Kickstarted Veronica Mars Promised Digital Download; Pirate Bay Delivers

ConfusedVorlon writes with word that Warner Bros backed out on their promise of digital downloads for backers of the Veronica Mars film "Backers were promised 'You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movie's theatrical debut.' Warner Bros are providing a non-downloadable ultra-violet coupon (although Veronica Mars is available for download through other stores). The download is already available on the Pirate Bay. The download is even available on commercial stores. The users have already passed over their $35+. But rather than meet the demand for a DRM-free download, Warner Bros would prefer to return the original pledge to backers who complain.

What does this tell us about how movie studios view the world? There can't be a better indication of willingness to pay than 'they have already paid' — are these the pirates WB fears?"

Comments

Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's capitalism. If philosophy is, "To each according to what they can get," then of course people are going to do whatever they can do in order to get as much as possible, sophomoric principles of the fundamentalist dullards with their "perfectly informed, rationally selfish, wealth-creating individuals" theories be damned.

You want a functioning society? You have to mix individual drive with social principles. Nothing is ever maintained except when it maintains balance.

Re:Eh.

[gl4ss]

you're describing anarchy and not capitalism. capitalism expects contracts to be upheld.. without that it doesn't really work as capitalism but as whoever has the most power.

in this case, it should be looked like that they sold a product and didn't deliver. merely returning the money at this point is not enough because they had the capital to work with all this time, as such they should return the capital + reasonable interest.

or if you look from consumer rights side of things they should be thrown into jail for trying to sidestep consumer protection rules by pretending that they weren't selling a product but providing and "investment opportunity" or something akin to charity but with promised product delivery.. in all reality they were a fucking big company making a product and taking pre-orders for said product and then delivering something different.

Re:Eh.

[Jesrad]

Capitalism is not a behavior and it's also not a social organisation. Capitalism is actually three different and complementary techniques for incorporating the passing of time into economy.

1) because people need different things differently as time passes, and because some things may be available more at some time and less at another, capitalism's first technique is speculation, where you buy stuff when it is less in demand and wait to sell it when it is more in demand. That allows us to buy from our own past, at the expense of some wealth being immobilized.
2) because people tend to like getting stuff earlier rather than later, capitalism's second technique is the interest rate of credit, where a given sum of money right now is traded for a larger sum of money later.
3) because some costs may or may not realize in the future, and you can only know (approximately) how likely they are to happen without knowing for sure they will happen, capitalism's third technique is insurance, where you agregate the costs of risks over several people and multiply it by the odds of those risks, and pool the money into a guaranteed credit for facing those costs.

Governments often use those techniques, and so do individuals who care at least a little about the passing of time. And sometimes, they do the opposite because they don't like the fact that time passes and has very real effects on the world, on wealth and on people, and it generally doesn't end up well.

Sometimes capitalism is also equated with the private ownership of production means, in which only individuals have, each, the exclusive rights (usus, abusus and fructus) to whatever tools and knowledge and resources they own. Left to themselves individual who own production means spontaneously turn to the same three techniques above, mostly because they do improve economic calculations when confronted with the passing of time.

And neither of those three techniques, nor the private ownership of production means, implies that people will take charitable or even rational decisions regarding what to do with wealth or tools or resources. That, my friends, only depends on how virtuous they each are.

Thank you for your attention.

Re:Eh.

[serviscope_minor]

It's capitalism.

That's crap. This isn't capitalism, it's insanity.

Under what theory of capitalism would you have a product that people had *ALREADY* paid for and can trivially deliver but decide to give back the money and not deliver because of no rational fathomable reason?

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

... Capitalism is actually three different and complementary techniques ...

You're arguing that because time is valuable, any effort to assign a value to it creates capitalism.

This suggests that communism won't put a price on time. Actually, that last sentence embodies the definition of capital found in any textbook: Capitalism is the exchange of values according to the supply and demand of the underlying assets. This contrasts to Marxism and communism where everything is identical in value (eg wages) and supply or demand is ignored. The time-value of money is part of the monetary system, not the capitalist system: That is, people can get bank loans and cars in a capitalist or communist economy because they both supply those assets. In a communist system, supply will be low because prices are fixed and in a capitalist system, prices will be monopolistic because supply includes product differentiation.

Re:Eh.

[usuallylost]

in this case, it should be looked like that they sold a product and didn't deliver. merely returning the money at this point is not enough because they had the capital to work with all this time, as such they should return the capital + reasonable interest.

In general I agree with you on this. I don't like seeing situations where a company doesn't deal honestly with people and gets away with it. Unfortunately looking at the kickstarter FAQ it appears that their terms of service do allow them to get away with just refunding the money. For your typical kickstarter where people made a good faith effort to supply what was promised I can see that for something like this I am less sure that is appropriate.

I wonder if it has occurred to them how that could be exploited. Say I come up with a really good sounding idea and get people on kickstarter to give me a bunch of money for it. Some of these things have raised multiple millions on there. For the sake of example say I convince people to give me enough that I end up with $1 million after kickstarter and Amazon get their fees. I turn around and invest that in an aggressive stock fund and get 10% return. My guess is you could string people along for several years putting out bogus updates. So after say three years you have $1,331,000 less taxes etc. Then you come back give a sob story about how the project has fallen apart and you just can't complete it. Then following these terms you send all your backers an offer to refund their money and that they should just contact you if they want a refund. My guess is half the people won't even ask for their money back. So lets say 50% of the total amount pledged ends up being refunded. So you promptly pay out $500,000 while apologizing profusely for the problems etc. Since the amounts per individual are so small most people aren't going to really investigate what went on in any detail. In that example you refund everyone who asks and still walk away with $831,000 less taxes. Heck even if everyone demands a refund you'd end up with something around $300,000 less taxes.

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"capital + reasonable interest."

Nah, mate: Capital plUs Reasonable RoyaltieS.

Known on the street as CuRRs. I had a Currs lite just the other night. It was terrible.

Re:Eh.

[tekrat]

This is a really good idea, I think you should start a kickstarter, or a ponzi scheme, whichever seems easier.

Re:Eh.

[SuperTechnoNerd]

the $35 was basically a 'loan', which is now paid back.. Probably the plan from the beginning..
Hey Where's my interest payments!!!

Re:Eh.

[SuperTechnoNerd]

" Ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit..."

Gordon Gekko

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is not a behavior and it's also not a social organisation. Capitalism is actually three different and complementary techniques for incorporating the passing of time into economy.

I thought Capitalism was an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits. Out of curiosity, why does having the means of production controlled by private owners not count as a kind of social system? Did capitalism exist before money, when people went hunting and traded their furs for corn or whatever? It still seems to fit the definition of capitalism even though they might not have had the concept of credit and insurance at that time.

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Under what theory of capitalism would you have a product that people had *ALREADY* paid for and can trivially deliver but decide to give back the money and not deliver because of no rational fathomable reason?

For them, it maximizes their profits. They got to collect interest on the money and invest it in a profitable venture. If they pay back the money now, it was essentially an interest free loan. They might even make a profit on introducing new users to the site where they are allowing people to watch it. For example, Netflix provides its affiliates with $16 for every new subscriber.

Re:Eh.

[jedidiah]

Law and Order ties into this as it creates a framework in which the market can function. Without the market, you just have bullies running amok and stealing from those that try to create value. The system needs to be regulated so that it's predictable and people are able to retain the rewards of their efforts.

Re:Eh.

[serviscope_minor]

I figured that it was considered a loan, but even so, they have to rely on the customers then spending on average $35 in order to break even on this strategy. It still looks like it's far more worth keeping the money than giving it back and attempting to get it again.

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like seeing situations where a company doesn't deal honestly with people and gets away with it.

The whole deal wasn't honest from the beginning. The movie didn't need funding...they've had that lined up for a number of years now. Warner had the rights to the movie and wouldn't allow it to be made unless they could prove there was demand for it. Only then would they allow it to be made and agree to distribute it. The Kickstarter was about proving the demand, not about raising money.

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. It may surprise you that people like me exist. I'm not going to explain anything or try to convince people you're wrong or anything, I just want you to be surprised by a new word.

Re:Eh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought capitalism was the economic system of using money (capital) to make more money?

Re:Eh.

[Alsee]

"15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance"

Geico Gekko

-

Investors? Really?

[OzJimbob]

Heh, it's not even "customers" they're denying a download to - if you follow the nomenclature of Kickstarter, then it's *investors*! Evidence, if you needed it, that you're not really an investor when you get involved in Kickstarter, you're just paying a premium to pre-order something, and praying you won't get screwed over.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Sponge Bath]

I think it's closer to throwing some disposable cash over the wall in the vague hope that the participants deliver something resembling their pitch. If you are that worked up about your contribution, don't play with kickstarter.

Re:Investors? Really?

[brxndxn]

They ARE investors.. The whole point of Kickstarter is for people with a good idea to solicit capital from interested investors. If the original terms of the agreement are not honored, perhaps the original investors can sue for their percentage of ownership of the entire profits of the operation.

Re:Investors? Really?

[grmoc]

Kickstarter doesn't do investing. It is a pre-purchase...
I challenge you to find the word "invest" in the below (hint, it isn't there, nor is it *anywhere* on the Kickstarter page)

From Kickstarter:

Pledge $35 or more

  22997 backers

You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movie’s theatrical debut, plus the T-shirt, plus the pdf of the shooting script. Naturally, you will also receive regular updates and behind-the-scenes scoop throughout the fundraising and movie making process. Available to US, Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil, and Select EU countries (Now including Norway and Switzerland! See Project Description for full list)

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that whatever accounting methods they're using will show that the movie never earned profit.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

"They ARE investors.. The whole point of Kickstarter is for people with a good idea to solicit capital from interested investors. If the original terms of the agreement are not honored, perhaps the original investors can sue for their percentage of ownership of the entire profits of the operation."

Yes, BUT...

They are "investors", in the sense they are investing money in the product, but they aren't "investors" in the usual sense of investing in something in order to make a profit later. You are "investing" for a fixed reward that has little or nothing to do with the product's eventual success.

Re:Investors? Really?

[EvilSS]

Kickstarter doesn't do investing. It is a pre-purchase...

It's neither. It's funding. You are providing funding to the owners of the project to get the project off the ground. You may get rewards in return but they are not a pre-purchase, pre-order or any such thing (and Kickstarter is very clear about that, if people bother to read what the fuck they agree to when they sign up). This confusion was the catalyst for their policy changes on physical projects a while back. As you said they are also very clear it is not an "investment". That comes with a whole world of regulatory pain (and would essentially make the whole concept impossible).

Re:Investors? Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Kickstarter doesn't do investing. It is a pre-purchase..."

No.

Kickstarter is very careful to explain in their documentation that your investment is not a purchase. You are betting that the owners of the campaign will come up with a viable product.

Sometimes, your "investment" only reaps you something like a T-Shirt or even a bumpersticker, or dinner with the inventor. In any case, it's not a "purchase" of the product, even if the "rewards" sometimes make it look more like a purchase than an investment.

Re:Investors? Really?

[grmoc]

No, they are NOT investors.
If they were investors,they'd be in trouble with the FTC, which hasn't yet setup regulations allowing such.

People who use Kickstarter are pre-purchasing whatever it is they're being sold. That can act as income for a company, and thus a funding source, but that does not make people who purchase things via Kickstarter investors.

One of these days, we will be able to invest in this manner, but not yet.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. It is a contract of fulfillment to make something real.

They fulfilled the object of the contract, so they are deemed required to distribute their end of the bargain.

Time to read the fine little letters regarding the exact terms of what they should deliver and when...

