Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

apologies if posted elsewhere, but found this pretty interesting.

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/attorney-general-asylum-playing-cards-crowdfunded-project/

It will be interesting to see how this goes,

if he was 'incorporated' and actually tried to make the stuff (and can demonstrate this) I don't think the case will get anywhere, except to bankrupt an already dead company

if he did the KS as a private individual he could end up personally bankrupt

but the real deal will be if they can prove he didn't intend to fulfil anything, preferring to spend the cash on the proverbial 'hookers and blackjack' then jail time should be on the table

I'm curious how this will be resolved as well. I know many Kickstarters are successfully funded, but this does happen unfortunately.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
It will be interesting to see how this goes,

if he was 'incorporated' and actually tried to make the stuff (and can demonstrate this) I don't think the case will get anywhere, except to bankrupt an already dead company

if he did the KS as a private individual he could end up personally bankrupt

but the real deal will be if they can prove he didn't intend to fulfil anything, preferring to spend the cash on the proverbial 'hookers and blackjack' then jail time should be on the table

Yea, that's the rub. They will have to prove that Nash never intended to fulfill, which I think could be difficult. Of course, much depends on how the consumer protection laws are interpreted. With respect to taxes, Kickstarter rewards are considered to be sales and one is expected to pay sales tax with respect to them. The Attorney General is pushing hard to characterize the rewards as products offered for sale. I wonder if the suit is also being brought under the Uniform Commercial Code. Does a Kickstarter pledge constitute a contract for sale?

Crowdfunding is an inherently risky proposition. I never expect to receive my pledge rewards. Kickstarter is speculative. It isn't a pre-order system, and when people (project creators and backers) treat it like a pre-order system it puts established companies into competition with speculative startups, which, while it does not completely defeat the purpose of crowdfunding, does tarnish that purpose a bit.

At the end of the day though, the projects that fail to fulfill (in the table top games category) are the exception to the rule.

Good for them! Hopefully this will help put to rest the idea that there is no recourse for backers at all when a Kickstarter creator makes no attempt to deliver on their project. And maybe seeing some consequences for a campaign which does not attempt to deliver will deter some other bad apples from starting one.

It's very different when a creator simply doesn't succeed in all they set out to do after trying very hard, of course... but there have been some really blatant cases of creators just not trying to fulfill their campaigns at all. See this one for over 100K for a board game:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/forkingpath/the-doom-that-came-to-atlantic-city/comments

I bet that guy's happy he lives in Oregon, not Washington! However, amazingly, it looks like since he failed to deliver on anything, the original designers of the game were able to take it to another game manufacturer who actually provided the games free to the Kickstarter backers:

http://diehardgamefan.com/2014/03/26/tabletop-review-the-doom-that-came-to-atlantic-city/

That was pretty awesome of them . But the original creator was committing outright fraud, and some deterrence to that kind of blatant criminal behavior would be very good for everybody.

 RiTides wrote:


I bet that guy's happy he lives in Oregon, not Washington!

The card deck guy being sued doesn't live in Washington from my reading, he lives in Tenessee - I think it's the fact that *some* backers live in Washington that gave the AG the ability to sue (although I am not familiar with US legal rules).

So if you had run a Kickstarter that is failing to deliver and not talking to your backers to show any progress in trying to deliver, and you were based in ummm say Massachusetts (to pick a state at random), or your company was registered in say Wyoming, I'd be looking through my backer addresses and hoping hard that none of them had WA in the state field. Just hypothetically.

BTW how is the Defiance Games kickstarter doing

Individuals have sued and won for non-deliveries before:

http://www.inc.com/eric-markowitz/when-kickstarter-investors-want-their-money-back.html

Now that the gov't, even at state level is getting involved, there is even a better chance at destroying companies/individuals that don't deliver.

I actually backed that one. Only kick starter I never got product on. not going to hold my breath about getting my $9 dollars back.

Can't help but think this is actually a bad thing.

Yes, it does suck if you back a Kickstarter campaign which fails to deliver, fails to deliver on time or fails to deliver a product which you feel is not what was promised. Under normal consumer protection laws - these would be grounds for a refund, possibly a small claims case, perhaps a class action - and yes, possibly even criminal charges...

However, I can't help but think of all the harm those sorts of things would do to the potential which Kickstarter and other crowdfunding options offer. As opposed to having more upstarts with a great idea and a need of capital - you will have more companies who are simply using Kickstarter as free advertising for their preorder schemes. Small creators will be hesitant to attempt a risky campaign if they think there is a chance that they might fail to deliver. I don't think that is a good thing - not at all.

