Finnish Bureaucracy Takes Issue With Crowdfunded Textbook

linjaaho writes "Senja Larsen, who runs popular Facebook study group Senja teaches you Swedish, collected $14,161 via Kickstarter's crowd funding service. The project caught much media attention in Finland (TV and all major newspapers), since it is the first crowdfunded book project in this country, and among the first Finnish crowdfunded projects. (Previous ones include the movie Iron Sky, the role-playing game Myrskyn Sankarit, and the Wishbone headphone wire manager). Now, after successfully collecting the funds for the book (and after the book has been edited and printed), the National Police Board of Finland has asked Senja to submit a statement [PDF; Finnish] concerning using crowdfunding to finance a project [PDF; Finnish] and the terminology used. It is possible that all the funding collected must be returned. The main problem is that direct translations of terminology at Kickstarter, such as 'bounty' and 'support,' are interpreted to mean collecting money without giving anything back, and this kind of operation requires a permit which can be only given to associations, not to private persons, and it takes long to apply for such permit."

Comments

.gov gone wild

[Kergan]

Yet another case of bureaucracy gone wild...

Re:.gov gone wild

[Keruo]

This legislation has very valid reasons to exist, it prevents money laundering.
It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things without finding out all required details and getting slapped by government for not getting permits to operate.
This stuff is taught in elementary school, maybe the author should have paid more attention at Yhteiskuntaoppi classes.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things

So you're quite happy to live in a world where every time you want to "do things" you have to go scouring through law books and beg the government for permission?

Re:.gov gone wild

[Jerry Smith]

It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things

So you're quite happy to live in a world where every time you want to "do things" you have to go scouring through law books and beg the government for permission?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

I guess s/he probably is. And since his/her gouvernment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index is considered pretty decent, Kickstarter might rethink some of the terms and conditions. They could be misinterpreted, after all.

Re:.gov gone wild

[AK Marc]

When "do things" is a business, then nearly everywhere there are regulations, and everyone knows it. Only an idiot would start a business without figuring out what the rules are.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Trepidity]

Unlike in the U.S., which has a huge mess of laws nobody knows about from dozens of agencies and levels of government, in the Nordic countries the legal system is actually fairly streamlined, and most citizens are aware of their rights and obligations under the law. One reason you don't see the jails as full of people as in the USA.

Re:.gov gone wild

[ewanm89]

Kickstarter is operating under US law in terms of monetary transfers, from the Kickstarter FAQ:

To be eligible to start a Kickstarter project, you need to satisfy the requirements of Amazon Payments:

—You are 18 years of age or older.
—You are a permanent US resident with a Social Security Number (or EIN).
—You have a US address, US bank account, and US state-issued ID (driver’s license).
—You have a major US credit or debit card.

Re:.gov gone wild

[zyzko]

Actually, in this case the defense of Senja Larsen is that she is doing business, not collecting money without giving anything back - which is easier in Finland than getting a permit for asking money for "nothing" or a "good cause".

The law is considered by many associations a relic and it can be abused - for an example Electronic Frontier Finland was sued by the state because their website stated that according to their rules they can receive donations and there was an account number visible. State lost - but they "had to prosecute" because someone anonymously demanded so.

On the other hand the law:

- Prevents money laundering.
- Makes it easier to shut down shady operations which for an example state to collect money for cancer kids and the money goes actually to Thailand vacations of a few "charitable persons" and the kids get two used playstations - at least there is some oversight on who can publicly collect money.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Kergan]

Seems to me that there are a gazillion other, better means to launder money... For instance gambling outfits or night clubs, or RE development in 3rd-world countries.

Re:.gov gone wild

[asdf7890]

It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things

So you're quite happy to live in a world where every time you want to "do things" you have to go scouring through law books and beg the government for permission?

And I suppose you are happy living in a world where kids can't have decent chemistry sets because TERRORISM!!1!, and where it is difficult to get through an airport with a laptop because TERRORISTS!!!, in fact where you have to be intimately rubbed down by the TSA in said airport because TERROR!!!!!!!, and so on and so forth.

America: the land of the brainwashed-into-thinking-they-are-more-free-than-others.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Arancaytar]

most likely won't have permit to do so

So... what form does one fill out to apply for a permit for a terrorist attack?

Re:.gov gone wild

[Charliemopps]

You miss the point, there is no permit he can get. He'd have to form a business or organization. As always government regulation adds cost, complexity and may even kill this project. All for the noble purpose of preventing money laundering? Which this is clearly not. But we can't let common sense intervene.

Re:.gov gone wild

[SQL Error]

It's not bureucracy gone wild, just common citizen doing things without finding out all required details and getting slapped by government for not getting permits to operate.

So it's bureaucracy run wild, then?

Re:.gov gone wild

[cheekyjohnson]

How do you know he doesn't oppose both?

Re:.gov gone wild

[Skuld-Chan]

The one to be on the ballot in every state when running for president of the united states.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Anonymous Coward]

Get with the program... You need permission to collect donations.

Re:.gov gone wild

[asdf7890]

I don't for sure, but statements like that usually have a "my country is better than yours, ner ner neh ner ner" tone rather than a "every country is shite" one.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Anonymous Coward]

Bank of America and Wachovia don't operate in Finland.

And, yes, people do launder money through charities, all the time.