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also if you were an investor you would receive imputation tax credits if your kickstarter failed (after raising the specified capital), and would receive shares and a dividend if it was successful.

I was trying to setup a similar scheme to Kickstarter in New Zealand with actual dividends and stock issues, but ran into a brick wall, as there is a certain club of people who are the only authorised persons to operate a stock market or make IPOs in NZ, and the only way to get into the club is to be invited by those already in the club (the clubs is made up of executives of large investment banks and the NZSE, and they have a vested interest in not allowing new members). Since this club is backed by the force of law, much like the Lawyers Guild of New Zealand, you get to see who is really in charge just by following the money.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

[...] perhaps the original investors can sue for their percentage of ownership of the entire profits of the operation.

Unlikely, given that this is in Kickstarter's Terms of Use:

Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.

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.

So, basically, offering a refund is in line with the original terms of the agreement, meaning that backers have no grounds on which to sue, since WB is technically upholding their end of the contract. And regarding something else you said:

They ARE investors.

They may be "investors" in the colloquial sense of the word, but they have no claim to ownership, since the Guidelines make it quite clear that:

Creators cannot offer equity or financial incentives (ownership, share of profits, repayment/loans, cash-value equivalents, etc).

So, long story short, WB sucks, but the backers have no recourse except to name-and-shame WB if WB is offering them a refund in place of the promised reward. They have no claim to ownership or a share of the profits that the film makes.

Re:Investors? Really?

[MrBigInThePants]

Being from NZ myself I do not find this at all surprising.

KS only just became available for NZers BTW. I assume it took enormous amounts of time to get through the IRD and all the other red tape bullshit.

It should also be noted that almost all NZ SMEs are not publicly listed. The fraction is tiny. Private investment is the way of things because it avoids an awful lot of overhead and unnecessary waste if you can go private.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a Republican would call an investment not an investment. You people are pitiful. Why can't your kind admit that an investment is an investment? Is it because of tax implications? You want to lie and claim it is something else so you have a loophole to not pay taxes? That is disgusting, and it is what makes your kind disgusting.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

Precisely. It's not an investment; Kickstarter expressly disallows project creators from granting equity, a share of the profits, or other such things. Nor is it a store; Kickstarter explicitly states as much in their FAQ documentation.

In this particular case, it sounds like the reward may not be fulfilled in accordance with the terms of the contract, so the contract stipulates that the project creator must grant a reward to the backer, which it sounds like WB is indeed doing, as per what they agreed to do when they created the project. Most people never read the fine print and noticed that offering a refund is a valid way course of action for WB according to the contract they entered.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Darinbob]

Not financial investors though, and people don't assume that their kickstarter investment will accrue monetary value over time. However they are real investors none the less.

Re:Investors? Really?

[arth1]

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 Backerâ(TM)s pledge at any time and for any reason, and if they do so, are not required to fulfill the reward.

So, basically, offering a refund is in line with the original terms of the agreement, meaning that backers have no grounds on which to sue, since WB is technically upholding their end of the contract.

No, they're not. Read again. An offer isn't good enough. They have to refund any Backer whose reward they do not fulfill.
That means refunding every single backer, and not just those who go through the hassle of asking where their promised download is, and keep the rest of the money.

I'd like for Kickstarter to take them to court over this. But of course that won't happen, because Warner has deeper pockets, and that's all that matters here in the US.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS an investment, just not in the way defined by financial circles... thats not the only definition.

I can give money to someone or a company, investing in their future without expecting or being entitled to profits, equity or anything in return.
By backing LED lightbulbs on KS I invested in the future of our planet.
Backing numerous comics, games & movies I invested in the collective culture of our planet.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

No, they're not. Read again. An offer isn't good enough. They have to refund any Backer whose reward they do not fulfill.

Sure. You're being pedantic, but yes, you're correct. Even so, they don't have a magic 8 ball with which to tell who's upset. The best they can do is make refunds available to anyone asking, since as far as they knew, they fulfilled the reward already. After all, the campaign stated the film would be distributed via Flixster to backers within a few day's of the film's theatrical release. What actually happened? Codes were provided to backers to access the video via Flixster within a few day's of the film's release, exactly as promised.

The problems began because some users were either incapable of using Flixster (e.g. geographic restrictions, difficulty in redeeming the code, etc.) or were unwilling to accept Flixster as a valid fulfillment of the reward (e.g. DRM, streaming instead of download, etc.). Regardless, a quick scan through the comments on the Kickstarter page demonstrate that WB is doing everything they can to make things right by everyone, providing backers with compensation if they purchase it via an alternative service such as iTunes or Amazon, and refunding backers who would prefer to simply wash their hands of the whole ordeal. They're even discouraging backers from instructing others to not ask for a refund because it might harm the chances of a sequel, telling everyone that it's perfectly fine and that it's most important that no one feels like they weren't taken care of.

WB still sucks for using that service, but as far as I can tell, this is a case of the Internet making a mountain out of a molehill. There's WAY more outrage here than is reasonable, given what's been going on, unless there's something that I'm missing, which is entirely possible.

Re:Investors? Really?

[bungo]

I'm a backer of the Veroncia Mars movie.

I was hoping that a movie would be made, of at leave direct-to-video quality. If it didn't get make, then, oh well, it was worth the shot.

It's not like I committed as much as the founder of XE.com, who paid $10,000 for a speaking part in the movie. (Although he could probably afford his $10k as much as I could my $40.)

Re:Investors? Really?

[bungo]

But where were we ever told that it would be a DRM free digitial download?

I'm a backer. I never saw any mention of it being a DRM free digital download. I have access to be backers website, I read all of the comments on kickstarted by Rob and his team. No-one ever said that it would be DRM free.

As far as I'm concerned, they delivered the promised download, they met the conditions.

Re:Investors? Really?

[N1AK]

Exactly. It's a bad decision but ultimately if they are offering backers the choice of their money back (through an easy process) then it isn't like anyone who cares about having a downloadable copy is out of pocket. Plenty of Kickstarters fail to deliver at all, to deliver on time or to deliver exactly what they said they would; that's an inherent issue when backing something so early in the process and backers usually expect a considerable discount in return.

Re:Investors? Really?

[sprint907]

WB mentioned that it will be with DRM?

Re:Investors? Really?

[EvilSS]

Not really. It is a contract of fulfillment to make something real.

They fulfilled the object of the contract, so they are deemed required to distribute their end of the bargain.

Time to read the fine little letters regarding the exact terms of what they should deliver and when...

Nope. Go read the site's terms.

Re:Investors? Really?

[argStyopa]

I keep hearing this "it's a prepurchase" bullshit.

If I prepurchase something, and it's never later available, I am legally entitled to a refund.

Kickstarter has no such provision.

Re:Investors? Really?

[arth1]

Sure. You're being pedantic, but yes, you're correct. Even so, they don't have a magic 8 ball with which to tell who's upset.

They don't need to. They are obliged to return the funds whether the backer is upset or not.

They're even discouraging backers from instructing others to not ask for a refund because it might harm the chances of a sequel,

I think the simpler solution seems to me that they are discouraging that because they do not want to provide fuel for a class action lawsuit.

Re:Investors? Really?

[omnichad]

While that's clever and true, they never put a condition of profit on it.

Re:Investors? Really?

[omnichad]

Unless you think of the end product actually being created as being your profit. And really, that's the only way to look at it.

Re:Investors? Really?

[omnichad]

to tell who's upset.

That wasn't what Kickstarter's terms said. They were unable to fulfill it for anyone according to their own wording. Therefore once they realized their mistake, they should either make good on it or have all receive a refund.

WB didn't use Kickstarter. The people that made the promises (show creators, I believe) used it to get funding. They then pitched it and the funds to WB, who accepted. WB then changed course, probably against the wishes of the ones that created the Kickstarter. Maybe I'm wrong- I'm too lazy to read. But that seems fairly clear from the other comments.

Re:Investors? Really?

[omnichad]

the promised download

With a Trojan horse. Sending someone an encrypted file that only plays on limited devices is less than what sounds like was promised. If I were in your situation, I would be angry.

Let's say I said I could give you a car for $500 and you said "great!" and handed me your money. Would you be happy if I delivered a car that could only travel within a 500 mile radius of your home or the engine would be remotely shut down? Extreme example, but same principle. If it's not part of the offer, it's not agreed to. Would you be happy after waiting months for it if I only offered a refund if you weren't happy?

Not mentioning DRM means it doesn't come with DRM.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Shadowmist]

WB mentioned that it will be with DRM?

DRM is a given since all WB video products are sold with DRM or equivalent protection against copyright theft, WB never promised that it would be DRM free. Only an out of his mind Slashdotter was going to think that WB would reverse precedent for this one film.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

From what I've gathered, the vast majority of people have been able to redeem their reward successfully, which is why I don't understand this suggestion that they need to refund everyone. And if people are having problems redeeming the codes, it sounds like they have no way of knowing that in advance, which is why I've been saying that the best they can do is offer a refund or alternatives.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

They don't need to. They are obliged to return the funds whether the backer is upset or not.

Only if they're unable to fulfill the reward, which it sounds like is not the case except for a small minority of backers. The vast majority of backers were able to successfully redeem their rewards, from what I've gathered of the situation, which is why I've said that the backers need to get in touch with WB if they're having problems, that way WB has a chance to set things right, rather than an automatic refund going out to everyone.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

Not mentioning DRM means it doesn't come with DRM.

I guess I'm more cynical than you. To me, not mentioning DRM means that it does come with DRM, just like not mentioning growth hormones means that the meat you just bought is from an animal that received them. In contrast, the convention with person-to-person sales is that everything is disclosed, since people, on an individual basis, are usually decent and uninterested in scamming.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

I never said it was promised that it would be DRM free. I merely said that some people were unwilling to accept the reward due to the DRM.

Anyway, yeah, as an outsider looking at this situation, it looks to me like the reward was pretty much fulfilled. The reason I say "pretty much" is because they promised a download, but it appears that Flixster merely offers streaming of the film, which is not the same thing, and it's a distinction that actually would matter to quite a few people.

Re:Investors? Really?

[omnichad]

Cynical? Of course I would assume they'd try to pull that. But it's still not in the terms of sale. It's more restricted than the actual offer, therefore it's less than was promised. Not fulfilled.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're not. Read again. An offer isn't good enough. They have to refund any Backer whose reward they do not fulfill. That means refunding every single backer, and not just those who go through the hassle of asking where their promised download is, and keep the rest of the money. I'd like for Kickstarter to take them to court over this. But of course that won't happen, because Warner has deeper pockets, and that's all that matters here in the US.

To take someone to court and win, you need to have first attempted to solve the problem without the help of the law. Asking for a refund is so trivially easy, you'd be mocked by the judge for suing on the ground you weren't given an automatic refund. The courts aren't there for when you get your feelings hurt and want to get revenge. They're there to solve actual problems and you don't have one. WB's deep pockets have nothing to do with it. You don't have a case.

Re:Investors? Really?

[jedidiah]

I would describe it as being a Patron. Nobody is expecting a share of the profits. That's what separates an investment from what is essentially charity. You are collectively playing the role of Cosimo de' Medici, not Bill Gates.

Re: Investors? Really?

[AudioEfex]

They used Flixter because it was the only place willing/able to do it worldwide day/date same. So no one could not get their copy, is that they couldn't get it through their preferred method. Most of the people crying are just pissed it's not on iTunes, which is actually Apples fault for not playing nice with ultraviolet. And, btw, the code just needed to be registered at Flixter, you did not have to use Flixter, that's the whole point of ultraviolet - unless you choose only the walled gardens of Apple to view your media, everyone else can watch it fine. I have six devices in front of me that play UV content, and the only ones that don't are AppleTV (the majority of the complainers).

