More seriously: artist screwed out of the money his art attracts - it must be a Monday!

A few years before Chappelle signed The Contract, Courtney Hole had already “done the math” in a famous piece [0]. She wasn’t even the first - Steve Albini had gone on record (eh) in 1993 [1]. There are many more examples from previous decades, both in music, cinema, TV, novels, comic books... these are just the first ones that spring to mind. The commonality being: established producers and distributors exist precisely to squeeze every once of value out of one’s art, and pay it the bare minimum they can get away with it. My bet is that Netflix will soon be like that too, there is no intrinsic reason they won’t (once they become as utterly dominant as tv networks were).

But I think (I hope) the real beef here is not about the money, but rather the name and characters. He cannot call anything “The Dave Chapelle’s Show” and he cannot touch those characters. He’s done plenty of work with his name on since then (“DC’s Bloc Party”, his comedy specials...), so maybe it’s just the characters he’s after? And what about “I’ll just take it”, is it a threat to reprise those characters and dare the network to sue him...?

[0] https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

[1] https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music

Really? Netflix is not a content meritocracy, and neither are Google, Facebook, Amazon, Spotify, or any other Internet-based media distribution service.

In Netflix's case, there may be some personalization when people are scrolling through the home screen or search, but I suspect these algorithms strongly favor certain studios and releases (including its own) and home screen placement is a valuable negotiating tool in Sarandos' arsenal. That's where the fighting takes place, and individual creators are at a distinct disadvantage in this arena.

Lots of comments about how Dave Chapelle presents his position and the context in which he presents his position. The emotion quality of it all.

The is very little commentary about the core message of his rant - and Ben's comments.

Truth told, it should not be surprising.

The issues at hand are emotional ones about morals, justice and doing the right thing.

They are difficult issue to tackle and require taking subjective positions.

They do not lend themselves to a logical, intellectual and quantitative data-driven dissection.

He does however makes an excellent point from moral, social and justice-based perspective. He is holding media distribution companies at-large to account, and he is doing it from a qualitative perspective.

I suspect we will see more and more of this happening in the corporate world.

Whether companies have, or will acquire, the capacity and fortitude to tackle these issues is now up to them. The idea that profit cannot be the primary and only motive. Those that do will likely find it a rewarding approach in the long run.

What Dave is doing here is linking 'qualitative' issues to 'quantitative' results (money) in a very specific and effective way by, in his words "getting between a man and his paper".

Coercion can invalidate a contract. Also, contracts that are extremely one sided can be legally challenged or that require no consideration from one of the parties. Additionally, contracts based on false information can be invalidated.

If I'm starving and I sign a contract to pay all of my future earnings for a plate of food, no court is going to hold up that contract.

Obviously, the methods used by these big companies are a higher and more complex level of coercion. But I think they deserve some scrutiny in this regard.

I think it’s just a matter of respect. We have the ability to shape and build any system we want. I’ve worked in the arts and people running the system don’t give a shit about the human factor, it’s like a machine run amok.

Maybe it’s a matter of not being greedy and trusting that there’s enough to go around. Decision makers have conscious choice to figure out how to make things better for everybody. A tale as old as humanity.

The primary lever, as I understand it, is that the production company, whether it be movies, music or comedy would tally up all the expenses related to the production and then require that those expenses be paid back, with profit, before The Artist got more than enough to live on. Then, they'd inflate the expenses in any number of creative ways so that in most cases, their accountants could show that the production was a net loss, even when box office and record sales were excellent.

It's a highly exploitative 'monster' and Chapelle is not the only one taking them on. Kanye West has also gotten to work on the record industry [0].

I wonder if sports has a similar problem. Young, talented persons enabling huge industries... it seems that it's ripe for exploitation as well.

[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/kanye-west-univers...

Not as much, because those careers have an expiration date and there is no real reselling value in performances after the first broadcast (with very rare exceptions). Players' agents make a large cut (and it's historically increasing) out of signed contracts, but the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the actual athletes (who then proceed to squander it, typically, since they often come from unprivileged background with no familiarity with long-term wealth management). There is some distortion (agents are more interested in brokering newer and larger contracts than renewing on same terms year after year, regardless of how settled the player is) but it's not really exploitation.

This said, South American and African football are plagued by "third-party ownership" arrangements: investment companies literally buy footballers when young and then take massive cuts from any contract they sign, in perpetuity, in exchange for promotion and rights management. The governing body FIFA has officially banned the practice, but it remains widespread in the poorest regions like Africa.