The law is good. It hasn't, as indicated by the KickStarter project creator herself, caught up with the times. This may force changes into the law.

Re:.gov gone wild

[khallow]

This legislation has very valid reasons to exist, it prevents money laundering.

Yet another reason to deep six that legislation. The Finnish government could just tax stuff, like property, that can't run off and hide in another country. Taxing cash flow is very tempting for obvious reasons, but like so many other usually well-intended efforts, it requires intrusive government monitoring in order to work.

Now, I recognize Finland isn't ever going libertarian and most of their citizens aren't going to care in the least about my observation above. But they really need to recognize bad unintended consequences when they happen. Here is a novel method for funding entrepreneurs and it's being strangled, at least in Finland, by bureaucrats.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Tore S B]

The person is operating a business - admittedly, on non-standard terms - but she is running a business. That does include a requirement to understand and comply with the basic laws of the land. And she has done it in a way which runs afoul of some laws that are there for good reasons but which are not impossible to get around.

It's bureaucracy doing exactly what it is supposed to do: Ensuring a functional market by regulating it competently.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Kjella]

So you're quite happy to live in a world where every time you want to "do things" you have to go scouring through law books and beg the government for permission?

In a lot of cases where I'd call it preemptive crime prevention, yes. For example if you pretend to be a doctor but don't have a license to practice medicine, we don't have to wait for an actual malpractice case. You are already breaking the law just by trying. If you operate a restaurant I don't mind that you have to have a permit so that health inspectors both know you exist and have a right to investigate your facilities before you put people in the hospital. If you pretend to operate a charity, I don't mind that you need a permit that requires documentation that the money goes where you say it's going and is not a fraud. I don't mind that the government must approval of your rental units before there is a house fire where someone doesn't get out because there's no fire exit and you're charged with manslaughter.

A permit is not something the government should hand or not hand out on a whim, it should have a clearly defined list of requirements and those who fulfill the requirements should get a permit. Of course you could say that the "free market" should fix this, that people would simply stop going to unsanitary restaurants but the practical experience has been that the market hasn't fixed this so instead of quoting dogma we found a solution that did. Sure you can have too much bureaucracy as well, but a lot of the time the businesses trying to fly "under the radar" without a permit do so because they are breaking a lot of other laws and regulations that are there for a reason. If I just pick a place to eat at random I don't expect great food, but I do expect that it's fit for human consumption. It's really not too much to ask.

Re:.gov gone wild

[king neckbeard]

So, because the countries are nice in many respects, all of their policies are better than those of other countries?

Re:.gov gone wild

[Jerry Smith]

So, because the countries are nice in many respects, all of their policies are better than those of other countries?

The accusation was that the government was teh sux0r because of the bureaucracy. My addition was that the government seems to do quite well, despite the bureaucracy/because of the bureaucracy.

I hope that answered your question.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Javit]

That doesn't address the issue. Obviously. Unless you'd consider an on-average "happy" constituency and credible government a defense of any possible policy. But I suppose it's to be expected; your planet probably doesn't have propagandized citizenries and disenfranchised minorities.

Re:.gov gone wild

[HornWumpus]

Yikes. Gotta guess if they included drinking yourself to death Finland would look even _worse_.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Aryden]

Planning a terrorist attack, legal

Wrong, it's conspiracy to commit an act of terror.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know the suicide rate is high in Finland (in particular, above the Arctic circle) mainly due to the long periods darkness 6 months out of every year, right?

Re:.gov gone wild

[AK Marc]

Nope. I moved out of the US (for obvious reasons, watch either of the conventions for the obvious reasons if you are obtuse). I can't get money out of the US without showing up in person at a bank. Period. There are a number of foreign exchange and gambling sites that will let you shop/play from a number of countries. But if you fund your account with USD from a US bank, you may not withdraw from a foreign country. I'm not saying all, but that's how it was for all I saw when I looked.

I ended up sending a few hundred thousand dollars to a relative's bank account, hoping they'd send it along to me. After a handling fee of $250,000 was removed, I got about 70% of the rest sent acccording to my wishes (granted the handling fee was to another relative who had a claim against me for my father screwing up his will, so not pure theft, but settling a debt that was in dispute, now that they have the money, I can only dispute it by filing charges against relatives, and they know I won't, so it's lost forever, and the 30% is sitting in a bank account in the US that is in my name, even if I can't get at the money easily). The "solution" would have been to fly back to the US, get it in cash, declare the cash at all of my flight points back, and hope it wasn't confiscated by the government without reason or hearing.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Luckyo]

Whoever wrote this is either massively misinformed, or intentionally lying. It's very easy to simply form a ry (rekiströity yhdistys - registered organisation) and then apply for all necessary permits in this ry's name.

Seriously, this is taught here in 9th class of mandatory school. It's not rocket science. The person in question failed HARD at basics, and whoever wrote the article is basically whining "this country with different approach from mine is bad". Which as pointed above, is factually false just from looking at numbers.

Re:.gov gone wild

[icebike]

You do know the suicide rate is high in Finland (in particular, above the Arctic circle) mainly due to the long periods darkness 6 months out of every year, right?

The Finland rate is 17.6 per 100k people. 10 points higher for men.
The US rate is 11.8 per 100k, and again 8 points higher for men.
Canada 11.3. Canada has a significant population above the Arctic Circle.
Figures from Here

Alaska Suicide rate is the highest in the nation, at over 27. Per here.