I'm really pissed that a small group of whiny folks are being such asshats and making much ado about nothing marring what is really a remarkable and awesome thing, top to bottom. They are a bunch of idiots who don't know how to use the code so they scream, or they know better but prefer iTunes and are crying. It's pathetic. They delivered what they promised, they didn't say your digital copy would be served like it was Burger King "anyway you want it" and the people making a stink should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Investors? Really?

[AudioEfex]

It's ultraviolet. Most devices can play it. The only one that can't is AppleTV because they won't play ball. I have six devices in front of me that play UV. If anyone expected an unencrypted download file they are completely retarded, because no one sells video content like that. Stop thinking about music. My guess is you have never purchased a digital copy of a video so you are simply ignorant to the fact that what you are asking for doesn't exist.

Re: Investors? Really?

[omnichad]

The last two digital videos products I've purchased were from Jim Gaffigan and from Rifftrax. Both were DRM-free. Rifftrax has actually managed to negotiate to offer a few downloads of Hollywood films, merged with the Rifftrax commentary. Not new or popular movies, but studio films nonetheless.

I've redeemed UV codes on movies I've purchased in other formats, but I don't really regard them as useful. They are the better of the streaming/DRM tracks. But it's not convenient for me. I'd prefer to watch my movies on my Linux media center without streaming. True, the rips from my DVD collection are "illegal" due to DMCA. But at least it can be done.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what "nomenclature" means, do you? If you follow the Kickstarter nomenclature, the people providing the money are "backers" making a "donation."

Re:Investors? Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

"No, they are NOT investors."

WHOOSH

No, they aren't "investors" in the sense that they're expecting a return on their investment. That's why FTC has fuck all to do with it. That's THE POINT people are trying to make here.

You're helping to fund a startup. You get a fixed reward in exchange for your funding. You aren't buying stock, and you aren't "purchasing" a product. Rather, it's like fund raisers who give you a stuffed dog or a lapel pin when you donate.

Many Kickstarter projects don't even offer the product itself for contributions. They offer other things instead, like T-Shirts, or dinner with the inventor. So no, it's not "purchase" of the project's product.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Unless you think of the end product actually being created as being your profit. And really, that's the only way to look at it."

Well, sure. That's part of my point. You aren't an "investor" in the sense of, say, a stockholder. But you're still "investing" in the startup, in a very real sense.

But Kickstarter makes it very clear that while most products offer an incentive for making a donation, you're not "purchasing" a product.

Re:Investors? Really?

[ynp7]

Can you actually download a copy from Flixter, or just stream it? I've only used UV on my Roku box, so maybe you can actually download elsewhere, but I thought that it was streaming only.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Mirar]

Interesting. So WB rather lose $804895 + 22997 times customer service cost and banking fee than to put up a download site for a few thousand dollars?

Why?

I feel there should be a follow-the-money reason to this, but I can't spot it.

Re:Investors? Really?

[NicBenjamin]

I'm a backer.

I got a 1.64 GB file, which plays fine even when I turn my WiFi off.

I thought that (by definition) made it a not-streaming video, but hey. Everyone's bitching it's streaming so clearly I don't know what I'm talking about.

Re:Investors? Really?

[NicBenjamin]

Like I said in the comment above I got a file and it doesn't require the internet to play.

I suspect what's going on is that Flixter and Ultraviolet have a complicated relationship I don't understand, one (or the other) is supposed to be solely streaming, and the other sells files; and a bunch of people misread thew FAQ.

Re:Investors? Really?

[Anubis IV]

Thanks for the clarification. As someone who's never used Flixster or Ultraviolet, I honestly didn't know. The whining seemed to indicate that it was streaming-only, but if it's download, then I don't know that they have any grounds for a complaint.

Return the money AND the risk premium

[Anonymous Coward]

So, according to movie industry math, Warner Bros ought to pay every backer $350?

Re:Return the money AND the risk premium

[Sponge Bath]

So, according to movie industry math, Warner Bros ought to pay every backer $350?

They will pay in the fabulous new wbcoin crypto currency. Just as soon as they get some kickstarter money to develop it. Contribute now!

Re:Return the money AND the risk premium

[ArcadeMan]

If you were to really use MPAA math, Warner Bros ought to pay every backer 3.5 million dollars.

Fuck you I got mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Warner Bros is just big enough to not even have to pretend like they give a tiny shit about you.

Download

[ZombieBraintrust]

UltraViolet (UV) is a free, cloud-based, digital rights library that allows users of digital home entertainment content to stream and download purchased content to multiple platforms and devices.

according to the link UltraViolet provides downloads. The issue was that UltraViolet is buggy. It provides downloads in theory. I think there was some region restriction also with the service. That didn't work with KickStarters international reach.

Re:Download

[Mitreya]

The issue was that UltraViolet is buggy. It provides downloads in theory. I think there was some region restriction also with the service.

Oh, how I hate those streaming services and the assumption that such delivery is convenient for the user.

It's hard to find a downloadable movie trailer nowdays (and you'd think this is something movie studios WANT me to have, because it is an advert for their product).

Re:Download

[ZombieBraintrust]

UltraViolet downloads, better known as the Common File Format, are not available as of Jan 1, 2013. Streaming providers who are UltraViolet ready are able to offer their own proprietary downloads. These downloaded copies are unable to be copied from one device to another, and are not cross-platform.

more info

Re:Download

[Gunboat_Diplomat]

The issue was that UltraViolet is buggy. It provides downloads in theory. I think there was some region restriction also with the service.

Oh, how I hate those streaming services and the assumption that such delivery is convenient for the user.

It's hard to find a downloadable movie trailer nowdays (and you'd think this is something movie studios WANT me to have, because it is an advert for their product).

Personally, I find Netflix damn convenient for the user. Just auto-continue to next episode is worth the fee vs Piratebay episode download hunting.

Re:Download

[EvilSS]

UltraViolet (UV) is a free, cloud-based, digital rights library that allows users of digital home entertainment content to stream and download purchased content to multiple platforms and devices.

according to the link UltraViolet provides downloads. The issue was that UltraViolet is buggy. It provides downloads in theory. I think there was some region restriction also with the service. That didn't work with KickStarters international reach.

It's not even that Ultraviolet is buggy, but Flixster is buggy. This just highlights why UV is doomed if they don't fix their shit and drop this "You need an account here, and here, and here, and you need to link this account to that account, and this one to that one, and that one to that other one" BS. Then the poor saps that managed to do that were having issues with Flixster apps on different platforms. It's bad enough for the tech savvy, image trying to help your parent or no-so-technical sibling navigate that maze.

Re:Download

[DarwinSurvivor]

Sure, if all you do is watch movies from beginning to end in your living room it works great. There are many things that do NOT work very well:

Offline viewing such as on transit, airplanes, road trips, camping (children get very bored sometimes), etc

Rewind. I should not have to wait 10 seconds for it to re-buffer in order to rewind 3 seconds because I missed an important piece of dialog that was important to the plot. I can't believe the player doesn't just cache the last minute of the video to make this seameless, this would use what, 10-20MB of extra ram?

Forcing high-definition. Sometimes netflix just decides to play in low definiton no matter how fucking long you let it buffer. In fact, letting a movie buffer (download) ahead of time so I can watch it in glorious high-def after dinner would be a VERY nice feature.

Marathon watching. At least once I've been half-way through a TV series when netflix decided to remove it from the line-up. Thanks alot for that one! This isn't even counting the rediculous number of movies trilogies where netflix only has movies 2 and 3 (seriously, WTF).

Internation watching. Live in the US and visit Canada? Get ready to not be able to watch your shows until you get home because Canada is not worthy of 90% of netflix movies.

Re:Download

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...streaming services

Which simply does not work for most of the USA. We simply do not have adequate bandwidth to stream. I live in the Seattle area, and other than a couple of friends that live way the fuck out in nowhere to the northeast of Issaquah, not a single person I've ever known has enough bandwidth to stream Netflix. That sort of connection just isn't common here the Internet-hell known as Seattle. Many of my coworkers are still stuck with dialup. I have 1 Mbps DSL from CenturyLink, and it certainly isn't fast enough to stream a movie. There's a reason Netflix streaming is not popular. Red Box is flourishing in the US, and especially in the Seattle area, because of the lack of connectivity.

Re:Download

[Gunboat_Diplomat]

I use a country switcher browser plugin, so the international part don't bother me, even though I travel a lot. But I do like Spotify's solution to this better. As for the other scenarios - yes, Netflix could still learn from Spotify, which has the perfect solution to offline and cached playing. Spotify is proving that it is possible for a streaming service to deliver all of this. Except for the remove part, that is not Netflix/Spotify's fault, but the content owners being dicks.

Re:Download

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix does keep a buffer up to 4 minutes ahead, I don't know how much it keeps before where you're at, the PC version doesn't have the 10 second rewind feature that PS3 and other versions may have. The problem is that even though you have a 4 minute buffer, you're incapable of using it to scan as it only serves to support intermittently losing your Internet connection. Any scanning action instantly purges your buffer.

The buffer is there, but I guess Netflix purges it to satisfy the studios. And they probably pay less for rights if it is solely seen streaming, so walking away isn't possible if you have a lesser connection to try to get high def.

Re:Download

[stoploss]

Most of your points are well-taken, but these:

Marathon watching. At least once I've been half-way through a TV series when netflix decided to remove it from the line-up. Thanks alot for that one! This isn't even counting the rediculous number of movies trilogies where netflix only has movies 2 and 3 (seriously, WTF).

Internation watching. Live in the US and visit Canada? Get ready to not be able to watch your shows until you get home because Canada is not worthy of 90% of netflix movies.

...these are the fault of the fucking content owners and their greed. This is well documented. Fuck them.

I mean, why else would Netflix have these gaps in their service? Trying to save disk space in their server farms? Perhaps Netflix feels your filthy Canadian loonies aren't good enough tender for the other content and therefore refuses to allow your benighted population to glimpse the wonder of the sheer volume of sewage flowing forth from Hollywood?

IP law needs to be obliterated and rewritten. This "150 years plus the heat death of the universe, and I control everything about it and all derivative works forever" shit has got to stop. Mandatory copyright licensing with FRAND pricing schedules and a 15 year tern would be a good first step. And if the content creators want to take their ball and go home then fine... they won't be missed. Others will innovate in their place.

Re:Download

[DarwinSurvivor]

Sort of. It is the studios' faults that netflix must license for each country separately and that some movies/shows are more expensive or not available in some countries, but some of these are shows I can see on regular Canadian cable TV, so I'm sure netflix is to blame for at least some of the missing content.

The series I was referring to was actually removed as part of their "regular subscription rotation" or some BS that would not have been a problem had I been able to download the entire series before getting half-way through the damn thing.

Re:Download

[stoploss]

Meh. I really doubt Netflix prefers to make a smaller library available, so the blame goes back to the content owners. Just like I can't pay for online access to HBO shows without paying for cable first (ie. HBO Go). Some content owners are unreasonable (there's no FRAND) or are using their library to try to get their own streaming system to have traction, or whatever addled plans these fuckers come up with this week. So, just because a show was syndicated on a Canadian channel doesn't mean Netflix could reasonably obtain a license to show it. In fact, that might be *why* Netflix couldn't get a license to stream it, thanks to the content owners. Just like there are no HBO channels on Netflix even though HBO is on US premium cable. HBO will likely never license to Netflix, ever, as long as they imagine HBO Go can work.

