To those who might wish to "torrent" this video: look, I don't really get the whole "torrent" thing. I don't know enough about it to judge either way. But I'd just like you to consider this: I made this video extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without "corporate" restrictions.
Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I'm just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can't stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way.
Wow. His simple tone belies the brilliance in his writing here. I seriously doubt he just spent 5 minutes scribbling this out as an afterthought. He gets a few key ideas across:
- he doesn't understand torrenting and so is helpless against it
- he cares about his viewers more than taking advice about DRM
- the video is owned solely by him and not some soulless corporation, and you're directly hurting him by torrenting
- you'll destroy his faith in mankind if you torrent
- five dollars is nothing compared to all that!
All of which combines to make you feel like a huge asshole for even considering pirate bay - in the nicest possible way. This type of thing makes a lot more sense than DRM in his case, and I bet it's a lot more effective too.
Definitely. The only reason I bought it was to support DRM free content, not because I was actually particularly interested in it. If this was standard practice I would not just be buying for the novelty.
That said, I definitely think it is possible to build a scalable system that works, it just needs some innovation.
The answer to that is complex, but worth considering what happens without it. A perfect example would be the Bill Hicks guest appearance on David Letterman that was not allowed to air because the material was considered too sensitive.
You haven't needed a PayPal account to pay through PayPal since at least 2005. Unless the merchant disables "Account Optional", it's just a run-of-the-mill credit card payment form with an option to log in to the side.
But PayPal makes it as inconvenient as possible for non-members. The form is extremely long and if I recall correctly, doesn't work with Safaris Auto-Fill feature.
That's all it asks. That's exactly what everyone else asks for. The merchant can even pre-fill all these fields but the card info before sending the buyer to PayPal if they filled them out on the merchant's website already.
It's especially weak to make such a complaint based on your "recollection" while you're two pages away from the actual payment form for Louis' show.
He didn't know he could pay with paypal without joining it, now he knows it.
Other HN-ers might see this post, realize they don't need paypal, and go back to buy the video.
IMO this shouldn't be down-voted.
p.s. I know I could have just upvoted it instead of writing this useless post (Which I'd understand if you downvote me by the way), but I thought my point would be clearer with a message rather than a battle of upvote/downvote.
It's not worth complaining about a couple of karma points when I have thousands. And to be fair they downvoted me before I realized my mistake.
I'm not familiar with this artist, but I wanted to see it out of simple curiosity because he seems to be an artist who puts fans ahead of profits. People like that usually produce high-quality work.
>>HI. I’m Louis CK. Can you please take this down? This show is a work in progress and was not intended to be passed around the internet. I have absolutely no problem, personally, with file sharing, and if you take everythign [sic] I have on the market on DVD, CD, and put it up for free downloading, I don’t care. But this is an artistic and personal request. Please take this torrent down. thanks.
LCK
I'm a huge fan, but professing total ignorance of all things technology reminds me of being in the fourth grade. Luckily for him doing an IAMA on Reddit doesn't involve performing sex acts on a donkey. Seriously, either he's become one of America's most successful standups in spite of his complete naivete, or he's a lot more shrewd than he's making out.
Actually, if I remember correctly from his interview on the WTF podcast, his father is a programmer and Louis was always pretty technologically adept. E.g. he edits his TV show himself on his MacBook.
why not? He already got paid a significant sum by the ticketholders at beacon theater, so all he has to recoup is the cost of producing the special, which he did largely himself.
The marginal cost of distributing an additional copy of his work is minimal, and his pricing reflects that, and makes people more likely to pay for it rather than steal it.
Can you elaborate on why you don't think this is a general solution?
It's completely a generalizable solution. From upstart standups who tape their open night sets for YouTube to seasoned comics with tv shows and HBO specials like Louis CK and David Cross (who similarly self-produced his last special "Bigger and Blackerer" by asking his buddy to tape 2 of his sets, though he didn't self distribute), this model absolutely works.
Louie's just doing for comedy what have been doing for years, recording the concert and selling it at the end of the night or online for more than they'd have made otherwise through traditional distribution deals.