However, One study found that the average annual suicide rate among Alaska Natives was 40.4 per 100,000 people, compared with 17.7 per 100,000 people in the non-Native population. But if you subtract out 20-something Alaskan Native Males, (155.3 per 100,000) even the native rate is not that much higher than the rest of the population's rate.
Rates in Canadian Aboriginal populations are much similarly higher, at 56.3 per 100,000 for males, and 11.8 per 100,000 for females (of all ages)

That 17.7 percent for non-native Alaskans looks surprisingly like the Finnish number.

But on the other hand the this seems as likely to be a Racial/Cultural issue when you take everything into account, Alaska, Canada, and even Finland because northern finland has some related population groups.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Friggo]

Just to nitpick a bit, Canada does not have a significant population above the arctic circle since almost all Canadians live very close to the US border, which is far away from the arctic circle.

I doubt that even Alaska has a lot of people above the arctic circle.

Not that Finland does either, so probably not relevant in the whole picture, but still.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Charliemopps]

Ok, let me put it more plainly: Why the fuck should he have to register with anyone or apply for any permits, to get free money to do something good for the community? If you wanted to take up a collection for someone that was dieing of cancer you'd have to go to a local comity to get approval? Fuck the Finnish government and their bullshit, wipe your own ass for you legal system.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Man On Pink Corner]

What I "know" is that I don't believe any surveys that claim that the Finns are the happiest people this side of Disneyland, given that they seem to off themselves at a rate comparable to an extinct tribe of Samurai lemmings.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Luckyo]

Because otherwise your friendly neighbourhood drug seller/tax evader could pretend to be doing good for the community and launder his money, as a result causing significant damage to people who actually do want to do good for the community, as well as the rest of the community.

Granted your "I won't listen to your dumb arguments you pinko commies" attitude shows that you don't care, and probably don't know that you don't have to "take up collection" for someone dying from cancer around here. He/she will be taken care of by the system, regardless of being able to afford it. It's the USA where you have to start begging people for money to get care when you're poor.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Luckyo]

Yes, I understand that you're a supremacist, completely unable to view the world outside your narrow lens what it "should be" as you have been taught.

Reality is, it's not chains, golden or not. It's a normal human society performing its base functions. Something that has apparently been so perverted in yours, that it rendered you apparently incapable of even understanding what the issue is, much less that there are functional and better alternatives to your very narrow view of "what should be right".

Re:.gov gone wild

[ormondotvos]

Long ago, decades, I went to Sweden for the summer, to visit a friend there. I asked why the suicide rate was so high. They said, "Because it's OK to die on purpose here. There's no real disapproval." "Hmmm" I said.

It's been almost fifty years, and that explanation holds for me. When you think it's time for your life to end, you just do it. It doesn't shame you, your children, your friends and co-workers. It just is.

The USA has a weird culture, no question, and sometimes it scare the hell out of people from other cultures.

Re:.gov gone wild

[ormondotvos]

Beautiful response, luckyo. Beautiful.

Re:.gov gone wild

[maxwell demon]

Why? I'd really like to learn how to create young earths. If humans continue to ruin the Old Earth we are living on, it might be a useful skill to have.

Re:.gov gone wild

[Meski]

Yet another case of bureaucracy gone wild...

I find myself wondering how the Finnish bureaucracy thinks it has jurisdiction for Kickstarter.

These Terms of Service (and any further rules, policies, or guidelines incorporated by reference) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and the United States,
...
Be a US resident and at least 18 years of age with a social security number (or EIN), a US bank account, US address, US state-issued ID (driver’s license), and major US credit or debit card.

Yes, non-US people can get involved, but they need a US resident to run it for them. And that's the point, it's run under US laws, not Finnish.

Re:.gov gone wild

[tsm_sf]

Oh, so you're saying I twist everything you say into some kind of bizarre absolute?

Re:.gov gone wild

[bickerdyke]

And you'd be happy in a country where "Oh sorry, i didn't know that this is forbidden" can be used as a excuse for abny kind of crime?

I agree with you that there should be things considered forbidden and things you obviously should be free to do without permission, but it's obvious that the notion of what is what is not commonly shared amongt everyone. That's why we need laws.

Re:.gov gone wild

[bickerdyke]

Of course the US has less suicides! Due to the liberal gun posession laws much more people get killed in drunk gunfights before they can drink themselves to death!

Re:.gov gone wild

[bickerdyke]

He'd have to form a business or organization.

And where's the problem with that? At least in some other european country, setting up your own business is a matter of 30min. Forming a charity or other registered organisation (what might be more suited here) takes 7 people agreeing and signing a common charter, electing a president, vice president and treasurer and as soon as you register that at the local court, you even have your tax exepmtions for non-profit organisations.

And I doubt it's much more that a mere formality in finland, too.

Huh?

[ericloewe]

Aren't you supposed to get something (say, a copy of the final product) in exchange for your contribution? Sounds like some Bureaucrat thinks his workload is a bit low...

Re:Huh?

[QuasiSteve]

Supposed to, yes. It should fall under contract law. Things do get a little more complicated with KickStarter and similar CrowdFunding platforms, though.