As for your series vanishing, again, that's the content owners fault for pulling the plug on their license to Netflix. Netflix does not have "tiers" of streaming content equivalent to cable company bundle packages, at least in the US. It's all or nothing: if Netflix has a license to stream it in your country, you have access.

I'm not saying that there aren't advantages in certain scenarios for a download rather than a stream. However, it's inappropriate to chalk up the vagaries of content owners as a strike against Netflix/streaming. For example, you can download a legitimate, DRM infested video file that won't play at all if the the content company shuts down the licensing server.

The pirates ultimately have a generally superior product, but Netflix is sufficiently frictionless for me that I rarely have to resort to Ye Olde Bay O'Torrents.

Re:Download

[L4t3r4lu5]

Just like I can't pay for online access to HBO shows without paying for cable first (ie. HBO Go).

I bet that's because of the cable companies.

"Oh you want to offer your shows online? That's fine! Yes, that's fine... Oh, what's this? The renewal contract for your cable channel! Huh, look at that... It seems to be moving closer to the shredder... It looks like it's getting really very close... Quick, do something to stop it! No no... You sit where you are... You just sit right there, and make it stop moving towards the shredder... You have that power. Sorry, what was that? A little louder, please... I can't hear you over the sound of the shredder motors... 'Only offering streaming to cable subscribers'? Well now, there's a thought... I think that might just... Oh look! The contract is moving back onto the table..." *Rubbing intensifies.*

Re:Download

[omnichad]

No kidding. I used to use a script for MythTV to predownload movie trailers in 1080p to watch later. Originally it was from the Apple site, but Apple obfuscated their site so badly, I'm surprised it still worked in browsers. It became nearly impossible to script around, yet they were still using DRM-free MOV files.

I gave up and now I use Flixter on Roku to watch trailers. Lousy quality. Ads...on a trailer (ad). Yes, the same Flixter that this Kickstarter used for UV delivery.

Youtube is really the only place to download a 1080p tailer from these days (unofficially, using a few tricks). But there's no viable playlist to find a nice curated selection from.

Re:Download

[Shadowmist]

IP law needs to be obliterated and rewritten. This "150 years plus the heat death of the universe, and I control everything about it and all derivative works forever" shit has got to stop. Mandatory copyright licensing with FRAND pricing schedules and a 15 year tern would be a good first step. And if the content creators want to take their ball and go home then fine... they won't be missed. Others will innovate in their place.

It's not going to happen. no one will ever willingly turn off a money spigot. If anything you're going to see more micropayments being pushed on us. And with the number of content providers dwindling on a yearly basis, you're not going to have competition to drive down price either.

Re:Download

[Agent0013]

In the end it just leads to shows like "Game of Thrones" being the most torrented show of all history. If they don't want to get their product to customers then the black market will find a way. That's where their thinking fails. They don't realize that they are still competing with the black market even if they try to eliminate their other more legal competition.

Re:Download

[tlhIngan]

It's hard to find a downloadable movie trailer nowdays (and you'd think this is something movie studios WANT me to have, because it is an advert for their product).

That I blame on the rise of YouTube, because the traditional trailers site is still around. (Who knew that Apple still maintains one of the big official trailers site?). Veronica Mars site. It's a touch tricky downloading from it these days (it always "requires Quicktime Pro" but there are ways around it The other way I've found is via iTunes - you can have it download the trailer there and get at the MP4 file that way.

Other than Apple, I have no clue where else to get trailers - it just seems Apple is the de-facto standard in that department, other than YouTube.

Re:Download

[marcosdumay]

I use a country switcher browser plugin

Thus, you pirate it.

So the studio

[future assassin]

took the money to finish the show and nowI refunding it? Is there's interest on this money since they didn't deliver the original deal? Im sure anyone else who lent them the money for the rest of the project probably got extra income as percentage of thir loan.

Re:So the studio

[okle69]

Well if they get their $35 back and buy a digital copy, they will have the movie and cash in hand left over, which is more than they'd have gotten if they just took what WB offered.

Re:So the studio

[viperidaenz]

and Warner Brothers have used them as an interest free and risk free loan.

Re:So the studio

[EvilSS]

took the money to finish the show and nowI refunding it? Is there's interest on this money since they didn't deliver the original deal? Im sure anyone else who lent them the money for the rest of the project probably got extra income as percentage of thir loan.

They are refunding $10 (their cost of the UV download, their words, not mine) or you can go buy it on Amazon, iTunes, whatever and they will cover the cost (or they were saying that last I heard). The money is coming from the marketing budget that WB provided, not the production budget that the Kickstarter money went to.

Re:So the studio

[okle69]

regardless, it does not put the consumer out any more money, and if they refund it the consumer gets more cash back on top of the movie than if they had paid interest.

Re:So the studio

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, just like when a dishonoured money transfer doesn't put my bank out any money. They are just fine with that.

Re:So the studio

[Anonymous Coward]

The never needed the loan. The buy-in was all just part of market research ("I wonder how many rubes would pay for cheapass retread of this cult-ish show?"). They got their answer. Now we have moved on to the *actual* monetization stage ("How do we got those rubes into theaters?").

Re:So the studio

[viperidaenz]

Except they can't buy a DRM-free copy of the movie from anywhere for any amount of money.

Re:So the studio

[Agent0013]

The title of this article points out that you can get a DRM-free copy from pirate bay. And it takes no money at all.

Re:So the studio

[viperidaenz]

and if you're caught, you'll get sued by the people you paid to create the content.

How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If som

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[xevioso]

tl; dr; stupid, and off topic.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[MightyMartian]

Back to hiding -1 posts.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.

WHY does it turn red when you cut it open? Because it's exposed to oxygen in the air? Then cut one open in a vacuum. Or in an oxygen-free atmosphere. or maybe it turns red because of an interaction with the steel of the knife. So use a plastic knife. And so on. These are all testable.

Same with evolution. Point out a fossil that doesn't fit, and win a prize. except you can't, so you don't.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Mullen]

> Same with evolution. Point out a fossil that doesn't fit, and win a prize. except you can't, so you don't.

I always say to people that don't believe in Evolution that if they can collect the data, then make it reproducible and can write a good paper explaining it all, then they can win a Noble Prize and completely and utterly change a major branch of science. Their name will go down in history one of greatest minds ever in the entire length of mankind.

For some reason, none of these people ever take me up on my offer.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

and now we need a -1 Tedious mod.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Kjella]

To them it probably sounds like asking a socialist party from Europe to write an article that gets applauded by Fox News. I suffered through enough Bible classes to find the appropriate quote (from parable of the sower):

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

In their view of the world we've closed our hearts and minds to God and are blind and deaf to the truth, so in their eyes one scientist agreeing with another scientist on evolution is just the blind leading the deaf. You probably think the Nobel prize or scientific consensus means something to them, but it doesn't. To them a legion of blind men are still wrong and need to open their eyes, we're all wrong and the failure lies on our end because we can't see it not theirs. To get back to the parable:

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

They're the ones trying to sow the seeds, we're the barren ground. They're looking for the "good soil", the rest of us well they don't really give up on fertilizing it (or as I'd call it, spreading their shit) but well not everybody's cut out for heaven and they as the righteous ones are in and the unworthy of us are out. Unless we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior of course, then all is forgiven.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[lucm]

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.

WHY does it turn red when you cut it open? Because it's exposed to oxygen in the air? Then cut one open in a vacuum. Or in an oxygen-free atmosphere. or maybe it turns red because of an interaction with the steel of the knife. So use a plastic knife. And so on. These are all testable.

Same with evolution. Point out a fossil that doesn't fit, and win a prize. except you can't, so you don't.

You can spend a lifetime making up WHYs and figuring out ways to prove or disprove them. That does not even come close to answering the fundamental question about the color of the watermelon.

The only solution to this problem is to have faith and live your life according to what the inside color of the watermelon means to you. You can even believe that there is no watermelon - that's a type of faith as well.

Now can we go back to being insulted that big companies found a way to minize risk in their commercial ventures by using a bait & switch approach so fans are the ones taking the risk?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

"-1" doesn't seem to do this one justice. Is it possible to Mod Parent Down to -10?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[dwarfsoft]

What they fail to see themselves is that they are blind and deaf to the real message, and therefore fail to heed the knowledge that is available to them. They should take heed of their own parable.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[bmcage]

To them it probably sounds like asking a socialist party from Europe to write an article that gets applauded by Fox News. I suffered through enough Bible classes to find the appropriate quote (from parable of the sower):

They could ask Gerard Shroeder though. Would that count?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[NoImNotNineVolt]

lol wat

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

So the answer to the problem of trying to communicate with people who cannot understand plain language is to obfuscate the message in such a way that even the people who know what is going on need to have it explained to them? Good plan Jesus!

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[omnichad]

there is no watermelon

What version of The Matrix did you watch, where you had to choose between a red watermelon or a blue one?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[omnichad]

I'll take this over TempleOS any day.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Funny thing. I always interpreted the parable of the sower as those who chose to close their minds and hearts will never see the truth no matter how much evidence is shown to them. Some christians assume they are the ones with the truth but in reality they are the ones that closed their minds and hearts.

I assumed God and his disciples spoke in parables because we were suppose to search for the knowledge ourselves and not be spooned fed someone else's interpretation of how things should be. Contrary to what the creationists would have us believe about scientists, the ones I know are not only discovering new things about the cosmos but some of them (that let it be shown) are still very spiritual and active in their community.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[coolsnowmen]

I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb here to say: On /., you are shouting in an echo chamber.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

What color is a watermellon in the dark? I think maybe it is actually black.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[jedidiah]

Jesus was born into a highly literate culture where you weren't expected to blindly follow anything. He would probably be appalled by a number of the more mindless factions of Christianity.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[richpoore]

Kjella, I really enjoyed your comment. You have much more understanding of the Christian worldview. The problem is that when you come at evidence with preconceived notions, which we all do, then evidence will be interpreted based on those preconceptions. If you believe that only natural explanations are valid, then you will interpret the evidence to support a natural answer. If, however, you believe that there is a God who exists outside of our space/time continuum, then the evidence will be used to construct a model reflecting such intervention.

Both creation and evolution advocates exercise faith in ideas they deem true, and will cut off people from the dialogue when they disagree. On the creation side, it happens when you discredit what we see as documentation passed from the creator. On the evolution side, it is when there is mention that it may not have been natural processes or that evolution does not extend past limits of kinds of animals.

I had a friend who did not believe in God posit this to his biology professor, that the evolution community, at least in behavior, acted just like a religion. There are unproven things taught as doctrine, and any who disagree with this doctrine will be excommunicated or removed from the community where consensus will be derived. He said his professor conceded that it was true, but that they were right so it was ok.

This is not reason vs religion, it's a battle of worldviews or presuppositions.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, if "he" had actually existed.

Re: How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is all this crap. I'm here to read comments on Veronica Mars and DRM. What the hell is this forum about now? And random shit?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[lucm]

Since black is not a color, the meaning of your comment could qualify as a zen riddle. Thank you, this will give me something to ponder next time I'm in line at Starbucks*.

*Now I really want a salted caramel square...

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[JasonGoatcher]

(someone please tell me what I have to do to keep my editing all the way to the post, for some reason slashdot isn't keeping my paragraphs) Intelligent design makes just as much sense as evolutionary theory. People reject it because they reject God. You saying,"Prove me wrong," is like a prosecutor accusing an innocent man of murder and saying,"Prove me wrong." People look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion. There are two kinds of science, the absolutely provable stuff, like facts about protons and atoms, but then there's the legal, historical stuff. If you look at a clay pot and come up with theories about it, or look at a murder scene and try to reconstruct what happened, those are both in the same general categoy as the theory of evolution.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[RivenAleem]

Sorry for the off-topic.

