When Kickstarter Projects Go Missing
On Friday, we posted about Kickstarter's new rules of engagement, including some new rules under which some of the most popular Kickstarter projects to date might never have surfaced. But what about ones that make it to the site, then disappear? Wired takes a look at what happens to those Kickstarter projects that for one reason or another get yanked from the site. (DMCA complaints apparently are often that one reason.)
Nobody likes competition.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
But it'll cost, ooh, I dunno, let's say $100,000 to do it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Any opportunity to flog the DMCA is news.
Except when it comes time to cite its safe harbor provisions, of course - then the DMCA is a godsend.
Seriously, though - the Wired article doesn't really go into details only having been told by KickStarter that they must comply with the law. If the law says a project must be removed (not just suspended, but purged (per KS nomenclature)), then what does one expect?
Yes, it would be nice to explain why a project was purged (or even just suspended).. or at least tell the project creators why (in case of DMCA complaint, I believe it is required) - as far as that goes, KickStarter certainly fails in the transparency department.
But the fact that projects 'disappear' isn't particularly newsworthy. YouTube videos 'disappear'. Even Slashdot articles 'disappear'. Misener himself has set up a service where you can still 'find' projects that were once launched and then canceled/suspended. I'd imagine the purged ones are a part of that as well if he bothers to cache locally and not just yank data from KickStarter's servers for every project request.
What are we Microsoft? Seen more than a few kickstarter projects that are knowingly or un coping another product. Maybe do a search with something other than Bing.
Call me a scrooge, but the idea of donating money to projects that will eventually charge you to purchase the product they produce seems ridiculous to me. On top of that, there is no guarantee that the project you donate to will see the light of day. Honestly, can someone tell me why this is such an appealing option?
Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that if we didn't have the DMCA, the safe harbour provisions would be unnecessary. I don't think it can be called a "godsend" just because infrastructure providers are protected from being harassed.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I'm actually more concerned about projects that never get _delivered._ Kickstarter puts some distance between themselves and "investors" based on just being a facilitator, but I'd be curious about the ratio of projects that never see light of day or--as I suspect is even more frequent--see it so late that the original Kickstarter pledge should be considered broken.
This specific example is interesting to me:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airshipambassador/wollstonecraft
because I know the *author*, and believe that its persistent delays are symptomatic of his personality. I doubt it will ever see light of day, and the 90,000 dollars handed over has already been largely spent.
There's not much difference between this and showing a "simulation of a product" and yet one is banned while the other remains acceptable.
An obvious step would be to hold funds in escrow but that would seriously impact Kickstarter's minimalist business model and increase costs of funding...which might be a good thing.
Don't like it? Submit your own story. Vote for submitted stories. Contribute instead of being a fuming leech.
Then when you Vanish with the Cash we can all sing "Project 54 Where Are You???"
But seriously i would hope that KS puts a page up that says " This Project has been removed due to %Authority% contact %admin% for Possible Refund"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
And for that I get the game, soundtrack and art book in a jewel case. Shipping is free, and had I pledged more I could have gotten more stuff. Had the kickstarter failed to be founded, I would have paid nothing.
This particular project has a good chance of delivering, having already made a working demo of the game, so the $60 was not much different that preordering some limited edition of the next CoD game. Without kickstarter this game would never have been made, so in my eyes kickstarter have served a purpose that no other service I know of could have managed.
Naturally there's always a chance they will take their money and run, but the last $60 CoD game I bought was absolute garbage (despite stellar reviews), so there's always a bit of risk involved no matter how you spend your hard earned coin. It may not be a risk you are willing to take, but fortunately plenty of folks are, and thus project like Giana can see the light of day.
'Deliver of offer refund' is one of KickStarter's tems of service for Creators. If you, as a Backer..
1. feel that the product has not been delivered and there's no hope of it being delivered.
2. want a refund (as opposed to just writing it off as a donation / loss)
3. are unable to get a refund from the Creator
Then:
A. Talk to your credit card issuer. Explain the situation - have them void the charge. It's then Amazon's problem to square out with KickStarter. This may not be an option available to you.