Think about it for a second. On average, 80% of new businesses fail within the first year or so. The success rate on delivered products on Kickstarter is much, much, much higher than that (which is not to say that all the creators continue on as successful businesses - but it is a point of perspective). The relatively small investment of individuals is something which is a risk/reward calculation for them. The risk they face is that they may not get anything in return. The reward of course is that they might get what they originally were promised - as well as bringing a new product to the field which will continue to be available for years to come.

Now, that isn't to say that crowdfunding creators who intentionally look to defraud backers should be let off - however, I think that the better response would be a tar and feathering. Figuratively of course. No doubt any future activities will be tracked down by those who perform their due diligence, and word will spread of past problems. If, backers still choose to take the risk - let them. It is a risk, no different than any other investment.

Instead, you have this case, where the sum total of all the damages claimed by the Washington state residents falls within the small claims threshold ($1085) and the state going after them for over $60,000 (more than twice what the entire KS campaign raised). Two different outcomes will happen. If the company is incorporated - no one will get anything (unless they can prove real, honest to goodness intent to defraud the backers) or if the company was not incorporated - no one will get anything (since the Washington suit is a civil matter - the result will create a debt...something which is rather more difficult to collect across state lines).

Anywho - just my two cents...but one of the most frightening things that I hear (nearly every day now it seems) is "There should be a law to..." Instead, people should probably contemplate things before hand, consider the risk and make intelligent decisions based on those risks. If I had backed this campaign - I doubt I would even be annoyed enough to post a comment on the KS page, let alone spend a few hours filing a complaint with the state attorney (hrmmm, a $30 pledge versus my time...nope, not worth it). The government getting involved rarely makes things better, and I would much rather see new and interesting as opposed to more KS campaigns from CMoN.

This is not a new law, however, the fraudulent projector is being sued under existing laws.

Indeed, crowd funding is not a new thing, the main difference is it is much easier now on the Internet to address your scheme to a wide audience, you also avoid the "editorial" difficulty of having to secure business funding through a bank or other experienced investor that might helpfully criticise or just refuse your ideas.

Arguably the new situation creates new risks that require a new approach by investors. If crown funding became unviable perhaps it would be the natural course of business development.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Can't help but think this is actually a bad thing.

Yes, it does suck if you back a Kickstarter campaign which fails to deliver, fails to deliver on time or fails to deliver a product which you feel is not what was promised. Under normal consumer protection laws - these would be grounds for a refund, possibly a small claims case, perhaps a class action - and yes, possibly even criminal charges...

However, I can't help but think of all the harm those sorts of things would do to the potential which Kickstarter and other crowdfunding options offer. As opposed to having more upstarts with a great idea and a need of capital - you will have more companies who are simply using Kickstarter as free advertising for their preorder schemes. Small creators will be hesitant to attempt a risky campaign if they think there is a chance that they might fail to deliver. I don't think that is a good thing - not at all.

Think about it for a second. On average, 80% of new businesses fail within the first year or so. The success rate on delivered products on Kickstarter is much, much, much higher than that (which is not to say that all the creators continue on as successful businesses - but it is a point of perspective). The relatively small investment of individuals is something which is a risk/reward calculation for them. The risk they face is that they may not get anything in return. The reward of course is that they might get what they originally were promised - as well as bringing a new product to the field which will continue to be available for years to come.

Conversely, I think it is a great thing. A good idea with zero business sense is doomed to fail, and there should be consequences if you don't refund.

Too often project creators go into the project ignorant of basic business and project management fundamentals which they COULD educate themselves on. They set artificially low 'Funded!' goals which commit them to deliver a product they still don't have the capital to produce. They don't research the contracts required to produce Super Product let alone get realistic quotes. They believe KS removes their personal risk which in turn often leads to less than responsible behavior. If there is no risk (or perception of risk is greatly diminished) then bad decisions get made.

Small companies/individuals SHOULD be hesitant to run a risky campaign. In fact, they should NOT run a risky campaign. They should use KS to mitigate some risk, but they must do the research/homework before beginning and set realistic funding goals and understand promises made MUST be kept once funding is hit. They should structure their campaigns to succeed, and not to be risky for themselves or their backers. If that means decreasing scope of a campaign delivery while increasing funding goals to ensure a proper level of capitalization, so be it. If their Great Idea is really that good, and they do thier pre-project homework correctly and communicate their Great Idea well, then they do well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


Instead, people should probably contemplate things before hand, consider the risk and make intelligent decisions based on those risks.

Absolutely applies to the project creator. Lets not forget that. Using existing laws to hammer them is good. The whole 'Oops, sorry you backers are screwed because Kickstarter!' was never a good thing.