Strictly speaking, until you shine a light on the inside of the water melon, does it have any colour at all? Is it black? Is it colourless? Colour as we see it is only the left-over light reflected after the other bandwidths are absorbed by the surface. Until you cut open the watermelon, no light shines on the inside and thus there is no colour.

It's along the same lines of the tree falling in the woods debate. Sure, it's falling disturbs the molecules of air around it, but it doesn't produce sound until someone is there to hear it!

Re:How to Falsify Evolution

[theotherbastard]

Perhaps it's a quantum watermelon and the simple act of measuring the color on the inside turns it from blue to red?

Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

The Ultraviolet version is downloadable via the Flixster client, which plays back from your local machine. Backers were never promised a DRM-free download. Personally, I'll take a DRM download with no weird distracting artifacts over a watermarked DRM-free one. That said, DRM is evil and terrible and always sucks. However, it's not true that the Veronica Mars people broke their promises. That's a lie.

Re:Not true.

[stevel]

I agree - I've downloaded the movie twice from Flixster. Anyone who thinks that a DRM-free download would be provided is dreaming. WB is offering to pay for downloads from other services such as Amazon and iTunes. The OP reads to me like a lame excuse to justify piracy.

Yes, some number of KS backers are having trouble. I know at least one who hasn't received her code. But it reads to me as if WB is trying to do the right thing, on top of this unprecedented same-day digital release.

Re:Not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

The right thing would be to release a DRM-free video in a format that was free and readily usable across platforms. Any thing short of this is simply unethical.

Re:Not true.

[jeffmflanagan]

I had to scroll pretty far down to find a reasonable comment on this topic.

Slashdot seems to be full of outrage addicts these days.

Re:Not true.

[Cytotoxic]

"Downloaded" or "Streamed"? Having a downloaded copy of a movie and being able to stream a movie from their servers is not the same thing. If they told me I would be able to "download the movie" or they would provide a "digital copy" I would expect a copy of the entire film on my local machine that I could access at any time even offline.

If they said they would provide access to their streaming service for the film I would have different expectations.

It sounds like they are not allowing a copy for download. This is something that I find very annoying about digital media services. Amazon allows me to download a copy to 2 devices at a time, but only movies that I own. The movies from their Prime service cannot be downloaded. This is a bit of a PITA with the ability to play children's TV shows being one of the major benefits of the Prime service. Not so useful when you take your Kindle into a restaurant that doesn't have free WiFi available.

Re:Not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I find this Ultraviolent version?

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Downloaded, not streamed. You have to install a DRM client to do it.

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Downloaded, not streamed. You have to have a DRM client to unlock the file, but it plays locally.

Re:Not true.

[AmiMoJo]

It didn't say "a DRM crippled digital copy", it just said "a digital copy". If there were going to be severe restrictions on what devices the file could be played on and under what circumstances they needed to state that up front.

Re:Not true.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone who thinks that a DRM-free download would be provided is dreaming."
So, you're saying they've been lying from the start?

Re:Not true.

[omnichad]

If they didn't specify DRM-restricted, region-locked in the original offer, then the outcome really didn't match the promise. Some people couldn't even play the file. Others find it horribly inconvenient. Their own backers that made it a viable project are being treated like criminals, not trusted with their own clean copy.

This is like the Other OS functionality on PS3. If you put significant restrictions on an offer, post-sale - that is not honoring the original agreement.

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Check your facts. Ultraviolet over Flixster is the only region-free DRM distribution mechanism on the market. You are saying that Veronica Mars backers had reason to expect that they would be the first Hollywood backers in history, ever, to receive DRM-free downloads of their film? I'm just saying it's exactly what I expected. If distribution was intended to be DRM-free, then the whole film project would have taken on an anti-DRM political spin, which everyone would have known about. Your pretense of surprise is hard to believe.

Re:Not true.

[omnichad]

Ok, so it's region-free. I'm saying that the meaning of digital download does not automatically mean DRM-encumbered. And there are other DRM-free video products out there. I buy DRM-free video products directly from content creators such as Jim Gaffigan and even Rifftrax. Rifftrax actually negotiates rights to provide digital downloads of some (not so popular) Hollywood films, merged with their commentary track.

It really doesn't matter what you personally expected, since you're not the only backer. You could easily have expected something else, given other examples on the market. And because of that, not specifying that it was DRM-restricted means they would be expected to fulfill the expectations of the entire market. If there is ambiguity in a contract or agreement, a legal dispute generally rules in favor of what was expected by the other party. To avoid ambiguity, they should have specified that it was not a clean download.

The problem isn't technically with WB. It's a problem with the producer who created the Kickstarter and didn't make it clear.

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

The words "digital download" are as clear as they need to be. You are the one making the availability error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... DRM-free is not standard. Those days are over. I want those days back too, but throwing Rob Thomas to the Slashdot wolves isn't going to help that. Personally, I think all of you ragers are being played like a fiddle by people who want to see this project fail. We are on the cusp of having real power to greenlight major motion pictures, and the Slashdot community is fuming over DRM like it's the apocalypse. You've been baited into it, I say. I'll take your anti-DRM ire a bit more seriously when I see you guys rallying against Gabe Newell and sticking to your guns, demanding a DRM-free release of the Half-Life series, and not caving in because you want to play a game.

Re:Not true.

[omnichad]

I may be anti-DRM in the idealistic sense, but not the militant crazed sense. If it wasn't specified, I assume no DRM. Why wouldn't they say so unless it's either a simple mistake (It wasn't the studio who created the Kickstarter, so their lawyers didn't have a look at the offer), or that they were intentionally being misleading to lead to a higher response rate. I can't see any other reason not to mention it. Industry standard or not, it's not universal and not a guaranteed fact. And making post-sale restrictions is not really ethical.

You're missing my point that if they stated there would DRM up-front, before money was given, there would be no problem. I personally think Ultraviolet is the way to go as far as DRM on digital video, because of it's wide studio support and well-handled viewing options.

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Well, then I have to correct you, moving forward...when an commercial media source offers you a "digital download", they mean DRM. If something is DRM-free, it will be advertised boldly as a feature. Apply this algorithm moving forward and you will not be disappointed. Personally, I crossed this bridge back when Valve's promised fix to make Half Life 1, which was then Windows 2000-only, compatible with Windows XP, the "solution" turned out to be a DRM package called "Steam". My ire then was great...so great that I went away and didn't play Half Life on any platform but the PS2 and Dreamcast. I finally got over being mad about it (mostly) about two years ago. Now, I've learned to simply take DRM for granted.

Re:Not true.

[omnichad]

Still missing the point, I see. That's not the definition of digital download. It's a common string attached to one, but it's not a defining characteristic. Their offer made no such restrictions.

Are you saying that any crippled product is OK as long as it marginally meets the definition? I remember a chocolate company a few years ago tried to petition the FDA to be allowed to substitute cheap palm kernel oil for cocoa butter. Legally, they have to call such a product "chocolate-flavored" or "made with chocolate." They can't just call it chocolate and sell it. But if they call it chocolate-flavored, it's a pretty bad product, but at least they are being honest about it.

Half Life came out before Windows XP. It was not promised to run on XP before you made the purchase. That is a very different situation.

Re:Not true.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

It has become the definition of a digital download through common usage. I don't like it, but it is so. The ship has sailed. You can accuse me of not seeing your point, but you know perfectly well that I do. Continuing to assert what you would like the rest of the world to believe will not change things. Educating others about the negative aspects of DRM could possibly change things, but you're certainly not going to accomplish it by pretending that the market hasn't shifted to DRM for video. It has.

uh, you paid a studio and expect returns?

[swschrad]

the same folks who cheat their producers and stars day in and day out for over a hundred years?

my friends, I don't always sell a block of Bitcoin stock, but when I do, it's from a moving car...

Re:uh, you paid a studio and expect returns?

[bungo]

I'm a backer.

No, we didn't pay a studio. We paid Rob to create a movie. Rob then worked with the studio to get extra funding and promotion.

If Rob didn't get agreement with the studio, then he still was going to make the movie with the money that he raised. It might not have had a wide cinema release, but he had enough money to made a reasonable quality movie.

How stupid do you have to be, Hollywood?

[mhkohne]

The Kickstarter used the phrase 'Digital Version' in some places and 'Digital Download' in others. I see no mention of DRM-free, so all they have to do is hand out Amazon credit to those who complain about the streaming solution. But no, they'd rather pay out a bunch of money than give people something that matches what they paid for. I'm thinking everyone who has a piece of this (the production company, any stars that get a piece of the action) ought to probably demand an accounting to make sure Hollywood didn't charge them for the returned cash...

Re:How stupid do you have to be, Hollywood?

[EvilSS]

The Kickstarter used the phrase 'Digital Version' in some places and 'Digital Download' in others. I see no mention of DRM-free, so all they have to do is hand out Amazon credit to those who complain about the streaming solution. But no, they'd rather pay out a bunch of money than give people something that matches what they paid for. I'm thinking everyone who has a piece of this (the production company, any stars that get a piece of the action) ought to probably demand an accounting to make sure Hollywood didn't charge them for the returned cash...

They were (I assume still are?) offering to reimburse the $20 if you submit a receipt from another streaming service, or you can take $10 in cash (the amount they say is the portion that went to cover the cost of the Flixter/UV version). So they are giving them the option to get the film in a version that works for them, just you have to pay then get a refund from WB.

Re:How stupid do you have to be, Hollywood?

[omnichad]

If I sell you a toothbrush, but make no mention that it's covered in feces, does it make it OK to use it to scrub my butt before selling it to you?

not news

[Tom]

What does this tell us about how movie studios view the world?

That they're greedy bastards who will screw over absolutely everyone if they can make a quick buck. But then, we already knew that.

Re:not news

[taustin]

"We're not saying anything new here. We're just saying the same things that need to be said again and again with fierce conviction."

Re:not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for that, as someone else already pointed out, the studio didn't promise DRM free and delivered what they said they would.
 
Sorry if you bitches have a problem with the truth. But then, we already knew that.

Re:not news

[bzipitidoo]

What would be news is if we did something about it. Boycott and sue, and send the police to their offices to confiscate property and arrest senior management. Also send the police to their homes to confiscate and arrest. Those among us who own shares should deal with WB management by meeting and voting to cut their pay, especially bonuses, and fire them. We should also ram new laws through our national legislatures to decriminalize copying, and rip up those parts of trade treaties to do with intellectual property.

But none of that will happen. Have to wait for generational change to slowly sweep away the misconception that giving the same legal treatment to ideas as to the material makes sense and is in the public interest.

Re:not news

[Areyoukiddingme]

"We're not saying anything new here. We're just saying the same things that need to be said again and again with fierce conviction."

Thank you for that. Who said it?

Re:not news

[Anonymous Coward]

See here: http://bit.ly/1iZIF6D.

Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store.

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

I was really mad about the Flixster install, but this post has me even more mad. Slashdotters who mod up lies are assholes.

Hollywood is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't want that bullshit UltraViolet cloud-based streaming service the studios seem to think will succeed if they keep pushing it and don't provide any other options - people want DRM-free files in a standard/popular format that can be played on any device in whatever video player they desire, without said files being held hostage by the studio.

