasing ebook forms of old and new novels as he published them. Then, the Kindle. As of today, every new title he releases goes straight into the Amazon top 100 list. Every single new one. And, he's not alone. Amanda Hocking, John Locke, Michael Sullivan and hundreds of other new and established writers, some who have zero published work or professional experience have made substantial living self-publishing, mostly in DRM-free epub and mobi formats. None of them are running experiments in digital distribution or DRM that I know of. It's a proven method: For apps, for ebooks, for video (ie Louis CK for paid video and Ryan Higa, Freddie Wong, or Ray William Johnson for ad-supported video). We read (some with disdain, I might add) when someone publishes an ebook through ejunkie that sells a tens of thousands of copies at US$30 a pop, yet we don't question whether that's some "experiment" or not. It's the future. We'll all have to embrace it eventually.

gte910h 15y ago

You know what happens if you publish WITH drm? Actual buyers of the content have issues getting to it, and people who want to pirate easily find it online and download it after some random dude removes the DRM.