I agree with Sean on this. As I said above, crowdfunding is speculative, and litigation like this has great potential to harm individuals while leaving established companies relatively untouched. This could push crowdfunding further away from the realm of ideas and closer to the realm of advertising.

One thing that is interesting is how Kickstarter has said that crowdfunding reverses the traditional business model in which you create a product and then look for a market/customers. Instead, you find your market and then develop the product. Only product development itself is inherently fraught with risk.

I would say instead that crowdfunding inverts the risk. It places it onto the prospective customer instead of the startup business. In theory, the customer accepts this risk as a trade off to getting to see a product developed that would otherwise not exist. At least that's the theory.

And Jake, the crowd part of the crowdfunding is what should assess the feasibility of a product idea. Litigation to hold people accountable for genuine fraud is a good thing, but litigation to punish some individuals for taking silly risks and not others is inherently unfair. Why is the project creator more responsible than the backers? Normally this is the reverse. If I invest in a PLC that goes belly up, who is giving me my money back? Crowdfunding should be, in my opinion, the volatile realm of well-meaning amateurs who do not have access to traditional sources of capital. That's sort of the point, isn't it?

And again, I will emphasize that most campaigns in the TTG market deliver. I don't know what the numbers are like beyond that though.

Accountability can only be a good thing.

That said, I find it interesting that it's the state that's going after the supposed thief, apparently of its own initiative with no input from backers? If this becomes the norm, could we see an overly zealous state destroying honest projects that are simply running late, even if the backers are still happy to wait?

weeble1000 wrote:
I agree with Sean on this. As I said above, crowdfunding is speculative, and litigation like this has great potential to harm individuals while leaving established companies relatively untouched. This could push crowdfunding further away from the realm of ideas and closer to the realm of advertising.

One thing that is interesting is how Kickstarter has said that crowdfunding reverses the traditional business model in which you create a product and then look for a market/customers. Instead, you find your market and then develop the product. Only product development itself is inherently fraught with risk.

I would say instead that crowdfunding inverts the risk. It places it onto the prospective customer instead of the startup business. In theory, the customer accepts this risk as a trade off to getting to see a product developed that would otherwise not exist. At least that's the theory.

If states are willing to prosecute for violations, big companies have a better chance of getting hammered if they screw up too. Without that, big companies will shrug off individual backers who cannot commit the funds required to fight the legal battle. feth the companies. If they can't produce what they promise, hammer them. Big companies should be able to properly structure campaigns so it is not an issue, or can use more traditional funding venues if they find the KS risk too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

And Jake, the crowd part of the crowdfunding is what should assess the feasibility of a product idea. Litigation to hold people accountable for genuine fraud is a good thing, but litigation to punish some individuals for taking silly risks and not others is inherently unfair. Why is the project creator more responsible than the backers? Normally this is the reverse. If I invest in a PLC that goes belly up, who is giving me my money back? Crowdfunding should be, in my opinion, the volatile realm of well-meaning amateurs who do not have access to traditional sources of capital. That's sort of the point, isn't it?

And again, I will emphasize that most campaigns in the TTG market deliver. I don't know what the numbers are like beyond that though, though I will say that my mother, who happens to be something of a Kickstarter addict, has been surprised by how consistently TTG projects I have backed have delivered on the rewards.

Silly risk taking needs to be punished. If not, it continues. If there are no consequences it isn't really a risk, is it?

The project creator is more responsible because KS rules say he/she is. Because they have the biggest potential gain, they should shoulder the biggest risk. KS is NOT an investment for backers, the KS rules clearly lay that out. They also very clearly state the project creator must refund if they fail. Again, "Oops, sorry backers, you're screwed because KS!' was never a good thing.

Remember, there are protections for project creators. Incorporating is not too expensive, and the protections under bankruptcy filing are there too. Yes, it is considered 'bad' to file for bankruptcy, but the reality is that is a very useful tool for cleaning a slate when you can't meet debts. Again, bad decisions need to be discouraged on the part of project creators too. They must understand they have skin in the game and a big (majority) of the risk.

As mentioned before, most start ups fail. Let them, and let them use the bankruptcy laws, that is exactly what they are for. Discharging debt is a good thing when done legally.

Except that an incorporated entity would be much harder to find liable and would tend to produce no restitution; merely bankruptcy.

In other words, it would defeat the purpose unless the state had a genuine and substantive fraud case, which is fine. But you are unlikely to see that in a crowdfunding campaign.

