I was under the assumption they all got paid via proceeds from ticket sales during the initial showing of this material IRL, and that he's just selling tapes/files of it. If so then the utilities/club/etc got paid already for the first showing. They don't need to get paid for merchandise he sells based off that performance unless they had a contract with him to get some of that money from such future sales.

What the...augh! Sorry, I haven't had my coffee yet and the real thing we're discussing and the sports analogy are combining in a way that's confusing the shit out of me. :)

If Louis had gone through HBO or whatever, he would probably have made more money just based on a performance fee. He also wouldn't have had much in the way of expenses, if any at all.

Doing it this way, he was out over $200,000 before he even put the show up for sale. So it was a rather substantial gamble on his part, but one that has paid off. Has he made as much as he would have through HBO or Comedy Central? Not yet (but it could get there). But he's made a bucket of cash AND earned himself a positive PR hit that will likely help him make more down the road. So that's a win win.

Example: Guy does a standup special somewhere and he has it taped. All expenses incurred by the FIRST(live) performance are covered by ticket sales and divided to where the money needs to go. Then the same guy takes the tape he made of the special and sells copies for 5 bucks a piece. In this case he should get to keep the money made off of the sales of the tape to others and no one else because he made the tape and all the costs of the first(live) performance were paid out to those it had to go to already.

Sure, and that's what happened here. Since Louis set it all up himself, once ha paid the camera crews and the club and his website designer, he's free and clear.

However, if he signs a contract with HBO or whoever, he gets his up front fee (which is going to be substantial for any known comic). In exchange for that, THEY are the ones who sell copies of it and broadcast it, but they also pay all of the expenses.

At least here he gets to determine how much he makes(maybe he could make more with the right product than even getting a flat fee?) and also how he sells it and to whom.

Even if he makes somewhat less he's trying to serve the customer and not his own pocket which is always a noble trait to have. :)

Exactly. And like I said, this is the sort of thing people remember fondly. So the next time he does something similar, he's likely do even better.

If Louis would have been to HBO, he would have won more money. But for a very different reason!

When you perform on TV channel you are somewhat paid by channel that get the money first with the advertasing that happens before and after the show. So there is quite a lot of money to share here and then Louis, even if its % is very low, gets more money.

On the contrary when Louis sells his video on the internet, it is his video that generates money directly. A bit like theatre, but with less costs. Still the big amount of money from the advertising is missing, so he ends up with less money. But it's money that he won directly from the consumers. His work, his art makes him win money directly from people.

Less is better sometimes.

Heheh... this is unrelated to the topic a bit, but I always get a kick out of the phrase "win money."

I worked with a fellow from... I believe it was Portugal... I worked with him on this project once. We're on the phone and I say, "This is working out well."

And he says to me, "Yes, we should win a good amount of money this year," or something like that.

Then I remembered in Spanish class, we learned that the verb "ganar" (to win) was used in reference to money. So I guess that's true for many of the Latin languages (Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc.).

In English, for whatever reason, the word "win" doesn't go with "money" in the same way. It would ONLY be appropriate to say "win money" in reference to a game show, a contest, a lottery etc.

But if you get money for working, the phrase is always "earn money."

[ I didn't say this to nitpick. If it's your second language, then there's no reason you would know that. I only mentioned it because it's funny. I picture myself getting a paycheck and going, "Wooohooo, I won the same amount of money as last week!" Hehe...]

It really isn't that great. Personally I'm not a fan of observational comedy anyways, but this felt just... bad.

You raised a pretty good point sir.

While it's not my native language I do have a reason to know that I should use the verb to earn : I went to school and it sounds so much better and right now that you say it! I just did not payed enough attention.

But anyway it's funny because if you want to know, the verb "ganar" or "gagner" in french is firstly difined in the dictionary as (and now I translate word for word) "earn by your work" and then later earn with luck or circumstancies.

And just to share what I just learned about the verb "gagner" (to win) ... it comes from an old word which used to mean "to graze". Hunters used to say when the night comes, the rabbit comes out of his burrow and comes to graze / gagner / win the hunt.

Now we're off topic.

Correct, but he still owns the copyright, had they paid him he would not. Owning that plus getting his work out worldwide (something he says is hard or impossible if he'd gone with a major studio) must have been well worth the difference to him.
I believe a more direct translation of the word ganger, ganar, etc. is "to gain", the usages makes more sense in English if you think of it as the translation anyway (I couldn't find any Latin root indicating that was the original meaning, btw).

If you're translating for meaning it's proper to sub in "earn or win" in their proper context, there's some value to that, but you lose out on any subtleties and connotations when you do that (which is why some of the best translations of Greek tragedies are a royal bitch to read).