Even then, you're looking at similar economics. HBO is willing to pay you $X for your special because you have an audience that is worth (at least) $X to them.
For a lesser known artist or comedian, you lose the power of the distribution channel, but you gain in margins. The opportunity for cross-promotion in the form of an opening act is still alive and well, and I don't see why it can't continue in a digital form.
I'd argue that if someone isn't 'quite as good', then they don't deserve anyone's money. The biggest problem with the music/movie/entertainment industry today is that all of the backing is behind 'sellable' artists, not talented ones. Take all that promotion and marketing and brainwashing away, and you have a group of entertainers being judged on their true merits. I think thats fair - I don't really understand how anyone else wouldn't.
Louis CK spent nearly 15 years in the wild as a hack comedian before he found his voice, according to his own commentary. We wouldn't have his excellence now if it weren't for him being able to keep himself fed through his work while not 'quite as good'.
You're missing my point, completely. Louis CK deserves his place today precisely because he spent 15 years struggling. In my comment above, I took issue with a plethora of entertainers out there today who _didn't_ have to struggle, who leveraged sex, image and brand names to get to where they were. It is this harsh reality that makes so many artists give up while they're not quite as good, so I applaud Louis CK for being one of the few who weathered the storm and eventually found their place. They deserve their success more than most who have it.
You're missing my point: if there was no money if you had less than stellar talent, we wouldn't have most of our stellar talent. If there was no money for Louis CK when he was in his crap phase, he couldn't have stuck at it long enough to 'get it' and go stellar.
When I said you were missing my point, I wasn't saying your opinion is wrong. You're actually pointing out another injustice altogether, rather than disagreeing with me. Look back to my original comment. I took issue with the Justin Biebers of the world getting too much of the pie. You took issue with the Louis CKs of the world getting too little. We don't have conflicting opinions here, and they don't need to be mutually exclusive.
Someone (you or another user) is down-modding my comments, and i can't really understand why. I feel they contribute to the discussion (a feeling confirmed by the simple fact that you've engaged with and responded to them). Judging by your profile, it seems like you too are against the idea of down-modding simply because you disagree with an opinion. If you are the one down-modding me, I'd consider that both hypocritical and shameful, but I'm not one to jump to conclusions, and will happily give you the benefit of the doubt.
On the downmodding thing, the only thing to do is thicken your skin. The moderation system here is bloody stupid, inferior to moderation systems from 10 years ago. I'll not rehash my further arguments against it, you've already found them :)
He also shoots and edits his own show (Louie, on FX) using a RED camera and his own laptop. He famously fought for total editorial control of his show (to the betterment of all of us viewers) and now he's not even taking a step back when it comes to distribution. Good for him
Louis CK is an interesting example of an artist who has grown. His stuff from 20 years ago (that I've seen, at least) was really bad; it was timid and boxed in by convention, which is death to comedy. Somewhere along the way he obviously said fuck it and started telling the truth more directly and provocatively. And that is how lead is transmuted into gold. Funniness is almost a side effect.
Now he seems closer than anyone working in this area to Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks territory (if anybody's closer, I'd love to hear about them) with at least a shot at equalling them, which would be amazing.
In this video [1], he explains what happened "somewhere along the way". TL;DW: He failed at being a successful comic by telling the same jokes for 15 years, then got inspired by and emulated George Carlin, threw everything away and started over.
His story is not only inspiring, it transcends comedy. The idea that a mixed but passionate reaction is better than a lukewarm one applies to startups as well as entertainment.
I like Patton Oswalt and also Chris Rock, but both have gotten schtickier as time has gone on.
The same undercurrent of respect for comedy- as- craft runs through Patton Oswalt's stuff though, which even if that doesn't automatically make him Bill Hicks, I still very much enjoy hearing about.
Louis CK is also excellent live; if you're seeing him live in a given year, you're basically guaranteed to be getting an entirely new show.
Greg Proops is fantastic, but not everybody will like him. But he definitely ventures into less funny and more socially conscious territory with comfort and without pretension (ok, maybe a little pretension).
Doug was on Louie this season and did an amazing job. He seems to be a comedian's comedian--his name comes up in interviews all the time when comedians are asked who's their favorite among their peers.