B. Talk to a lawyer. Basic contract law is likely to apply - but, again, talk to a lawyer. If you or your lawyer would need assistance, go google Hanfree and Neil Singh.
I do very much implore you to consider whether you want to go down that road. There's quite a few projects I backed who have not (yet) delivered, some going for a year now. But most of the Creators tend to be communicative and explain what the speed bumps are and what the timeline looks like. Others I pledged such a small amount that it's simply not worth it for me to bother with it. ( In the Hanfree case, the Backer is a lawyer and sued out of principle because it wasn't just his $$, but a combined total of $$,$$$ apparently being lost that rubbed him the wrong way. )
I don't know if they would be unnecessary. The situation would fall back to standard copyright fare. You'd then have to consider whether sites such as YouTube can be held accountable ("contributory" or "vicarious" liability) for the claimed material being available through their service.
I'd imagine those sites that cite compliance with the DMCA do feel it's a godsend given that there's very little burden on them.
I'm sure it doesn't feel like a godsend for the next mother making a video of their child dancing to some music and getting hit with a DMCA complaint.
The rights holders - I'm not sure, they seem to have a love/hate relationship with it.
I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a U.S. lawyer, though - you'd have to check with one to figure out if the DMCA on the whole has been a positive or a negative influence on copyright / free dissemination of information.
So THAT'S what the kickstarter program is all about!
Haven't been watching Kickstarter enough to know, so I'll ask here.
How many Kickstarter projects have actually come to fruition? Percentage? 75%? 10%?
It makes a huge difference to everyone involved, from potential investors to developers and the competition (corporations). One thing that also occurred to me is that corporate entities would have a vested interest in seeing Kickstarter FAIL entirely--it is, after all, a huge potential competitor to every corporation out there. That being said, don't be surprised when the smear campaign's begin.
if you'd like a completely free and open console and you're tired of seeing vaporware companies fail to produce one, you can get in an early lineup for an Ouya.
Or just buy a PC and an Xbox 360 gamepad today.
Why pay extra to eat Halaal if your religious beliefs don't require it?
For the same reason that people not under Mosaic law buy Hebrew National beef franks: the perception that following these laws results in better quality meat.
The same way a project offers perks, KS should give the option (not an obligation) for a project to show how they are commited to your donation and offer to get the money in several instalments, according to their financial plan. If people feel the project isn't delivering at specific points they can stop the financing and get something as a refund.
The goofy guy on Friends.
You're right. Before we were complaining about DMCA takedown notices we were complaining about cease and desist letters and back in the olden days, most ISPs and hosting services would just take things down in response to a cease and desist letter (after all, it's on a law firms letterhead so it must be serious and didn't have a process in place for putting things back up.
The DMCA basically made it possible to have a fast track process both to take things down and to put them back up after users have a chance to explain their side of the story.
The valid complaints about the DMCA are about the anti-circumvention provisions which criminalized bypassing copyright protection. I tend to think that people let that aspect of the law color their perception of parts of the law that really just refined existing copyright law rather than expanding it like the anti-cirumvention provisions.
Rather than financial return. There may be some financial aspect to it as well, you figure "I can get the game for $20 now rather than $50 when it comes out," but it is largely creative.
The projects I've backed on Kickstarter (all video games) have been because I want to see the game made. They are games that are otherwise not likely to be made. They are games I want to see though. So my money help allow them to exist, I get creative return on my investment.
Now is there risk? Of course, as with all investments. There is a risk people won't deliver. Most of the games I've back I'm pretty confident will deliver, they have small game studios behind them. However there's a couple of smaller ones. There is a risk they won't be able to deliver.
Also there's a risk that if they do deliver, you won't like what they do. I'm quite sure I'm going to dislike at least one of the games I've backed. Bound to happen, I've bought plenty of commercial games I didn't like. Again, it is a risk I have to be willing to take.
That's what people need to understand. Yes there's a risk with KS. You just have to decide if you are ok with that risk. Why do it? Well to get something you otherwise might not be able to.
In terms of games Wasteland 2 would be a pretty famous example. I really want that, I love that kind of game. The creator, Brian Fargo, already tried to get a publisher to back it. Guy is a game industry veteran, he knows the deal. However nobody was interested. Well, I (and others) backed it on KS because we want to see it. If we didn't back it, it wasn't going to happen.