Let's say the project is for Group X to perform at Broadway. What is the final product you would get back from that?
Let's say they then offer stickers at a $5 pledge level. But you pledge $100 instead. Is that $95 then not a donation with nothing in return?

Even when pledge level/reward are all on the up-and-up.. what if the project doesn't deliver?
By KickStarter ToS, they must either deliver on the promised perks, or refund backers. Problem is - they may not refund. If they don't, KickStarter says you're on your own (despite the ~5% they take). The problem with being on your own is that a e.g. $25 pledge isn't particularly worth going into legal (contract law) proceedings over.

That's all setting aside that many actually do view KickStarter as a donation platform and perks delivered as being optional.

Some good reading, straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter

Re:Huh?

[Seumas]

No. You are making a donation. Period. (Note that it is not a *charitable* donation, however). Kickstarter's literature specifically uses the word "donation".

The only requirement for the project to receive your money is that, collectively, the amount of money pledged reaches their pre-defined goal.

Kickstarter states that any promised rewards *should* be fulfilled, but those are essentially an aside to the pledge itself and if the reward is never fulfilled, you essentially have no recourse whatsoever. Well, that's not entirely true -- you can try to get it from the person who is running the project, but since Kickstarter never actually touches the money, they have no mechanism through which to refund you. Assuming they even would bother with a process to facilitate that -- which they probably wouldn't, since they aren't even willing to establish a process to vet submitted projects.

In the few years that Kickstarter has been going, there have been no catastrophic horror stories. There have been a few scams detected while in-the-act and cancelled and there have been some that are taking their own sweet delayed time to fulfill them, but I think we're a good year and a half away from any potential major backlash due to lack of fulfillment. That's because projects really started to surge once Double Fine threw their hat in the ring and most projects after that won't be culminating for some time, still.

Of course, you should get something if you're told that you're going to, but you should also not back a project with your rent-money. I think of every dollar I throw into Kickstarters as a spin at the roulette wheel. If it fails (to follow through), I paid the price of admission to go along for the ride and get the updates and see how the project goes. If it succeeds, I get something cool that I wanted, too. Not to mention, not every kickstarter is about "if you pledge $20, I'll give you a thing". Sometimes it's just "I want to produce a play in my town, please back me to get it going". Video games and board games get the most attention, but there have been some cool things like a project to massively automate the preservation and archival of a massive collection of black history photographs.

Unfortunately, a lot of people immediately scream "REGULATION DURP DURP!". I don't see the point in that. You're free to chip in your money or not and the up and downside is clearly laid out. I think people who scream about that tend to misunderstand (and have never even visited the website). They somehow think you're literally investing in the project in a real way. As in, a way that would require filings and SEC administration.

What is going to happen is that Kickstarter will remain the king for awhile and if they ever seriously falter, they will have to quickly get their shit together (vetting projects and getting more involved in their facilitation to assure backers -- perhaps even to the point of establishing SafeHarbor gaurantees like eBay and Amazon do for purchases from merchants that use their marketplaces)... or someone else will do those things and eat their lunch. Competition will ensure that if this remains a viable idea that the public is interested in, someone finds a way to improve upon it and make it more stable.

In the meantime, I've paid out about $1,600 of about $5,000 in pledges. Had some great experiences (met some fantastic people I would never have imagined I would), got some cool games and albums, kept up with projects via lots of updates. Participated in community decision-making projects on some things I've liked, and jumped in as a beta tester (actual beta-testing; not the modern video game industry definition of beta-testing as marketing) and have seen some really passionate people rewarded with community interest in their projects. If I get screwed on a couple of projects, I'll get over it.

Re:Huh?

[msauve]

"Kickstarter states that any promised rewards *should* be fulfilled,"

You're emphatically making things up. The Kickstarter Terms of Use are quite clear:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.
Project Creators may cancel or refund a Backer's pledge at any time and for any reason, and if they do so, are not required to fulfill the reward.

Re:Huh?

[ericloewe]

That's not of much use if they don't enforce it.

Re:Huh?

[msauve]

And exactly how would they enforce it? The money's already been distributed. If you order something from a retail web site, and they don't deliver, do you expect your ISP to "enforce it?"

Re:Huh?

[Seumas]

Then it has changed.

Their site used to employ the terminology of "donations" and "donators" along with "pledges", but with the exception of not allowing *charities*. I recall when I first read it and found the language a bit surprising. You could just do a search for "donation" in their help section and it'd pull up instances of it, which I am no longer able to successfully do. The references to fulfilling rewards, however, is meaningless, because they also mention elsewhere that there is basically nothing they can do about a failure to fulfill and I'm not aware of any instance where they have taken actions to assist in such a thing. In fact, I have seen at least one project that went back for more funding while their first project still remained unfulfilled. They got around the rule of "not double dipping" by stating that the first project was for the item on mobile devices and the second project was for the PC.

It strikes me that the rush of video game kickstarters and a few other successful projects by established companies may have changed how they perceive their own service. That established businesses would essentially use Kickstarter as a method of side-financing and pre-ordering products was probably a surprise to them and facilitating so many of those types of projects definitely comes with issues that you may not have to address when you're just catering to five dudes wanting to put out an album and looking for funding studio time.

Re:Huh?