I actually don't think many people at all, including those raised with money, actually have much knowledge and experience with money. And in fact, lots of middle class people become wealthy and manage that wealth fine.

The real difference is whether you were raised in poverty or not. Because poverty imparts a very different psychology on a lot of people.

Many raised in poverty have the mentality that you had better spend money while you have it, because it will eventually run out or be taken from you. Maybe stolen by someone on the street, but more likely stolen through bank fees lending schemes and other institutional grifts.

That's not to say that poverty can't lead to the extreme opposite, which is to hold on to and save every penny. But either way, poverty can have a strong effect on people.

Middle-class people (in UK/European terms at least) are likely to have had some exposure to long-term wealth management of some sort: owning a house, having a regular income that allows for significant savings, small investments, small businesses, pensions, etc. Hence it's easier for them to "turn out fine", as parents will have taught them the basics of interest and investment, the value of recurring income, inflation, and so on.

The working class, though, is a step below. They have stable paychecks but that's it. There is less of a long-term view, and there is a concept that money is entirely linked to performing work. They are not necessarily poor or ignorant, but they are unprivileged and unfamiliar with "money issues", if not downright hostile to the concept of accumulation - because they'll never be rich, so might as well live a full life instead. A lot of athletes start from here. It's not poverty, but it's also a situation where there is no familiarity with, or propensity for, significant long-term wealth.

And then you have utter poverty, and that's definitely a killer like you said. Some athletes come from here, but not all of them, I would argue not even the majority (although I don't know the stats, and it probably varies across countries). However, from what I read, the issue of well-paid athletes that end up bankrupt after a few years is widespread, and going well beyond the limits of people coming from really poor backgrounds.

However comedy has one rule - you can say anything you want as long as it's funny. You can literally spout anything, just make sure the audience is laughing while you're doing it.

I just spent 18 minutes watching a therapy session with minimal jokes. I would have thought someone as clever as Chapelle would have weaved a better narrative (although he is a talented storyteller).

I hope he gets what he's looking for, I really do.

But I'm also annoyed with the recent trend of comedians just...complaining. Complaining constantly, with slightly more anger than humor. Bill Burr dedicated 20 mins of his recent standup to how "sensitive" the modern generation is. Seinfeld's entire "Comedians in Cars" has numerous bits about him just complaining without being funny while doing it. Sebastian Maniscalco's earlier specieals were relatable humor, and now his recent bits are just slightly angrier versions of "can you believe people these days"?

And now I just watched what seemed like a semi coherent rant that wouldn't end.

If you saw the previous special he released on social media and his opening act for SNL, it's clear that he wants to talk about serious issues without having to sneak them between jokes.

Who says this is comedy?

Who says that what Dave Chapelle has to do is comedy?

Dave Chapelle is at this point a big enough draw and people care enough about what he has to say that they will happily pay to come see him talk about ANYTHING. He is closer to a poet than a comedian at this point.

And to Seinfeld’s credit, his show seems to be intentionally more of a talk show than a comedy show. Bill Burr has ALWAYS complained about sensitivity (kind of a Denis Leary sibling), Lewis Black’s shtick is angry ranting... it’s an entire genre.

Comedians previously ran for much longer on much less material, at least as far as I can tell... and yeah sometimes if they had bad days they’d rant for their entire set... you just didn’t see it.

Two names: George Carlin and Bill Hicks. Absolute complainers-in-chief, their acts where very long rants. Burr, Maniscalco, they all come from that tree. And of you go to local gigs, you’ll find plenty more with the same schtick.

They're canaries in coal mines.

It really must be demoralising to see how frail our ears have become. Or have always been? I mean listening to some Carlin's stand-up can be a bit hard for younger generations (I sometimes wince) and some of his jokes might not be tell-able today... Especially not at work. Or on the bus. Or on the street. Or in front of your mum. Or that friend that doesn't want to hear /some/ words (and you know the words)... Well OK you might still want to tell the joke without believing any of its content. Except, someone might be recording. Filming. OK so no more racist/sexist/transphobe/fatshaming/flatearthmocking jokes.

I deeply regret the validation we give to 'just transgression without humor' humor when we rage about it. The best solution to bad jokes is just no one laughing. Silence is a powerful motivator for a comedian to improve... And the people you want to reach are the ones laughing, not the ones making the joke. And making them feel horrible about a laugh they had might not be the way to reach social justice.

For the perspective of former entertainment lawyer on Chappelle's contract situation please check this video:

https://youtu.be/dl7T_vV3dkY