Part of Doug's persona is an utter lack of self-respect or self-worth. I think his unapologetic lack of genuine insight into some of the issues he discusses portrays an universal and uncompromising policy of total honestly which is very powerful.
Much of his performances involve veering sharply from some relatively considered insight into the human condition to some completely unnecessarily graphic tirade against a trivial aspect of his everyday life, with absolutely no break between them. In many ways it's as much performance art as it is standup, he has a more fundamentalist attitude towards attacking sacred cows than any other comedian I can think of.
Also I'd add that his more recent work is considerably improved on a lot of his slightly more incoherent stuff from earlier in his career. His "No Refunds" DVD from 2007 is a lot more focused and better paced. Check it out.
I'm really glad he did this. I picked up a copy, and in fact am quite glad when I can actually purchase DRM free content. I take a principled position against intellectual property, but that doesn't mean I don't support artists - I just don't endorse monopolies. Hopefully, overtime as more and more artists release content themselves the middlemen will go out of business and we can move towards a more free society.
The Marc Maron 2-part interview with Louis is one of the best podcasts ever made. Louis goes into his production process, how he creates 2 hours of new material every year, and why he brought in Jean Luc Godard's DP to film Pootie Tang. Will definitely make you want to put up a measly 5 bucks for just about anything Louis does.
Since I'm not willing to pay for an app just to listen to one podcast, the "2 hours of new material every year" bit (I'm assuming) is also explained in Louis CK's speech about the late George Carlin.
WTF is the best comedy podcast out there, hands-down. The 2-part with Louis is worth the price of admission alone, but there's many more that are as well. If you like comedy at all and a contrarian, alternative point of view, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Little bit off topic but WTF, while awesome, isn't really a comedy podcast because it isn't funny. If you're looking for something like that check out Comedy Bang Bang or something.
Comedy is in the ear of the beholder. I have had far more meaningful laughs (whatever the heck that means) at WTF then at comedy bang bang. I would say download both of them, they are totally different things.
I dunno, it sticks pretty close to the style and tone of Maron's own stand-up, which like Louis's is deeply personal and raw and itself challenges what constitutes 'comedy' to some degree. I'd say it's funny in the same way Maron himself is funny.
I bought this purely to support him for being brave enough to release it DRM-free. Currently watching it and trying not to snort my drink over my laptop due to laughing too much.
I enjoyed Curb - I made it through one and a half seasons - but I couldn't continue watching it. I may just have a low threshold for enduring discomfort, but Curb just keeps pushing and pushing the cringe meter. For Louis CK, it's about what happens WITH the discomfort. Curb, to me, is a DISPLAY of discomfort that is funny to a point, but then just has very little redeeming value beyond that.
Another example of the same dilemma would be Ricky Gervais - I really enjoy his comedy specials and stand-up work, but I couldn't watch the original Office or something like Extras. It's funny alright, but if I have to pause it for the cringe to go away every other minute, it just looses focus to me. Cringe->Funny is a proven vehicle these days, bit it's to a point where I find it a little too simple, really.
Anyhow - Louis CK (and, to a point, Gervais in his stand-up) glances at the cringe and then opens up a world of insight around it that is way funnier than just having the cringe meter top off every thirty seconds.
I know exactly what you mean here. I also sometimes have trouble tolerating cringe-comedy situations although seemingly not as bad as you.
I actually used to get very uncomfortable while watching some Shakespearian comedy-of-errors plays. The type where the audience knows something that the actors don't. Makes me want to shout at them which is I guess the point however I feel like it is not an enjoyable type of anxiety.
Perhaps it is the engineer/nerdy part of us but I really don't enjoy watching people make mistakes.
Yes, I do think that is the case. I also just, very plainly, don't see that much craft in drama-from-ignorance. Sure, "x knows something that y doesn't, subsequently y runs into a number of cringeworthy encounters" does make for drama, but if somebody saying "no y, actually, it's THIS" would destroy the entire plot from thereon, I find the whole setup a bit stale.