It seems that Hollywood is incapable of selling things in a format that people want. I know why of course - they want control. Honestly I'd prefer getting my movies legit if I knew I could get something at least equivalent to what I can get on The Pirate Bay (so at least 720p, in a DRM-free format, in a format/container that at least can be played on most video players instead of some proprietary one that is Windows only for example).

Maybe I'm asking too much... no, wait, like hell I'm not. If cracker groups can release high-quality 1080p MKVs of movies with subtitles, chapter markers and audio-commentaries, so can the paid folks at the studios. But they don't, because for whatever reason they'd rather keep the status quo (which doesn't make much sense in our connected world anymore) than risk a bit less control for more income. Clearly I'm too ideological for this world.

Re:Hollywood is pathetic

[Cytotoxic]

I'll add one more requirement: the popular/standard format should be convertible to other formats for viewing on disparate devices.

Dear Hollywood,

I would like to be able to pay you a reasonable fee for a permanent and transferable license to view your movies in any and every format. I want to be able to watch flawless HD on my 60 inch display at home, compressed HD on my tablet, and highly compressed lower def files on my cell phone. I want to be able to use the hosting service of my choice for streaming content, not be tied down to any one company once you've sold me the rights to a given movie.

Make this happen at a reasonable cost and you'll earn most of our business while cutting out the middle men who take such a large slice of your revenue. No, it won't end piracy. But if you make it cheap and convenient enough to pay you for content that we can use in the ways that we would like, you'll get that piracy level as low as it will ever be possible.

Re:Hollywood is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear consumer,

Thank you for your interest in our movie. We want to charge you every time you view it. Failing that, we want to charge you for every format you want to view it in.

Thank you,
Hollywood

The shocking part...

[Charliemopps]

The most shocking part is that people even bother with the legit methods at all anymore.

Probably the few intelligent thing I've ever heard Bill Oriely say was in regards to piracy. It went something like "The music and movie industries have spent the last 30 years teaching our children the worst behavior imaginable. They've glorified violence, prostitution, and general hooliganry... and now they're surprised their customers aren't above pirating a song?"

Artists hate the industry, the industries partners hate the industry, the industries customers hate the industry. Christians hate it, Liberals hate it, everyone on earth hates it. How long, exactly, do they expect to stay in business being held in such low regard as to be slightly better than Cigarette and Oil companies?

Re:The shocking part...

[Calavar]

Oil companies or cigarette companies certainly aren't going to go out of business any time soon, so it doesn't seem like being universally disliked hurts profits.

Re:The shocking part...

[Jesrad]

Pleeeease. Some of us genuinely do like Oil and Tobacco companies.

Re:The shocking part...

[Anonymous Coward]

... How long, exactly, do they expect to stay in business being held in such low regard as to be slightly better than Cigarette and Oil companies?

Shhhh! You're giving them ideas!

They'll ban MP3 (like the tobacco industry did with everyone's favorite alternative)
They'll mandate all purchases in Hollywood Fun Bucks (like the oil industry did with US dollars)

Well, that's a surprise

[Smerta]

Well, that's certainly one of the bigger "Fuck You!" I've seen the studios hand out, and they've got a track record of some pretty big middle fingers to the "other 99%" of us. But my question is, "When is this going to stop?" Not as long as people are paying $25 to park their asses in a theater seat to watch Brad Pitt mumble around, or $19.99 for a DVD they'll watch once or twice.

Beta Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

"How long, exactly, do they expect to stay in business being held in such low regard as to be slightly better than Cigarette and Oil companies?"

As long as they can keep bribing^H^H^H^Hlobbying Congress?

Kickstarter LIED

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a studio film all along- the Kickstarter purposely misrepresented the situation. The Kickstarter made promises those running the Kickstarter could NEVER deliver.

WB got suckers to use their money, with ZERO profit sharing, to finance a studio picture- a new low even for Hollywood. To make matters worse, despite the minor value of this movie to WB, WB wasn't even prepared to hide this fact by giving the suckers that paid 35 dollars a break, and letting them download a proper digital copy to own. If that had been too much of an 'issue', WB could easily have created a few thousand DVD's to send out instead, so the $35 dollar team could have made their own digital 'rips'.

It gets WORSE. The 'geniuses' at WB seriously under-estimated demand for the film in the cinema, and released the film (in the USA) to 30%-50% of the optimal number of screens. The excellent per screen average of the way too small release is proof of this.

So, the film gets made, gets good reviews and people want to see it. But the suits at Warner Brothers snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by focusing on all the mean, petty hurt they can pile of the original 35 dollar suckers. And NO, giving these people their money back counts for nothing. WB behaviour over this whole affair has been despicable, and shame on the people who made the film for NOT honestly admitting from the start that it was a traditional studio production.

Re:Kickstarter LIED

[EvilSS]

This was a studio film all along- the Kickstarter purposely misrepresented the situation. The Kickstarter made promises those running the Kickstarter could NEVER deliver.

WB got suckers to use their money, with ZERO profit sharing, to finance a studio picture- a new low even for Hollywood. To make matters worse, despite the minor value of this movie to WB, WB wasn't even prepared to hide this fact by giving the suckers that paid 35 dollars a break, and letting them download a proper digital copy to own. If that had been too much of an 'issue', WB could easily have created a few thousand DVD's to send out instead, so the $35 dollar team could have made their own digital 'rips'.

It gets WORSE. The 'geniuses' at WB seriously under-estimated demand for the film in the cinema, and released the film (in the USA) to 30%-50% of the optimal number of screens. The excellent per screen average of the way too small release is proof of this.

So, the film gets made, gets good reviews and people want to see it. But the suits at Warner Brothers snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by focusing on all the mean, petty hurt they can pile of the original 35 dollar suckers. And NO, giving these people their money back counts for nothing. WB behaviour over this whole affair has been despicable, and shame on the people who made the film for NOT honestly admitting from the start that it was a traditional studio production.

You're an idiot. It was made clear on the the very first day that Warner Brothers was involved. Right there on the front page of the Kickstater, on day one. Warner agreed to pay for distribution and promotion if Rob Thomas could help fund the production budget and show fan interest in the film, and that is exactly what happened. Did WB screw up by forcing it through Flixster (guess who owns Flixster, btw), Yes, but they never lied about any aspect of the Kickstarter project.

As for the number of screens, that's all they could get. Given the prospects for the film they are lucky that AMC agreed to screen what is a limited release film across their national footprint, and on the same day it would go live the on UV, iTunes, Amazon, and PPV.

What is the issue?

[tomhath]

Per the linked article:

Backers were unhappy with the method via which Warner chose to release Veronica Mars to financial supporters. Rather than receiving a digital download or a code to access the film on iTunes or Amazon, they were asked to stream Veronica Mars via the studio-backed, cloud-based storage service Ultraviolet on the Flixster website

That sure sounds like receiving a "digital version" of the film to me.

Re:What is the issue?

[Krishnoid]

That sure sounds like receiving a "digital version" of the film to me.

Correct. The studio just wasn't clear ahead of time which digit they planned to provide.

Re:What is the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The studio knew very well which digit they planned to use - the middle digit!

Re:What is the issue?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Son, this is Slashdot where every kid with a 3Mbps pipe think anything in digital form should be free regardless of the cost to create it. Then after watching/listening the 5th time and sharing it with everyone they know, they'll go on IMDB or Reddit and talk about how much it sucks.

Re:What is the issue?

[DutchUncle]

Agreed. They're rules-lawyering the wording. By the way, I backed "The Gamers 3: Hands of Fate" which promised a DRM-free HD download, and delivered.

Re:What is the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The studio knew very well which digit they planned to use - the middle digit!

Are you the guy who always starts laughing about 5 seconds after everyone else does?

Re:What is the issue?

[tipo159]

If we are plugging Kickstarter-backed films that fulfilled their promise to deliver a DRM-free HD download, let me add "Easier Said Than Done" to the list.

Re:What is the issue?

[ConfusedVorlon]

agreed - they got a digital version. People complained for various reasons, and Rob decided to do his best to 'Make it right'. All credit to them up to this point. They could have argued that they had met the legal definition of the offer, but they didn't.

At this point, they had two obvious choices

1) give people a link to a drm free file
(which they could download anyway for free from TPB)
2) give them back some money

The interesting fact for me is that rather than give people what they want, they're so scared of DRM-free files, or so wedded to ultra-violet that they would rather give money back.

the story for me isn't 'kickstarter backers got screwed' - it's 'look at the irrational choices the studios make out of fear of piracy'

Do it

[jones_supa]

Become the next revolutionary zuckerberg and start a DRM-free online store for movies. Download it, keep it forever. Of course you wouldn't initially be able to slice deals with the big movie companies, but start with indie and semi-indie stuff. The big ones will follow as they see that the concept is working. DRM-free works for GOG just fine, why not also for movies?

Re:Do it

[Areyoukiddingme]

DRM-free works for GOG just fine, why not also for movies?

Because this...

The big ones will follow as they see that the concept is working.

...is not true. The US movie studios are an incredibly tightly knit incestuous little group of rabid ideologues and the greediest fucking bastards you ever hope not to meet. Their owners all go to the same golf clubs and strip clubs and yacht clubs, send their kids to the same prep schools and universities, and they marry their kids off to each others' kids. They set themselves against digital distribution a generation ago and they will never ever ever admit they were wrong. Two full generations of owners will literally have to die before their stance on digital distribution could possibly change, and I'd bet long odds it never will.

Re:Do it

[omnichad]

It won't work until the indie movies are outselling the studio releases. But it could happen if we were willing to support original, lower-budget quality content first.

Nothing to see here.. move along

[gearloos]

I thought we all learned from Sony and the Root Kits.. er... the PS3 Linux .. err the Root Kits "again" .. err.. the.. oh nm.. Little guy gets screwed over by media company.. any media company... nothing to see here.. move along...

Only a fool is surprised by this.

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the same kind of people who sue someone who has nothing for
amounts of money so large that the person will be ruined financially for life
if they lose the lawsuit.

Shakespeare had a character in the play "The Merchant of Venice" who was
a precursor to the MPAA & RIAA swine. The name of that character was Shylock.

This makes me sad

[roc97007]

The whole family was looking forward to this film to an extent not seen since Serenity. It came out in limited release, only playing at a handful of theaters. We managed to see it at an upscale movie house not too far away, and had a great time. It's quite good. Although I'm not an "investor", I was attracted by the idea that it was kickstarter-financed, partly because this would be a good precedent to get films going that need to be made but would be considered too risky by studios.

...but leave it to Warner to screw their customers. Not only is this unfair to fans who contributed to the kickstart campaign, it's also unfair to the people involved in making the film, which was clearly a labor of love and is now besmirched by this crap.

Thanks, Warner. Go to hell.

Re:This makes me sad

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

It's not true. This story is a lie.

Re:This makes me sad

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck does that make you sad. You saw the movie with your family, had a good time. What the hell are you so pissed off about that you had to come home from the movie, post a rant online and then beat your wife?

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store

[Anonymous Coward]

I was really mad about the Flixster install, but this post has me even more mad. Slashdotters who mod up lies are assholes.

....you mean TFS? Because you aren't replying to anyone.

Breach of contract...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if WB doesn't fulfill the delivery, then they are in breach of contract. And willfully, which is an aggravated case.

I wouldn't like to be explaining to the stock exchange why they are now breaching contracts...

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store

[MoFoQ]

Louis CK does (https://buy.louisck.net/help)

It was even covered on here

Sure, it's not a "store" with a plethora of titles but the request wasn't specific. :D

Geek Rage!!!

