Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

readtrung.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#31

Post by ChocolateGod »

JustExAWS wrote: post #28
ChocolateGod wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disliking political correctness isn't even limited to the right on the political scale. Bill Maher has spoken out against it for example.

I consider myself liberal on most issues - strong social safety, universal healthcare , pro vax, strong separation between church and state, and hate the demonization of other. But this is political correctness gone crazy. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-gender... I as a Black guy was also put off by the forced indoctrination that BigTech did post 2020 (when I worked there) with all of the “ally…

I too believe in universal healthcare and welfare social nets to catch people who fall, but think we've focussed too much on "feelings" over facts or people wanting to score "social justice" points that don't do anything to fix the ills of society.

Here's another example of political correctness going too far, this time related to tech.

https://www.aswf.io/inclusive-language-guide/

Apparently "native support" is offensive.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#32

Post by quietbritishjim »

waterhouse wrote: post #5
not_your_vase wrote: post #3

It's very long, and seems to be stuffed with a copy of wikipedia, I ain't reading all that. What's that clause? Like Lucas had with Star Wars, they kept the monetization rights for some (at the time) dumb looking stuff, and they struck gold with it?

Looks to be (1269 words into the article according to wc): > [Parker and Stone]’s lawyer, Kevin Morris, insisted that any South Park revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel would go into the pot for calculating the men’s share of back-end profits. Though that might be a precursor to enabling this (400 words later): > With negotiating leverage, Parker and Stone agreed to a 4-year $75 milli…

And that second quote is taken from the cited New York Times article which is the real source

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/media/27south.ht...

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#33

Post by [deleted] »

blkhawk wrote: post #6

TLDR: “A cut of revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel” went from “meaningless” to “huge significance” to “boner-inducing” arguably the greatest clause ever in TV contract history…at a minimum, it’s one of the most improbable all things considered.

[deleted]

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#34

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

skybrian wrote: post #18
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #2

South park is one of my favourite shows. I think that matt and trey aren't the usual billionaires but it would still be cool if they actually donate some of that money since they feel like the guys who don't need a billion dollars and feel humble imo.

I think it’s pretty cool that they bought Casa Bonita.

Yeah I agree.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#35

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

graeme wrote: post #11
shazbotter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.

The South Park owners don't have a billion dollars in liquid wealth each. They have ownership of south park, which is worth billions. If you make them cut their assets down to $100 million each then they don't own South Park. And someone else gets to tell them what to write. Or they retire.

Oh I thought that they had that much money in liquid wealth. My bad.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#36

Post by Quarrelsome »

nurumaik wrote: post #12
shazbotter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.

I can live a life of comfort and luxury with $10k. Can you please donate everything above $10k of your networth right now?

hardly, but there's a cut off point somewhere where additional earnings do so very little but would be life changing if fragmented into the hands of many.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#37

Post by em-bee »

JustExAWS wrote: post #4
not_your_vase wrote: post #3

It's very long, and seems to be stuffed with a copy of wikipedia, I ain't reading all that. What's that clause? Like Lucas had with Star Wars, they kept the monetization rights for some (at the time) dumb looking stuff, and they struck gold with it?

They would get profit sharing for any income that didn’t come from airing on Comedy Central. This was in 1997 before online streaming was really a thing

it is disappointing and almost surprising that this is not the default. not doing this is how creators are get taken advantage of.

more futuristic, i think any profit that is not reinvested into the business, that is, any profit that the owners decide to keep for themselves should be shared in some form with all employees, like a tax.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#39

Post by extraduder_ire »

JustExAWS wrote: post #4
not_your_vase wrote: post #3

It's very long, and seems to be stuffed with a copy of wikipedia, I ain't reading all that. What's that clause? Like Lucas had with Star Wars, they kept the monetization rights for some (at the time) dumb looking stuff, and they struck gold with it?

They would get profit sharing for any income that didn’t come from airing on Comedy Central. This was in 1997 before online streaming was really a thing

It was directly in the era of home video though, and the show got picked up in the first place from people sharing tapes.

This is what enabled them to stream it online themselves from a dedicated website for years though.

Re: South Park creator’s 2007 digital ad revenue sharing clause

#40

Post by usrusr »

shazbotter wrote: post #9
do_not_redeem wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the downsides of people knowing you have money is everyone on earth will judge you for what you do with it. I say let them enjoy it. If you must pressure someone to donate, pressure one of the "usual billionaires" who's funding their torment nexus with it.

There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good. A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.

Yeah, the things is, ownership isn't a natural concept. It's just a social construct. Without that, you own what's in your stomach, what you can hold in your hands and what you can sit on, until the moment you walk away.

I believe that the best amount of processes for revoking ownership not zero. Revoking not as in "we take n money from you because...", but as in "we stop respecting any of your accumulated ownership rights, but you are free to accumulate new ones". A reset like the one called bankruptcy, just for positives.

Currently, in countries that do have the death sentence, ownership is even more untouchable than life. A (hypothetical..) rich person on death row you could still write their will and it would be respected. People will argue "don't punish the children!", but where's the difference really, between "don't gamble it all away, for the sake of your children" and "don't end up on death row, for the sake of your children"? Apparently, ownership is more sacred than life itself and I find that quite hard to stomach.

Note that I'm not advocating for a world where it's common for rich persons to get stripped whenever the masses get a little envious, or whenever redistribution seems convenient. Just for ac world where there is some last resort process defined and accepted that's less bloody than an all-out revolution. Ancient Rome had certain forms of exilation that went with complete property forfeitment as punishment (in reality: as the price for losing a power struggle I guess)

Post reply on HN