Slashdot Mirror


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?"

16 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Investors? Really? by OzJimbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
    1. Re:Investors? Really? by grmoc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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)

    2. Re:Investors? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Investors? Really? by grmoc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Investors? Really? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      [...] 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.

    5. Re:Investors? Really? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Download by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Not true. by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    1. Re:Not true. by stevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. uh, you paid a studio and expect returns? by swschrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  5. not news by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  6. Re:How to Falsify Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:How to Falsify Evolution by Mullen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
  8. Geek Rage!!! by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Return the money AND the risk premium by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. Re:Eh. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.