[whisper_jeff]

The Veronica Mars kickstarter promised "You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movieâ(TM)s theatrical debut..."

A digital version. Last time I checked, while most people may dislike UltraViolet, it is a digital version.

Now, I understand the servers got hammered and there were issues with the process and Warner Brothers offered a refund so people could buy the movie from a competing digital store but they fulfilled their promise or made efforts to rectify the situation when their servers failed under the load.

Also, they made no promise of DRM free. Doing a search of the Veronica Mars Kickstarter page, I find exactly zero mentions of DRM so why you would think they owe you a DRM free movie is beyond me.

You're clearly itching to pick a fight and begging to justify torrenting the movie rather than paying for it but, sorry, you haven't cited so much as one valid complaint. They offered a digital version of the movie and they delivered a digital version of the movie. Users that encountered issues were offered a refund so they could obtain the movie elsewhere since their servers weren't up to the task rather than WB just pocketing the money and saying "well, try again another time".

I see absolutely nothing nefarious here.

Much geek rage about nothing.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[GodfatherofSoul]

If you're an investor who thought WB was going to put up an FTP or P2P server with a ISO link, you're a fool. The producers (i.e. NOT YOU) want to make money, not silence the cheap-skate streaming crowd who won't pay for shit otherwise.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[HiThere]

It's only a digital version you can receive if you can actually receive it.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[Cytotoxic]

I don't know. "receive a digital version" is somewhat ambiguous. I might interpret that to mean that I would get a copy of the movie that I could keep and use offline, not just a licence to stream the movie from their service.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. I'll just copy that digital version from my PC to my tablet...

Wait, you mean I don't HAVE something to copy over? OK I just mustn't have RECEIVED it yet.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[thegarbz]

A digital version. Last time I checked, while most people may dislike UltraViolet, it is a digital version.

You've clearly never tried to use UltraViolet. I wouldn't count it as digital, in fact I wouldn't count it as analogue. After 1 hour of frustration with my last attempt to get a UV download to work I gave up and just ripped the damn blu-ray in the triple with AnyDVD.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[DutchUncle]

Yes. You might interpret it that way; I would too. I bet their lawyers could beat up our lawyers. They carefully said what they knew people would hear one way, meaning it another, and by the strict letter of the words it's OK. I just saw Sherlock do the same thing on BBC; there it seemed clever and entertaining.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe some people just assumed that the movie studios, by using a modern investment platform like Kickstarter, it was a sign that they'd also be moving to a more modern approach for media by supplying a DRM-free copy in the end (i.e. the belief that the studios were growing up). Na ah!

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A "movie with DRM" tends to be encrypted, and encryption turns any input into the functional equivalent of random numbers, it only so happens that you can decrypt them under certain circumstances if and when seller is willing and capable to help you with that, but if they are not, it's exactly not at all like a movie, so I don't see how that could possibly qualify as "receiving the movie".

Saying "they only promised the movie, but not DRM-free" is a bit like saying "they only promised the car, but not that all the pieces are delivered mounted in a way so that you can drive the thing", with the difference that the parts in the latter case at least would look like they might be part of a car, unlike a "DRM container", which is actually more like a lump of iron ore, which also can be turned into a car if you know how, so I guess that also should count as a car when you are promised a car, just a car with DRM.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[bungo]

Geek rage is right. People here are getting all worked up over something that probably doesn't affect them. I suppose some people just like getting upset at big media companies.

I'm a backer. Is anyone else here an actual backer? I pledged enough to get a digital download. I never expected it to be a DRM free version. The fact that I can download it to my Nexus 7 is a bonus further than I was expecting. When I signed up, I was thinking they were probably only going to deliver a MS Windows only version - after all the project is being run by a director/producer, and not a tech head.

And am I upset with the digital download? No. Totally DRM free would have been great, but it's not something that I expected.

Right, so, as a backer, what did I actually expect for my money? I donated money to have the chance to see a Veronica Mars movie that would have been on a cheap budget and a direct-to-video quality production.

What did I get? I got a move that is really like a cinema quality release movie. That's more than I hoped for. I also got a t-shirt, stickers, the script, a DVD, and a digital download. All of that for half the cost of a AAA game title.

Heck, I'm over the moon.

And what else did I get for being a backer? I got sense of ownership of the movie and the whole creation process. It was a fun journey.

Also, for any of you non-backers that have decided to download the movie, well, I'm a bit disappointed that you're interested enough to have a look, but it would have been nice if you could have contributed someway. Maybe if you like the movie, try to make it one of the most pirated movie around at the moment. With more interest, maybe there can be a second Veronica Mars movie.

What non-backers don't appear to know is that Rob was restricted by the studios and the agreements with the cinemas on how he could allow the digital downloads. To get a movie in the cinemas, at the same time as being available for download is the first time this has happened (as far as I know). The studios and cinema owners normally never allow this.

One final thing. Even though the kickstart paid for the production of the movie, the studio covered the cost of the kickstarter rewards and also the (little) promotion that went on. So I can understand why the studio wants to keep control as much as they want over the distribution.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[sprint907]

So, they should have given you a 3GP file with low resolution. It is still a digital copy!!!!

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all in the wording. It says receive a digital version. It does not say receive access to a digital version.
You don't receive a stream, you only watch it.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Veronica Mars kickstarter promised "You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movieâ(TM)s theatrical debut..."

A digital version. Last time I checked, while most people may dislike UltraViolet, it is a digital version.

Actually, this is where you're wrong. Ultraviolet does not let you "receive" a digital version. Since it's completely streamed, you get it a portion at a time and your viewing platform is not going to hold onto the entire thing as you watch. So you never "receive" the digital copy of the film. Just pieces that you borrow for a period of time.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[omnichad]

Free toothbrush with every purchase. Note: May contain feces. If I left off that note, would it still be OK to offer a dirty toothbrush to fulfill my promise?

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[omnichad]

What non-backers don't appear to know is that Rob was restricted by the studios and the agreements with the cinemas on how he could allow the digital downloads.

And this is the key point. Some of the backers obviously didn't know either. Or assumed they'd get better by being a backer. Technically, Rob made a promise he couldn't deliver if he didn't specify those restrictions in the download offer. This would have all been avoided if they would have just said it would be encrypted/restricted in some way.

And if I had to deal with a digital download/stream, I could do much worse than UltraViolet. Knowing it was UV up-front would make me more likely to choose that backer offer, if I were in that position and they knew it would be UV. It's not all there yet, but it's on its way to being the Steam of movies. I wasn't a backer, but Netflix says I would rate the series at 5 stars. So I do have some interest here. This Slashdot post did prompt me to add the series to my Netflix DVD queue.

Re:Geek Rage!!!

[omnichad]

At a resolution of 16x16!

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

I mean a store selling the Veronica Mars movie, of course. That's what this is about. The headline quotes the article saying that other stores are offering a download in a context that's clearly designed to imply that while others are getting a DRM-free copy, backers are not. This is not true. This post is so subversive to this very successful Kickstarter project, it smells to me like it comes from the same people who told Rob Thomas "No" to backing his film in the first place. Those people would love to see the project fail, and I'm sure they love any ill will towards the project that they can generate.

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

I was referring to Slashdotters responsible for promoting this story from the firehose to the front page.

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store

[HiThere]

To me it seems quite clear that WB acted in extremely bad faith with malice aforethought. It is not so clear that a good lawyer couldn't argue against an underfunded lawyer that they technically met their promise. But that doesn't mean that it's not quite resaonable to bad-mouth them, and let everyone else know how you feel about them.

FWIW, I have refused to purchase or support friends purchasing over paying to view movies, or other merchandise from any MPAA or RIAA member company for over a decade, so I am not an unbiased observer. My evaluation of their behavior may be subject to confirmation bias. But I feel this is their current implementation of "Never give a sucker an even break.".

They Broke It

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually who pays for it owns it. Including cops and agents.

WB and other's secret and forbidden archives must be bigger than the Vatican's, by now. And even more hidden and inaccessible. Couldn't the victims get a signed dispensation from a Board of red-garbed CEO's and agree to a Mass media event and and extra "voluntary donation" first, in exchange for that specific Indulgence?

ORIGINAL faq

[Anonymous Coward]

The ORIGINAL FAQ says nothing about flixster or UV

http://web.archive.org/web/20130608173113/http://www.theveronicamarsmovie.com/FAQ

The real issue

[lucm]

Kristen Bell is not the young beautiful nymph she was when the series came out. After seeing her playing a corporate whore vomiting during drunken sex with a Wesley Snipes wannabe in House of Lies it's difficult to picture her as Veronica Mars, fresh and bubbly college girl. She does not look the part anymore.

When the Batman movie came out nobody was surprised that Adam West was not playing the hero. Even for the remake of Get Carter they took a younger guy (but at least gave a role to the old one). Why the double standard with women?

The movie is not about Kristen Bell. She's just an actress, and years did not do her any favor. I'm sure she can star in many movies where they need an older woman and she will do a great job, but there are plenty of talented younger girls available for playing younger girls characters.

Re:The real issue

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie takes place in the main character's 10 year high school reunion which would make her 27-28. So... why the whole spiel about the wrongness of casting older women in inappropriate roles?

Re:The real issue

[ClayDowling]

I'm just going to go on record here as stating that you have poor taste in women. Kristen Bell is still gorgeous. Most women would love to age that well. She looks older than she did when they shot the show. I also looked older at my ten year reunion than I did when I graduated high school.

Re:The real issue

[lucm]

Maybe the problem is that they hired an actress that was 24 years old to play a high school student in the original series. Back then she was young and fresh but since women age faster than men, of course at her 10 years reunion she looks like someone who could have kids in high school herself.

Re:The real issue

[ClayDowling]

As someone who has looked 30 since I was 21, I don't think your aging hypothesis holds up that well.

Kickstarter supporters are morons!

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to wise up and understand that Kickstarter has become just a place for people/businesses with money to lure users/fans into taking on ALL of the risk of product development for exactly 0% of the return. Want to see that new fangled Pogo get released - you can bet that Neil Young and the rest of the people involved have enough money to make it if they want to, but why use any of your own money if you can get other people give you some. Those other people get none of the upside potential if the product succeeds, and may get absolutely nothing if the project fails to deliver on their goals. All of the people involved in this project (Veronica Mars) could have put up the backing to make this film, but again why put your own on the line if other people will. When the box office reciepts come in, and the DVD sales, and online sales get tallied you can bet that all those same people involved in the production will happily carve up their portion of the profit, and the fans who took all the risk - nada, zero, zip. - aside from whatever trinket you got for your funding level. Below $35 your 'contribution' did not even get you a viewing of the film!!!! And in the normal world who ever paid $35 or more to see a movie?!?

The sooner that people realize that Kickstarter is no longer about good and all about greed the sooner this sort of madness can stop.

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

So, you're saying you personally believe that Kickstarter backers of the Veronica Mars movie had reason to expect an unprecedented DRM-free release from Warner Bros?

Solution

[steve_bryan]

Since WB doesn't seem like they care enough to provide according to their promise, it sounds like a job for 'Popcorn Time'!