[msauve]

"Then it has changed. Their site used to employ the terminology of "donations" and "donators" along with "pledges", "

You continue to mislead. Even the earliest terms of use stated

Though Kickstarter cannot be held liable for the actions of a Project Creator, Project Creators are nevertheless wholly responsible for fulfilling obligations both implied and stated in any project listing they create

Nothing there which could lead to a claim that they "suggest" rewards be fulfilled. Also, they never use the term "donation," as you claim.

Kickstarter.com ("Kickstarter") is a venue for fund-raising and commerce. Kickstarter allows certain users ("Project Creators") to list projects and raise funds from other users ("Backers").

Re:Huh?

[Hognoxious]

And exactly how would they enforce it?

I think you just made ericloewe (2129490)'s point for him.

Re:Huh?

[Compaqt]

Hmm, very interesting idea.

Perhaps this could be put to good use in the net neutrality battle.

I.e., if Verizon says they want a portion of Google's pie because they're providing the pipes, well then, wouldn't that make them responsible for every Internet retailer out there?

Adapting the law

[houghi]

In an ideal world, we would adapt the laws to the people. In this world we try to adapt the people to the law.

Basically looking for a technical solution for a social problem.

This is a non-issue in this particular case.

[dnaumov]

As can be seen from the lawyer responce (the "concerning using crowdfunding to finance a project [PDF; Finnish]" link in Summary, while asking for money while giving nothing in return in Finland requires a license, on Kickstarter, people submitting money are actually making a pre-order of a product (the book in question), so that particular law does not apply.

Unsurprising.

[Seumas]

Only the government and those they anoint may request money without giving anything back.

Also:

The main problem is that direct translations of terminology at Kickstarter, such as 'bounty' and 'support,' are interpreted to mean collecting money without giving anything back, and this kind of operation requires a permit which can be only given to associations, not to private persons, and it takes long to apply for such permit.

The problem isn't the translation. That is, literally, how Kickstarter works. Pledges are to be considered "donations". Not *charitable* donations, but donations none-the-less. There is no guarantee that the project will succeed or that anything promised to backers will ever be fulfilled. This is stated in Kickstarter's own information. Backing requires some degree of investigation, judgement, and an understanding that you're essentially just chipping in to see a project you are interested in reach completion. If it is successful and obligations to backers are fulfilled, that's a bonus.

I like Kickstarter and I've backed more than 180 projects, so far. However, it is not without some weak points that could potentially be a detriment to its entire existence down the road. Such as their eagerness to just green light almost anything (like the lottery winner who failed at his pizza startup and decided he wanted to raise over a million bucks to build an MMO or the endless stream of middle aged people wanting you to fund their gospel album or their obnoxious ten year old kid's debut pop album). Or their complete lack of vetting projects and those submitting them.

That may come back to bite them in the ass, some day, since their entire continued existence relies on a high result-to-failure ratio as far as trust. Considering they only add between one and three or four dozen projects per day, that shouldn't be a problem to do some minimal vetting of each project. Especially since they get five percent of each successful project and that can run from them pocketing $2,000 on some of the smaller successful video game kickstarters to $400,000 on some of the larger ones like Ouya and the Pebble Watch. Not investing some of this revenue into the one absolute necessity (trust) that their company requires will be the utmost negligence.

Re:Unsurprising.

[msauve]

"There is no guarantee that the project will succeed or that anything promised to backers will ever be fulfilled."

In exactly the same way there's no guarantee you'll get a package when you order something from Amazon.


"This is stated in Kickstarter's own information."

There you go again, making things up.

Re:Unsurprising.

[Seumas]

Instead of stalking me in every post on Slashdot and claiming that because Kickstarter has changed the language they used since I last reviewed it, that I'm "making things up", try adding something of value to the conversation.

First - THEY ARE DONATIONS. I'll grant you that they no longer seem to actually call them that, but in every regard, they definitely treat them as donations. If they're not donations, then what is it called when you click a button to give someone five bucks and there is no reward level for it? Or when a reward level is $10 and you give them $20? Or when you give them $20 and click the "don't give me any reward" option? That's a donation. You may be promised a reward for certain levels of donations, but they ARE merely donations. They are NOT transactions of money for products, like a marketplace (though I understand one could see room here for semantics).

Anyway, there is nothing about backing a project that is anything like "ordering something from Amazon". When I order something from Amazon, I know I will be taken care of. Even if it is from a merchant who is merely listing their items on Amazon. Amazon backs all purchases through their site, whether that requires a refund or sending out another item or sending out a replacement.

If a Kickstarter project does not fulfill their rewards, it's just tough shit for you. It used to be that it *was* treated as a donation and it was specifically stated that you are NOT paying for any items, services, or experiences even if they are listed as rewards. Since your first comment provoked me to go look at their literature again, a lot of that sentiment seems to no longer be included. I'm not sure why they've done that, but it seems strange, since it actually could make it *less* clear just what you're doing when you chip in a few bucks.

If you actually believe that it's "just like ordering something from amazon", why don't you show me examples where someone has failed to fulfill their rewards and Kickstarter has set things straight for all of the backers? I'm not merely being rhetorical, either. As someone who has followed Kickstarter for more than two years and backed almost a couple hundred projects, I can tell you that I have *never* seen or heard of it happening and I would actually be interested if anyone can show where it has.