Litigation like the above could have a chilling effect on perspective project creators, turning Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites into glorified preorder systems that established companies with ready access to capital utilize as a form of advertising. This would sort of defeat the purpose of crowdfunding.

Ultimately, the great advantage of crowdfunding is that we, the consumers, have the power to determine exactly what crowdfunding is about, so long as the state allows the market to determine accountability. It feels weird saying that given my political and economic views, but crowdfunding is about the undiluted power of a market composed of individual consumers.

If you are going to act like your Kickstarter is a pre-order, you should be expected to honour it as if it is a pre-order. You cannot honestly tell me that Mantic does not present theirs as a sale, with their emphasis on what rewards you get at what pledge levels and how much of a discount you're getting over RRP. Hell, they don't even mention the possibility that they'll fail to honour your pledge.

 AlexHolker wrote:
If you are going to act like your Kickstarter is a pre-order, you should be expected to honour it as if it is a pre-order. You cannot honestly tell me that Mantic does not present theirs as a sale, with their emphasis on what rewards you get at what pledge levels and how much of a discount you're getting over RRP. Hell, they don't even mention the possibility that they'll fail to honour your pledge.

But does that mean suddenly all crowdfunded projects are pre-orders, or should be treated as such? If all project creators have to come to Kickstarter with a finished product ready for pre-order, doesn't that undermine the purpose of crowdfunding?

weeble1000 wrote:
But does that mean suddenly all crowdfunded projects are pre-orders, or should be treated as such?

No. It should be pretty bloody obvious that nobody backs a Mantic Kickstarter for Mantic's sake - they are backing for the product being offered in exchange. Nobody would pay Mantic $350 just so that they'd make Dreadball Xtreme - they're paying so that they'll get a copy. On the other hand, nobody would pay Sarkeesian $100 just to get a postcard - they were doing it "for the cause", so to speak.

If all project creators have to come to Kickstarter with a finished product ready for pre-order, doesn't that undermine the purpose of crowdfunding?

No. The purpose of crowdfunding is to acquire capital to pay for the costs of your project. If you can't be fethed getting quotes to work out what those costs are, you have no business implying that they'll get something in return.

If somebody feels the obligations I suggest are too onerous, the community is better off without them.

I think deterring a few bad apples can only be a good thing, personally... as long as the burden of proof is high for prosecuting fraud on Kickstarter (just like fraud anywhere else) we'll be fine.

 RiTides wrote:
I think deterring a few bad apples can only be a good thing, personally... as long as the burden of proof is high for prosecuting fraud on Kickstarter (just like fraud anywhere else) we'll be fine.

Ultimately a lot comes down on what cases AGs/DAs are willing to bring. I think Sean's point about the case under discussion is that it does not seem like a terribly well thought out case. It certainly is not about substantive harm having been caused. That alone should be concerning. One must ask why the Washington AG decided to bring the case.

Consider this hypothetical:

You have a Kickstarter campaign to produce a miniatures game. After being successfully funded you put the miniatures into production. It turns out that one of the molds wears out sooner than expected. The only cash you have is the funds from the campaign, and after other issues beyond your control (increase in tin prices, increase in shipping rates) you are already eating a net loss on the campaign and have no extra funds to put in to replace the mold. As a result, 10% of your backers will not receive miniatures from the worn out mold.

I presume we can agree this would not constitute fraud on the part of the project creator, but nevertheless certain backers are not receiving their full reward and you have no money to provide a refund. The only assets of your LLC are the Kickstarter funds (now completely depleted), and assorted production materials (molds, pewter, casting equipment, etc.).

What if those backers, let's say there's 31 of them, only pledged for that miniature as a reward. So they haven't received any reward from the project.

AlexHolker might say, "Well you should have estimated your costs better or built a buffer into your funding goal."

But what if, next to Kickstarter campaigns by established companies like Mantic, Privateer Press, CMoN, etc., market expectations were that your pledge rewards would constitute roughly a 20% discount on retail value and backers would shy away from a campaign that appeared to have an overly inflated funding goal relative to the rewards offered. (See comments about the recent ACW and 4th War Equipment campaigns as an example of that.) 20% off retail, plus 10% to Kickstarter, plus shipping included, plus sales tax. Now the picture is starting to look like startup companies are having to come to a crowdfunding campaign with a product that they can produce in a small production run (the numbers one can expect from a modestly successful campaign are pretty well established) but at a low enough cost to be able to offer them at retailer or distributor discounts. That is, given the number of backers that are likely (unless a campaign goes gangbusters), one does not have the luxury of an economy of scale.