Same goes for "x is a twat, situations involving x will make you cringe" shows - there are only a few like that which I can tolerate and they make a huge effort to assign enough other redeeming qualities to x to make up for it. For Curb, I do like Larrys character, but after a while, it seemed like he existed solely to feed the cringe.
And yes, I have it bad. The last episodes of Curb that I watched, I permanently had my finger on the space bar. Sometimes, I would have to pause it for periods of time that were longer than the show itself.
An awful lot of it is, yes. I suspect it has something to do with what John Cleese once coined to be the Brits' paramount desire to just make it into your grave without being embarrassed once.
I've enjoyed much of Louis CK's content without a chance to put some money in his pocket. So I've bought this.
$5 feels like a good price point. I don't think I would have paid $20, especially if I knew that he would only be getting a small fraction of that. Bonus points for making it a 1.2 GB h264 encode. I hope this works out great for Louis and makes other people want to try it.
Best part of this for me is that I can now actually pay to watch something outside of the US from an artist I like. If you don't live outside the US or UK you probably don't realize how rare that is.
I'd LOVE to see more content producers distributing their own content rather than giving money to middlemen. I am not sure if this would also work for people that DON'T have their own TV show but just start doing things. Maybe something akin to "openers" on concerts would work. Bundling less known content in a "pay what you want" basis.
Although I agree, I'm not sure this distribution method scales as is. I just sent Louis 5 bucks, downloaded the video, copied it to a USB drive, and then hooked it up to my Roku. I'm fine doing that ad hoc process occasionally, but if I got most of my media this way it'd get old very fast.
Surely there is a better way to distribute this stuff such that it doesn't take away the nice advantages and gives most/all the money to the artist too?
It's pretty close to that now. I have an RSS feed hooked up to µTorrent that automatically downloads new items I add to my RSS feed (in this case it's TV shows from a private tracker website) or newly available ones from my existing list of favorites. The downloaded files get stored to a folder on my Drobo which I could hypothetically have Plex scan and add to my media library. Instead, because I'm anal about my media sorting, I manually move them to folders by movie/show/season/artist/etc that Plex scans. But that's overkill. Plex then makes my media available on my big TV through my Mini, my bedroom TV through my jailbroke AppleTV and on my mobile devices through the Plex iOS apps.
If the market ever allows for a consumer-level product to achieve this (my solution is very geeky) and it works well, it will be successful.
My mileage varies. I love that I don't have to let some "platform" like iTunes or Steam put its tentacles in my computer in order to get an individual piece of media.
You're totally right, but those optimizations to this process don't become economically feasible until more than a few people are making a living this way. Sending Louis CK $5 right now is a simple way to make it possible for him to be an example for others in his industry, and thus create a market for the type of product you are talking about. So you've already started solving your own problem, and you didn't even write a line of code!
I think there's a huge pent-up demand for software that makes it easy for artists to publish their own content on their own websites easily and also makes making and collecting payments as easy as downloading torrents.
Probably something like that already exists, but the fact is that most of the content seems to be aggregated in different kinds of services that the artists don't really control themselves.
agree with sibling comment - what exactly happens when i sign up? so i get a link to send people, what does the user see? how do they pay? etc. these are the first questions i have and should be answered on the landing page, maybe with a video demo.
Another bit of feedback - imo remove the end bit of this sentence, in your FAQ re. pricing: "Simple. It's 5% + $0.30 for each transaction. We're working hard to get this lower.". You have just put the idea in my head that 5% + 0.3 is too much. now i have doubts. maybe now i should shop around? or roll my own? or wait for prices to go down? no need to sow this seed. 5% + 0.3, and you are covering transaction costs? total bargain
you should think about why somebody like louis ck would spent what sounds like a lot of money to setup it up themselves rather than go to an existing service
it sounds like these guys want control of the process and the users. you could ping them and provide something they don't have at the moment, like a better solution to the downloading streaming (Which some users a complaining about)
this could be a huge opportunity for you, i'd definitely ping him
The idea seems good, but I think many people would prefer a demo (or more explanation) about how it actually works, preferably without the user needing to supply his/her email.
On the technical side, the scrolling text seems to overlap to the next line on some zoom-settings (I'm using Firefox 8 if it matters).