MANY kickstarters have not fulfilled their rewards by the date promised. That's reasonable. Things come up. Delays occur. Projects encounter hurdles and are more difficult than expected. But, eventually, it has to be called a failure. Or a scam. or a fraud. Or . . . whatever. And some of these *HAVE* happened. Where is Kickstarter on those? What are they doing to enforce the meaningless TOS clause that "rewards must be fulfilled"? When my delivery doesn't come from Amazon or it's broken or something, I just email them and they apologize profusely and give me free overnight shipping of the thing to rectify it. What does Kickstarter do?

Here's one example of such a Kickstarter. They don't seem to have been a scam, but they could have been. And to my knowledge, Kickstarter never stepped in or attempted to do anything about it.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1536325846/dice-age-the-new-era-of-dice?ref=live

They received successful funding (more than 300%). The Kickstarter closed almost *fifteen months ago*. People didn't start receiving their rewards until about a month ago, despite many comments over the year and change asking what was going on and if people were ever actually going to get their rewards. As of today, about 20% of the backers have gotten their pledge fulfilled.

They may have decided to strip the "these are donations" language from their documentation on the site, but that doesn't change what they are. You are making donations and being promised rewards and there is nothing to guarantee those rewards will be fulfilled and many kickstarters are absolutely *not* about facilitating a product transaction even in the loosest sense.

Ooh. Next time you comment on one of my posts, can you add something in there about my mom or my breeding or something, too?

Re:Unsurprising.

[Man On Pink Corner]

My government has the obligation to provide numerous services such as roads, police, courts, fire service, libraries, and numerous other functions which it is obligated to provide as a condition of its existence.

Where are you from, exactly? If you're an American, you should spend some time looking into the fine print behind those so-called "obligations." You may be in for a surprise.

You are obligated to pay taxes for things like police protection, but the government is by no means obligated to provide what you're paying for. So much for the "social contract."

Re:Unsurprising.

[TemporalBeing]

Only the government and those they anoint may request money without giving anything back.

Anyone may request money from anyone else without giving anything back to the giving party. Whether or not the party decides to actually give anything is a different issue.

That is, Bob can always ask Alice for money and never give Alice anything for it. Whether Alice decides to fulfill Bob's request is her decision and her decision alone.

That is simply how the Free Markets work.

That said, there are certain regulations that governments generally impose; those regulations however tend to be on what kinds of things Bob may give Alice in exchange for the money he requests, not on whether or not Alice may give money to Bob.

For instance, walk through any major metropolitan city; you'll find beggars just sitting there with a cup asking for money. Some people do give them money; those that do get nothing in return - nothing other than the satisfaction of having given them something. This has been true throughout history; though the people asking that way historically tended to be considered among the scum of the earth.

Are PayPal donations also outlawed?

[vovick]

The main problem is that direct translations of terminology at Kickstarter, such as 'bounty' and 'support,' are interpreted to mean collecting money without giving anything back, and this kind of operation requires a permit which can be only given to associations, not to private persons.

Does this mean people in Finland cannot also accept donations for projects they are working on since this is technically the same "giving money for nothing in return" issue?

Re:Are PayPal donations also outlawed?

[Zironic]

Indeed. This is not particularly surprising.

However the solution is fairly simple, you just get some registered organisation to sponsor the project.

Re:Are PayPal donations also outlawed?

[zyzko]

The definition in the law is that you must "appeal to the public" and "provide no compensation" (translations mine). So donations can be accepted as long as you are not actively asking for them from the public at large.

The court has ruled (in the case of Electronic Frontier Finland) that stating that you can accept donations and providing an account number on website is not appealing to the public, so the line is somewhere between that and running running a nationwide ad campaign where you ask for money (definitely appealing to the public).

YEs Re:Are PayPal donations also outlawed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you need a permit in order to collect. This makes it a bit harder to collect money for legimite purposes but also much harder for all kind of scam artists for collecting money for "cancer kids" (alghtough that also happens in Finland from time to time. So its not bullet proof.)

Re:They got a book.

[Seumas]

Kickstarter isn't a marketplace. You don't exchange cash for goods. You may be promised some goods for certain amounts of donations, but the donations are separate unto themselves. Therefore, if Finland doesn't allow donations without being licensed, then this falls into that, because you are not explicitly paying money for a product in return.

Why is Finland involved?

[Bogtha]

Only permanent US residents paid through a US bank account are eligible for Kickstarter. Why does the Finnish government think it can dictate the terms of a project where a US company is paying a US resident to do stuff?

Re:Why is Finland involved?

[QuasiSteve]

While KickStarter's ToS requires that the KickStarter be set up by a U.S. resident paid through a U.S. bank account, the project can actually be led by - and funds transferred to - anybody from anywhere. The clause itself is fallout from their working with Amazon to handle payments.

You'll see projects from Finland, Germany, Israel, etc.
http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/ - hit up the 'cities' search.

In this case, the project creators seem to be from Finland and thus likely subject to Finnish law.

Re:Governments are the enemy

[AK Marc]

People asking for donations without the intention of delivering are a major problem. That fraud takes billions every year. Finland has a law to cut down on that. That way, if someone is asking for money, you know they are legitimate, as they have filed all the proper papers and are traceable, even if not fully vetted. I don't see anything unusual or even onerous about this law. But it seems silly that someone entering a business venture didn't find out commonly known rules related to it.

