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 :)
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?