It allows for more niche things to get funded. A publisher may say "Well this looks like something very few people would buy, so we won't fund it, even with a low budget." People on Kickstarter say "I don't give a shit, I'm not getting financial returns, I want it that's all that matters." So more niche products can get some funding.
Also when a project is backed 100% by people with no financial stake, it allows things to be done differently. For example all the games I've backed have pledged a no-DRM version (and the one that has launched has delivered a no-DRM version). They don't have to worry about it since there isn't a publisher to make happy, or a bank loan to pay. The backers got their game, they have nothing more they owe anyone.
So it isn't The One True Way(tm), or how everything will be done in the future or something like that. But it is cool for some things. You just have to be ok with risk. You have to accept that yes, there's a risk when you back a project. As with ANY investment, don't go in for more than you are willing to lose, and understand your potential gains are creative, not financial.
I don't have to produce movies to be a good movie critic. And while movie producers have their place, so do movie critics. Just because they don't produce content does not mean they are worthless.
there's also a lot of bad movie critics
in general, there's a lot of mindless useless negativity in the world, and especially on the internet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Here's my problem with kickstarter with an example scenario.
-->> Me create a kickstarter project out of something mundane but added "awesomeness" on it. (advertisement on fruits, bag can be turned into a coat, see how easy it is)
-->> Went viral, people "donating" money for my project
-->> Me gotten my money thinks the idea is implausible or impossible to do in real world or no marketable application. Spend only 1%-10% of what I received in kickstarter.
-->>people who donates-->> Butt hurt Me-->> More rich
(Don't tell people this is a lie, google for this for examples)
Another scenario this without having to be evil or exploiting the system
--> Me create a kickstarter project
---> Gotten more than $1M dollars for it
---> Created the brand the product
---> people who donates --> needs to spend more money to buy that product they have donated.(see their info, in no way the people who started the project are obliged to give you something in return and in some cases they are prohibited to do so)
More Evil IDEA
--> Me create a kickstarter project
---> Gotten more than $1M dollars for it
---> Make my salary $100,000 a year, add other "untaxable expenses"(lawyers know this), buy a factory AKA house, hire friends to conjure up ideas AKA nothing
----> Create a video of what you have done(hire somebody, make animations you know the deal)
----> Tell people you need more funds as there are unexpected expenses,
--->> Add another project?
Kickstarter is like a microfinance for small/starting business without having the need to pay back the "loan". The idea is great but its more like a charity than anything.
And please don't tell me that you are backing the idea of the project which is why you are donating. Why didn't you tell your idea on your loan manager see if he cares. I reiterate again, kickstarter is acting more like a charity/donation than anything.
I have seen highly funded kickstarter projects that seems impossible to produce in large quantities unless they have gotten more money for it. Hiring a factory,materials, workers and such will need more than $1 million dollars unless you plan to produce small quantities forever. You cannot get all your materials on RadioShack.
and if anyone is reading this, I am planning to start my own kickstarter project with me as the product. Let's see if they will approve.
If the punishments for false DMCA takedown notices were as drakonian as the punishments the DMCA brings on, then it would be a fairer and more balanced system. Basically lawfirms should be made to pay a fine equal to their yearly income (or the combined income of all their owners, whicever is larger) when they have served a wrongful takedown notice.
Or ya know projects could end up like Tentacle Bento. http://girls.sodapopminiatures.com/content/fund-tentacle-bento . THey had funding, but KS yanked it because people who didn't even bother to look into it were being pissy "OMG tentacle rape!" This one however just soldered on anyways though. Looking forward to getting my stuff still. FU KICKSTARTER!!!
The only relevant point to make in this regard:
If we are going to have copyrights, then the DMCA provisions are probably the best way (at least which occur to me) to handle infringement claims given the new technology developments.
If someone does not want copyrights to exist, then they should not vicariously criticise the DMCA just to further their point indirectly.
You want a resume full of creative projects? Create things
I agree in principle. But in practice, someone just creating things may find it hard to get permission to show them off on the most suitable platform. See Bob's Game for example.