I checked out the link and found it a little sparse and details. What does it mean to sell a link? I think you need a lot more info on the landing and about pages.
Louis CK is a media maverick and I wish him good luck. His only condition for the network when he created his TV series was "you don't screw with my writing". And he chases opportunities like this because he just thinks in his gut that it might be the better way forward. Most personalities are too in thrall to meddling PR overlords to take principled stands like these.
I bought this not only because Louis CK is both awesome and hilarious, but because I really, really want his "method" to become more widespread. I know it's a long shot, but I hope so many people buy this because of how he's released it that it garners some serious attention towards the issue and proves that restrictions like DRM are actually hurting the applicable industries.
Just bought it. While I'm really happy to support DRM free content, I must say I am somewhat disappointed that you can only download it twice.
"PLEASE NOTE that you can only stream the film twice AND you can download the film twice. Once you start a stream of the film, your stream will be active for 8 hours. Once you have exceeded your streaming and download limits, you will need to purchase the film again to stream or download it again. However once you have fully downloaded the film, you are of course free to watch it as many times as you like. "
So if you bought it and exhausted your download limit, just torrent it. Or just buy and torrent it in the first place to save a little extra for Louis.
I think his use of the word "torrent" (which he admittedly does not fully understand) was a proxy for "watch this video without paying for it." I doubt he understands seeding--and even if he does, you can simply turn seeding off.
BTW, to whoever downvoted enneff's reply: this seems senseless. I asked for a polite explanation, he gave one, and it's an interesting point of view (even though many of us may disagree with it).
For amazon cloudfront at the most expensive tier it buys close to 42 GB but then there would be no profit in sending the file 34 times (someone said it was a 1.2 GB file).
It makes sense to me why he is only allowing a few downloads otherwise a few extreme users could take up all his money just by streaming.
I think it's on AWS. So whatever that buys you on Amazon.
The 2 download limit made me worry about disconnecting or restarting the download. I also can't make my download manager open more than one connection, in case that locks me out of the content I just bought. I think it should be higher, but I understand that he can't give away too much bandwidth without cutting into his profits.
I would love to know more about how this was produced. Like what level of decision Louis himself was involved in.
The writing is great and the design is clean. I want to believe he micromanaged everything. Or even that he made this site himself and that this line was a paste-o that he forgot to remove.
Edit: Nuts: "their company (that built the site) is called Version Industries". gotta tweet that shit."
I recommend reading his explanation of why he did it the way he did (meaning DRM-free and based on trust), even though he's been advised not to.
It's very earnest and has a feel of "listen, I created this. You're likely to like it. If you give me a bit of money, I'll give you access to it. You can do whatever you want with it, but just keep in mind that I worked and paid for it being made."
a.k.a what Louis CK would probably sum up as "just don't be an asshole, ok?"
I hope he pulls it off and if anyone can it's someone with as much credibility and talent as Louis CK.
I feel like I'm getting a bargain at $5, knowing how much enjoyment I'll get from his material. That couldn't be said for the majority of studio-supported/produced mind-numbing crap out there.
Sa-da-tay!
A small point, but something that is really nice. At the end of the form where you enter your email address, the sign up to his mailing list is checked no by default. I switched it to yes partially because of that.
If the success of NiN's "Ghosts I-IV" was not sufficient, I doubt that one will be. It's a long walk, uphill, on a 10G planet, of a slope the size of Olympus Mons.
Well DRM helps nothing to stop a video from being torrented, so why bother with it.
I think Louis CK is smart enough to understand this, and with this personal appeal will probably sell better than using the usual methods.
I bought a copy because of this. It's nice to support the artist directly especially when the video file finally is as good as the versions you usually find only on torrent sites (no "you criminal" warnings eg. like on store bought DVD:s. Nice way to thank those that have actually paid for the content...).
Oh that's not how I meant it. I've paid my $5 for it and downloaded
it, and that link I posted will return a 403 without the right
authorization.
I posted it because I was worried that I couldn't download it with
wget before I bought it, I'm on a 3G connection through my phone and I
wanted to download it to my server so I could download it later from a
more capable connection.