Re:Poor Fenno-Swedes

[CptPicard]

I recalled she was some kind of "communications-manager" in a prior life? It would explain a lot, as she certainly seems to know how to do efficient propaganda in the vein of "we are so innovative and cool that you must look like an idiot if you don't join us". Also, her machinery is just a bit too slick to come from one person alone, I am willing to bet there is Magma (Fenno-Swedish think tank that produces slanted research and opinion pieces) people behind her and she's just the public face who somehow just "happened" to want to share this wonderful language with the rest of the world by any means necessary.

It does not matter what her native language is. A lot of Finnish-speakers are more Catholic than the Pope in this issue in order to demonstrate their ideological credentials in this matter.

The factual basis in the comment is that this is just part of the effort in Finland to really strongly push Swedish on a purely ideological basis -- it has been systematically stepped up in recent years, and Senja is part of the "movement" to sell the language as somehow particularly "innovative"... hence these crowdfunded things and so on. It's not as if Swedish textbooks don't already exist. Nobody would complain if it were a Mathematics textbook, or perhaps we would not have the need to anything to that effect either to be crowdfunded. I wonder who gets to decide what is in that textbook...

I do respect you for bashing where bashing is due though :-)

Sounds crazy to a USian

[shaitand]

Basically this seems to suggest that all charity and donations would require a special permit. Even asking someone for help when starving.

But after a bit of thought, it occurs to me that people in Finland don't have to beg for help. Here you need no permit but the collection jar on the counter is for something like a child with cancer. In Finland you wouldn't need a collection jar. Poor and hungry or in need of shelter would beg here. In Finland they would be fed, housed, and given medical treatment without any begging.

We truly are barbaric here in the US in some ways.

Re:Sounds crazy to a USian

[shaitand]

Barbarism is watching another human being die of treatable illness when you have the means to stop it or watching people starve when you have more than you need. I don't care how you spin it.

And cut the BS fallacies about those who lack means being lazy or lacking ability. There are plenty of talented people starving and plenty of worthless idiots with full bellies and full pantries.

Re:Sounds crazy to a USian

[shaitand]

So let me see if I follow. It's okay that we let our people starve and suffer from treatable illness because some third party might be racist?

Re:Sounds crazy to a USian

[SteveFoerster]

I assume, then, you donate blood as often as they'll let you, and are on the list to provide your spare kidney to whomever needs it? I'd hate to think your comment was empty sanctimony.

Re:Sounds crazy to a USian

[shaitand]

Yes. u?

Full jails?

[Firethorn]

One reason you don't see the jails as full of people as in the USA.

And here I thought it was the lack of a "war on drugs", maximum sentences of 20 years, where we'll toss you in prison for 40 for mere possession, if you have enough of it.

Not many people end up in prison over the more unusual laws. It's normally stuff like violence - murder, assault, robbery. Theft - burglary, theft, shoplifting, and the WoD.

Re:Governments are the enemy

[jovius]

I think the point is the novelty of the concept to the bureaucrats. They are confused and asked for a statement.

Organizations like the Red Cross and such often have urn at the malls, and you can - if you want to - make sure it's legitimate by checking the permit number to collect money on their website or elsewhere. There have been many cases where money has been asked for imaginary causes or on behalf of some organization (even the police :)) by telephone or going door to door.

In general you need a permit to collect money if there is nothing given in return (except at charity events etc.).

Most likely in the end the law will be amended (unless the present laws are already found cover it) to include clauses about crowd funding, which in the best case of course would be excluded too. If it's not then that would be really unreasonable.

It says "Oxo" on buses, but they don't go there

[Hognoxious]

Just because they aren't called donations doesn't mean that in reality they aren't.

See also: waddling, quacking.

According to a Finn I knew...

[Hognoxious]

The main problem is that direct translations of terminology at Kickstarter, such as 'bounty' and 'support,' are interpreted to mean collecting money without giving anything back

It's impossible to translate anything into Finnish. Even if it's in Finnish to start with.

Internets?

[jkajala]

The law about money raising predates Internet and is heavily based on assumption that you go from door to door with a box. This is kind of "known issue" and EFF has been pushing changes. So I'd hope the law will get updated sometimes in future.

Re:Poor Fenno-Swedes

[Anonymous Coward]

Senja may be ordinary language teacher now playing the role of underdog, but Swedish-first lobby in Finland is far from an underdog. If they decided to sponsor the book, it wouldn't take more than five seconds for one of their foundations to grant the sum. I also suspect that she has very well "protected" future available from think tanks such as Magma, in case she needs a new job, for any reason whatsoever. She has proved to be a true believer in superiority of Swedish language and is eager to support it; that's all they demand.

The language question is really not about this book, or books teaching Swedish. It's about special privileges granted to dwindling Swedish-speaking community; they have so much language-specific quotas and ample support from their foundations that they have chances only to lose in the long run. In order to postpone that, their lobby doesn't only aggressively defend the quotas, thet also push Swedish towards the status of first-learned non-mother tongue (95% of Finns speak Finnish, but need to read at least three years of Swedish in school). And they make strange bedfellows to keep this strange priority afloat.