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is good enough to kill piratebay. Only in two years netflix will be full of ads and i will be back to piratebay, but in the meantime, i'm happy with netflix. Spotify has already killed downloading mp3s for me. Why would I bother to hunt and download when I get huge library for just a couple of bucks a month? Who gets the money? Frankly, I don't give a damn, i'm a mighty pirate. Having said that, if there was a music streaming service where my monthly fee was diveded among the bands _I_ actually listened to that month I'd switch. No offence to lady gaga, but I don't exactly enjoy seeing my money go towards her, while there are so many nice punk bands out there who direly need that money to buy beer.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is good enough to kill piratebay. Only in two years netflix will be full of ads and i will be back to piratebay, but in the meantime, i'm happy with netflix. Spotify has already killed downloading mp3s for me. Why would I bother to hunt and download when I get huge library for just a couple of bucks a month? Who gets the money? Frankly, I don't give a damn, i'm a mighty pirate. Having said that, if there was a music streaming service where my monthly fee was diveded among the bands _I_ actually listened to that month I'd switch. No offence to lady gaga, but I don't exactly enjoy seeing my money go towards her, while there are so many nice punk bands out there who direly need that money to buy beer.

This is exactly what Spotify do. They pay the content owners per play, so the bands you play will get paid from that. And they pay 3/4 of their revenue to content owners. For many this is starting to get serious revenue. Problem for some musicians is that the switch from getting a lot up front for a CD, vs collecting per stream micro-revenue over time is painful, even if it in the long run it adds up to good money. And, even bigger problem, record companies and copyright collection societies take a large share of the revenue, not the actual musicians (why I used the term content owners above). But that is not Spotify's fault.

So, they knew

[Camael]

This was a studio film all along- the Kickstarter purposely misrepresented the situation.WB got suckers to use their money, with ZERO profit sharing, to finance a studio picture- a new low even for Hollywood.

You're an idiot. It was made clear on the the very first day that Warner Brothers was involved. Right there on the front page of the Kickstater, on day one. Warner agreed to pay for distribution and promotion if Rob Thomas could help fund the production budget and show fan interest in the film, and that is exactly what happened. Did WB screw up by forcing it through Flixster (guess who owns Flixster, btw), Yes, but they never lied about any aspect of the Kickstarter project.

So, WB was using the backers' money and let them assume the risk if the project fails. But if the project makes a profit WB gets it and not the backers. And you're saying the backers knew and agreed to assume all the risk and take none of the profit right from the start . Somehow, I don't think AC is the idiot here.

I'm not the only one who thinks the fans were ripped off.

Worst part is, you guys aren't even getting the promised rewards, i.e. the digital download.

Re:So, they knew

[bungo]

WB was using the backers' money and let them assume the risk if the project fails.

So?

To quote super chicken, "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it".

That was a risk I was willing to take. If I lost out and didn't get anything for my money, then oh well, maybe I'll not eat out one night instead and I'll be even.

Worst part is, you guys aren't even getting the promised rewards, i.e. the digital download.

No, that's a lie. They provided a digital download. No where was it ever promised that it was going to be a DRM free download.

I'm a backer. I was never told it would be DRM free.

Re:So, they knew

[EvilSS]

Uh, every kickstarter backer knows (or should know) that they are assuming risk when funding. That's part of being on kickstarter. As for rewards, a few people out of the 92,000+ that funded the project are having a problem getting part of their reward to work, and WB is working with them to get it to work, refund part of their pledge, or cover the cost of getting the content elsewhere. How are they ripped off again?

Re:So, they knew

[Anonymous Coward]

So, WB was using the backers' money and let them assume the risk if the project fails. But if the project makes a profit WB gets it and not the backers. And you're saying the backers knew and agreed to assume all the risk and take none of the profit right from the start .

That's how kickstarter works.

But, you can download Ultraviolet digital copies.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that's where I'm confused.

If you've never redeemed an Ultraviolet code before, the initial process can be tricky. So, I can see why people don't want that. But once it's done, you can connect to several services which allow both streaming and downloading. It's not DRM-free, but I don't know why that would be expected. I backed the project, but I didn't choose a a reward that came with a copy of the film. But if I had, I'd have expected the digital copy to be an ultraviolet code.

Redeeming UV copies isn't the most intuitive process, but it's not that difficult.

Don't offer what you don't intend to deliver

[Anonymous Coward]

Had they not offered "digital copy" but only gadgets and t-shirts, there would not have been a problem. But they had to use their deceiving langage again, and make people believe they'ld get something that was never intended to be delivered. Or they're so stupid.

I know if I offer a "downloadable digital copy" of my new movie, you'll assume a x264.MP4 file that you can copy to your laptop/phone and take to the beach.

Legal theory supports the buyer

[Overzeetop]

Actually, the legal precedent in cases where a contract is ambiguous is that the person who doesn't write the contract generally gets what they expect. It's a little like the old "one child cuts the cake and the second child chooses the piece" scenario. If you write a contract which may be ambiguous in any way, you can be held liable for the reasonable misinterpretation, especially if there were any extra-contract promises, implications, or if there are certain standards or expectations by a "reasonable" end user. It's through this mechanism that foul play is generally averted, because all lawyers are trained to know this theory. It's also why legal contracts are so damned long and detailed.

Now, if you can pay enough for lawyers, you can usually just bury the little guy - so you're right on that part.

Warner used Kickstarter? Bad precedent...

[microTodd]

wait a minute...I'm late to the game here but let me make sure I understand the story.

1. Warner...frickin' Warner Bros, which made $12B in revenue last year, parent company is Time frickin' Warner...used Kickstarter to fund a movie?
2. After raising $5M on kickstarter they used that to fund the movie
3. The movie, after it was released and they started making money, then basically paid back part of the kickstarter because they are reneging on the kickstarter deal?
4. PROFIT!!!

so basically they played the system to get an interest-free loan.

I thought kickstarter was really for people who couldn't conventionally raise funds?

Well, ok. I just read the Kickstarter FAQ. They don't really say anything like that. Its for any creative project. https://www.kickstarter.com/he...

So yeah, I guess even if you are a $12Billion company you can use kickstarter instead of fronting your own money.

Re:Warner used Kickstarter? Bad precedent...

[Yosho]

The movie, after it was released and they started making money, then basically paid back part of the kickstarter because they are reneging on the kickstarter deal?

Read again. They're not reneging at all; they fulfilled their rewards. The problem is that they fulfilled one of the rewards in a format that a lot of the backers didn't like. Enough backers were upset that they offered to refund anybody who didn't like the option they were given, which is really going above and beyond what they were required to do.

Re:Warner used Kickstarter? Bad precedent...

[microTodd]

Aha. Yeah I went and RTFA after I posted.

So its not black and white...its a shade of grey.

Meanwhile...

[argStyopa]

....LouisCK offers his videos for $5 with no DRM, and nets what, $400k on the first one?

Re:Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile.. in a far off land, apples are meeting oranges.

Except backers hadn't paid for anything....

[mark-t]

Backers chose to support a kickstarter project. They didn't "buy" anything by supporting the project, they pledged an amount towards it and were promised to receive something in return.

Now where WB has failed spectacularly here is that they have gone back on this promise... which is, of course, utterly inexcusable. They have absolutely *NO* right to keep even one penny of any of the money that was pledged where they had promised something that they will not make good on (whether it was entirely by choice or simply because of contractual obligations). Refund absolutely all of them. Not just the ones that complain... but *ALL* of them... or at least all of the ones that were promised a digital download. I'd dare say that probably accounts for a majority of the monies received.

I get that sometimes sh!t happens, and one can't always come through on what they promised (which is what I personally suspect is what has happened here).... but if that's the case, then they should own up to the fact and just fucking give everybody back their money... even the backers that were promised more than just the download, because, as I said... the money donated through kickstarter was a pledge amount, not a purchase... and in addition to their other promises at most of the donation levels, they *DID* promise a digital download version of the movie. And if they can't or won't come through on what was promised in return for those pledges, then what just reason do they have to keep any of that money?

Had I backed this project, I wouldn't be trying to download it from pirate bay.... I'd be asking for my money back.. *ALL* of it... not just the portion that kickstarter themselves didn't keep, and I'd be sorely wishing that they'd be required to refund everybody, whether or not the individual ever complained about it,because in the end. this isn't just about an incomplete purchase, it's about breaking an effing promise. And you can't put a price on that.

WB is saying...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

WB is saying thank you for the free grass roots publicity campaign and the interest free financing. Here's your money back. Hey you didn't actually think we would honor our commitment to provide you a downloadable copy of the movie? We planned on blaming someone else for not being able to do it and don't let the fact that we own UltraViolet distract you from our excuse.

Sounds like breach of contract to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can get it on a format you can't view on multiple devices(amazon/itunes aren't generally cross platform i.e. android, mac/pc) or you can not get get your money back entirely for something that you paid for. Sounds like a real bargain.

Obvious Course: Take the Money, Steal the Film

[Anonymous Coward]

If Warner Brothers is going to do sociopath math, then the individual consumer's interest is in recouping the investment and punishing the contract-exploiter. So complain, demand the money back, steal the film, never buy it or go see it, and constrict the moneymaking model to a fraction of what it would have been had the fans not been rooked.

I wonder if individual Kickstarter funders (those who did not complain and back out) could even be sued for having a DRM free version of the film, regardless of its source? They paid for it, after all.

Re:Obvious Course: Take the Money, Steal the Film

[neminem]

In this case, I'd much rather steal the film, then send the appropriate amount of money directly to the content creators. Would be nice if there was a way to do that. (I didn't get in on the kickstarter; only started watching Veronica Mars a few months ago. Looking forward to watching the movie in a couple more months, when I've finished watching the show as much as exists.)

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon requires an internet connection to view the movies stored locally on your computer too. It has to call to a server for the decryption key for Amazon Unbox or Windows Media Player, it doesn't work with other media players, unless they've changed their DRM garbage. No offline access for that either.

At least there is a choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wal-Mart's Vudu seems a very stable UV app on every device I've tried. Much more reliable than Flixster for streaming and downloading.

Re:At least there is a choice...

[EvilSS]

Wal-Mart's Vudu seems a very stable UV app on every device I've tried. Much more reliable than Flixster for streaming and downloading.

Vudu is actually one of the work-around going through the comments over at the kickstarter project. Redeem with Flixster then go to Vudu to actually watch it.

Make WB grant the kickstarter investors partners i

[wolfguru]

Backers that provide fund for the production of the film expect to receive a share of the return on the investment in the form of a share of the earnings of the film. There should be a class action suit to establish the kickstarter contributors as essentially the same class of backers, and a share equivalent to the portion represented by the kickstarter funding should be divided among the participants, Make Warner Brothers treat the people that funded the film through kickstarter the same as any other investor.

I hate to side with the big guys, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is now an industry standard - like DRM-free, it's considered "normal". Any judge would rule that these restrictions aren't severe; they're typical for digital downloads, and if we wanted DRM-free we should have specified so in the first place.

Sorry dude, but guys like us (with a completely reasonable objection to all DRM) are a small minority.

Create animate matter from non-matter for me pleas

[Anonymous Coward]

No articles on how it might be done, no links, just a video of you on YouTube creating animate matter from inorganic matter.

Major studios are simply scamming via kickstarter.

[doccus]

The major studios found an easy way to get investment via duping average joes. By using KLickstarter, they don't have to ever pay a return , as the previous comenter pointed out - I quote- "Backers that provide fund for the production of the film expect to receive a share of the return on the investment in the form of a share of the earnings of the film" THey likely had no intention of ever keeping their promise to supply that copy of the film either.. I mean , what are us "plebes" goinna do, anyways.. threaten to not watch the movie? I would suggest NEVER NEVER contribute to a Kickstarter campaign of a company that also has "big money" investors.. They will scam you *every* time.. and Whorelywood is the worst..

intel352

[Anonymous Coward]

Connect a VUDU account to UV, you can download the movie to supported devices. Not DRM-free, but satisfies the download requirement.
In the future, download format will be available to UV, but it's currently unreleased.