I sent the below E-Mail to their support address (support@louisck.net)
and I'd encourage others who bought this to send something similar do
the same. I think it's important to tell artists that this sort of
distribution is appreciated:
Thanks for making this show available in non-DRM format. I haven't
watched it yet, but I bought it and downloaded it already.
My friends and I have been following your work for a while, I've
watched both your HBO TV shows and downloaded a bunch of your
standups. But since I don't live in the US and don't want to buy DRM
content I haven't paid you for any of this.
However I'm happy to be able to when you offer something in this
format. I can pay for it even if I don't live in the US, and I don't
have to buy something like a DVD or subscribe to something like iTunes
where I'll effectively be getting a worse service by locking the media
I buy into some corporation's proprietary distribution platform.
But if you keep offering things in this way in the future I'll be sure
to pay for them.
It's not that I'm cheap. I make a very good living, and I'm happy to
pay for things. I just think it's unethical to pay for media when part
of the proceeds go to conglomerates like the MPAA which are actively
working towards reducing freedom on the Internet.
Thanks for subscribing to the Louis C.K. email list. I swear to Christ* I will not bother you now that I have your email.
To complete your subscription, you need to confirm you got this email. To do so, please click the link below:
...
*(of course I mean Bill Christ, who owns a Fiat dealership in Ronkonkoma, NY and has diabetes)
Which makes me think - why does anyone write boring standard auto emails? But I guess no one is as funny as him and we don't need more Groupon copy in the world.
Chromium crashed during my first attempt to download the show and then I ran out of free disk space the second time (yeah, SSDs are a bit too small).
Anyway, my point is that starting a download and then only getting a couple of MBs shouldn't really count as using a download slot. On the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to check how much data has been transferred using existing technology. He seems to be using Amazon CloudFront.
Ideally it'd work where they generate a URL for you that works for 24 hours or something like that, or they give you a one time url, but you can generate as many as you'd like for 24 hours. If for instance they see someone generate 100 or 1000 or something they can then revoke their permissions.
Based on the tone of Louis CK in his description, I would try sending some feedback on the problem... he appears receptive. It's only been available for one day so far, so I imagine he would appreciate a chance to improve the system.
I checked out the sample video and noticed in the end louisck.COM was mentioned and not lousck.NET. Both of the sites seem to look alike, except .net version has more tweets.
This gives me so much hope....I think we are going to see a revolution in Art and Media as more of these guys start getting "it"...The days of Big brother and his army of douchebag MBA's is soon going to be over!
Just look at it as an example of an artist taking his work directly to the public and sidestepping the overhead and hassle of traditional digital media distribution models. That's cool, isn't it?
If you don't like his comedy that's fine, but he's a nationally recognized performer with his own show. I think that elevates his status just slightly above "just some guy", don't you?
The worst that's likely to happen is they ask him to send a copy of ID and a bill with his address on it, he faxes it over and the account is unlocked the same business day. Does it seem unreasonable that a payment processor should want some evidence of the account holder's identity (much like banks are required by law to collect) once they're in a position to pay out tens of thousands of dollars?
> Wait until paypal sees hundreds of thousands of $5 payments and a balance over $100k
A lot of the account freezings happen when the receiver of the payments isn't distributing an actual product (donations, fundraisers, etc). Louis could very easily provide the details of all the downloads, confirming delivery of the product.
To those who might wish to "torrent" this video: look, I don't really get the whole "torrent" thing. I don't know enough about it to judge either way. But I'd just like you to consider this: I made this video extremely easy to use against well-informed advice. I was told that it would be easier to torrent the way I made it, but I chose to do it this way anyway, because I want it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want without "corporate" restrictions.
Please bear in mind that I am not a company or a corporation. I'm just some guy. I paid for the production and posting of this video with my own money. I would like to be able to post more material to the fans in this way, which makes it cheaper for the buyer and more pleasant for me. So, please help me keep this being a good idea. I can't stop you from torrenting; all I can do is politely ask you to pay your five little dollars, enjoy the video, and let other people find it in the same way.
Sincerely, Louis C.K.