bascha

You're totally right--which is why I brought up the counter-argument (as you also noted). But there's a counter to the counter as well: cost and profit are both dependent on what level you're at. And the goal of the DIY effort isn't just profit for the artist--but reasonable prices for the audience of the work and reasonable amounts of control for the artist of the work. I think those are noble goals, and an improvement on the big machine that controls many kinds of artistry today.

For Louis C.K., the cost was greatly increased by the required production values. Could he have been performing at a less expensive venue, and recording the video on a hand-held with a friend doing the camera work? Yes--and that would defray a large amount of cost. Another area where cost shifts is the download mechanism--he hosted his own site, and had to provide enough bandwidth to support an expected large audience. And he chose to produce in multiple formats--download, streaming, etc. All those things had extensive overhead that could at least be shrunk for a less-wealthy/less-famous artist.

The question of whether it's profitable is also sliding-scale. Will Joe Musician or Jane Comedian make a million dollars? Probably not. Odds are they won't even make a few thousand dollars, much less that they'll make enough for it to become their full-time job. But for all the Joes and Janes toiling in obscurity, there will occasionally be someone like Amanda Hocking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Hocking), who isn't expecting their self-publishing to become anything and then all of a sudden, they've found the success they could only dream of.

And on the consumer side of the equation--I'm not seeing as many downsides. (It's possible I'm missing some of them, which you're welcome to point out! ;P) People get a larger variety of artistic work, at a more reasonable price. Most of the folks that self-publish are people who might never see a large-scale recording or entertainment industry contract. This material wouldn't be available were it not for self-publishing. They may not have huge mega-success, but this does provide the opportunity for exposure, and perhaps a small cadre of dedicated fans.

As for Brad Sucks, here's what he says about his own efforts (from his official web site's 'About' section, http://www.bradsucks.net/about/ ):

<em>"I put my music online because I want people to hear it. I'd obviously love to make a living making music, but if the worst-case scenario is becoming a well-heard artist that never gets paid, I can live with that."</em>

Brad Sucks doesn't seem to be making a living through his website. But then again, most comedians (and musicians, and writers, etc.) who have recording, publishing, or tour contracts... aren't making a million dollars either. A lot of them aren't making a living--writing in particular is a low-margin game. Publishing a book, even 'professionally', doesn't make you a writer who can quit your day job (just ask my dad). And most signed bands toil in obscurity, put out one record, and then quietly go back to whatever job they were doing before, and gigging on the weekends.

And if they publish independently, at least they still own their stuff when they're done.

Yes, yes, and yes. Music downloads that didn't transfer from one machine to another, book downloads that got locked up when I switched devices, and a massive harddrive wipeout that toasted a TON of stuff--having to find and re-acquire everything is pain enough, without having to go several rounds with whatever service it is to convince them that, yes, you have rights to that content. And most places--well, let's just say there's a reason I quickly stopped using the iTunes store...