Issue here is that Swedish-speaking lobby does almost all of this by taxpayer money, and definitely prevents people from choosing which languages they want to spend time learning; no matter what you want to study, one of these languages has to be Swedish. That's a considerable resource to waste, considering people might be more interested to learn Russian, Chinese, or, say, German. But no; Swedish it has to be. Forever. And every official has to complete Swedish-speaking exam. For a minority of whom every single one I've ever met has been completely fluent in Finnish.

How did it all come to this? Well, there was considerable and powerful minority of Swedish-speaking Finns around a century ago, when Finland gained independence. It has been dwindling all the time since then. What really made language politics end in current state were consensus politics of Finlandization era. Since seventies, the Swedish speakers' party has been a part of coalition government - *every* government. Their demands for teaching Swedish to everybody are relatively new "innovation" made in coalition government negotiations - this wasn't the case for something like half a century after independence. This party has only one priority: special treatment of Swedish speakers. Not equal treatment, but special. They are completely spineless in all the other issues; that's the reason why they seem to always be on the government. "Give us our piece, and we don't care what atrocities others plan to do" is their core attitude.

Don't be worried of Senja. She has her life backed up for rest of her life. If she's an underdog, she has backers that have essentially deeper pockets and political connections than the government itself.

Re:Governments are the enemy

[HornWumpus]

the market is capable of providing sufficient information on reputable charities

Yet the 'United Way' keeps grifting it's way along, year after year, decade after decade.

In the US, there's the Mail Order Rule

[Animats]

In the US, Kickstarter projects are subject to the FTC's Mail Order Rule. The Mail Order Rule basically says that if you order something, it has to be delivered or your money refunded within a specified time. The seller can specify a firm future delivery date, and if they don't, there's a 30 day default. Also, if the seller can't deliver, they must refund your money without you having to ask for it. The seller can ask for more time, but if you don't respond, they have to refund the money. This is a good rule; it keeps the mail order industry honest.

In the early days of the Web, many companies that accepted online orders got into trouble with the mail order rule. Usually, this was because they had online ordering but a paper-based order fulfillment system, and accepted far more orders than they could fill. Then they made excuses rather than refunds. The FTC fined companies for that. Now, everybody serious has the shopping cart system connected to the inventory system, so the order isn't accepted if it can't be shipped.

So Kickstarter companies in the US can get in trouble if they don't deliver. ZionEyes, with their vaporware "HD glasses", ran into this.

Re:Poor Fenno-Swedes

[Iskender]

Hey, I'm a Swedish-speaker and that was an excellent post.

I guess I'm still in the minority in my language group in wanting to abolish the compulsory education in the other domestic language, but things are changing - no one should believe that the voice of the minority's political establishment is the voice of the minority.

Also while there are exceptions most have no reason other than the compulsory education to feel animosity towards us Swedish-speakers. The vast majority would have better things to do than hate a language if the language education was changed, and there might even be goodwill generated.

If on the other hand the compulsory education is removed by the other parties while there is political resistance from the Swedish People's Party then there will be lots of badwill for no gain for the minority.

Re:Poor Fenno-Swedes

[Iskender]

Even if I do bash the swedish speaking people for political reasons in every single turn I can, this comment was total crap as it has no factual basis. Teaching swedish is a totally different matter than acting for swedish language to be mandatory in curriculum.

Word. I'll add to that that espousing mandatory Swedish education and being Finland-Swedish are not the same thing either.

I do hope you're really bashing the Swedish-speaking support of mandatory language education rather than my minority itself, but I can't really tell which one it is from your comment.

brainless europe

[fivizzano]

exactly what europe (small e intended) is doomed to ... brainless bureaucracy that entangles any and all innovation in the name of vested interests. If the powers that be do not reverse this horseshit thinking we are doomed to law regulated, asphyxiating bureaucratic thinking that will doom any chances of future growth .

Re:Governments are the enemy

[Compaqt]

Why, what do they do?

What's Finnish for 'circular'?

[argStyopa]

"...asking for money while giving nothing in return in Finland requires a license..."

Does the Finnish government have the license required for asking for money for a license (that gives nothing in return)?

Re:Governments are the enemy

[HornWumpus]

Not do any charity work of any kind. Only pass money through their hands and to actual charities. And take 70-80% for admin, fund raising, ivory back scratchers and rent boys. Typical non-profit grift more or less.

And then there's the whole 'president of the United Way' grift. There are many corporate environments where you cannot be promoted without a united way direct paycheck deduction. As a reward, the CEOs most successful at extracting money from 'working suits' (the weasels most often victimized by this scam make my concern limited), gets a turn at the lucrative POTUW gig after retiring from his regular hard schedule of golf meetings.

It is an example of a bad law

[gay358]

As a Finn, I don't think the this law is very good one. Few years ago, there was a lot of criticism against it as people though that it was unfair. It more or less prevented collecting money in certain situations -- like if a home gets burned down and the family don't have home insurance, you cannot collect money to help them build a new home (although you are free to donate, but you cannot organize collection of donations -- if I remember correctly).

I cannot remember if some details of the law has been modified since, but IMHO, it is still a bad law. Many associations, like boy scouts, have managed to break this law by mistake, when they haven't remembered to get neccesary permits.

It's not bureucracy gone wild

[yangli520]

It's not bureucracy gone wild

happy

[yangli520]

you're quite happy to live in a world where every time you want to "do things"