Already a startup TTG company with a Kickstarter campaign is competing with established companies that have substantive advertising budgets and established customer bases. This competition is not merely taking place in the retail market, but within Kickstarter. Are we, as customers, already creating an environment in which startup TTG companies have to operate on extremely slim margins when running a Kickstarter campaign? Established companies have a cash base to cover for mistakes (which undoubtedly are frequently made even by those with a great deal of experience), but a startup that is going to Kickstarter because it has no capital potentially has little or no cushion for errors and no way to make restitution if something goes pear shaped.

And into this mix we are seeing a Washington AG going after a project that raised a grand total of $25,000.00 with only 31 of the 810 total backers actually residents of the state.

Just be careful about jumping to one side or the other is all I'm saying.

 AlexHolker wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
But does that mean suddenly all crowdfunded projects are pre-orders, or should be treated as such?

No. It should be pretty bloody obvious that nobody backs a Mantic Kickstarter for Mantic's sake - they are backing for the product being offered in exchange. Nobody would pay Mantic $350 just so that they'd make Dreadball Xtreme - they're paying so that they'll get a copy. On the other hand, nobody would pay Sarkeesian $100 just to get a postcard - they were doing it "for the cause", so to speak.

NOT true - I backed the Kings of War Kickstarter because I wanted an alternative to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to be on the market.

The level that I backed it to was influenced by the models as they became available - but my initial backing was so that the FREE version of the rules would be published.

I would have been getting nothing more than what I would have gotten had the Kickstarter succeeded and I not backed it.

It was only after Mantic started panicking because the Kickstarter was doing so much better than they had planned that I increased my $5 pledge to something larger. (Then much larger... I'm not saying that I didn't want the miniatures - but that the miniatures weren't there when I made my initial pledge. But I made that pledge anyway.)

Some people do back a Kickstarter without expecting much of a reward.

And that first Mantic Kickstarter is still the most fun that I have ever had with a Kickstarter - even above the Reaper Bones Kickstarter (which I did join to get all the loverly, loverly Bones).

The Auld Grump

weeble1000 wrote:
Consider this hypothetical:

You have a Kickstarter campaign to produce a miniatures game. After being successfully funded you put the miniatures into production. It turns out that one of the molds wears out sooner than expected. The only cash you have is the funds from the campaign, and after other issues beyond your control (increase in tin prices, increase in shipping rates) you are already eating a net loss on the campaign and have no extra funds to put in to replace the mold. As a result, 10% of your backers will not receive miniatures from the worn out mold.

I presume we can agree this would not constitute fraud on the part of the project creator, but nevertheless certain backers are not receiving their full reward and you have no money to provide a refund. The only assets of your LLC are the Kickstarter funds (now completely depleted), and assorted production materials (molds, pewter, casting equipment, etc.).

What if those backers, let's say there's 31 of them, only pledged for that miniature as a reward. So they haven't received any reward from the project.

You have a manufacturer where one in every ten customers get nothing for their money. Why the hell do you want them to stay in business? If one in every ten McDonalds burgers contained a dead rat, would you be complaining when the health inspector shut them down?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
But does that mean suddenly all crowdfunded projects are pre-orders, or should be treated as such?

No. It should be pretty bloody obvious that nobody backs a Mantic Kickstarter for Mantic's sake - they are backing for the product being offered in exchange. Nobody would pay Mantic $350 just so that they'd make Dreadball Xtreme - they're paying so that they'll get a copy. On the other hand, nobody would pay Sarkeesian $100 just to get a postcard - they were doing it "for the cause", so to speak.

NOT true - I backed the Kings of War Kickstarter because I wanted an alternative to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to be on the market.

The level that I backed it to was influenced by the models as they became available - but my initial backing was so that the FREE version of the rules would be published.

That's a neat trick, given the free rules had already been published two years before.

Wait how is letting these 31 people get their day in court picking sides again? I thought the point of a court case is to get to the truth of the matter or have the court resolve a dispute going on between two or more parties so everyone can move on with their lives. So you honestly want to deny people their day in court and potentially the justice they deserve because it could maybe potentially hurt future kickstarters? Really?

Silly risk taking needs to be punished. If not, it continues. If there are no consequences it isn't really a risk, is it?

Shouldn't the same hold true for backers?

Individuals should bare a level of responsibility in determining whether or not it is a sound investment. This may be a sound investment in terms of analyzing the project to determine if there is a chance it will deliver, analyzing the creator to see if they are reliable, and analyzing their wallet to determine if they can stand to loose what they are investing.

A lot of people like to beat the drum of consumer laws and protections (as if it were a preorder) but as of yet - that hasn't been determined. The hosting sites structure themselves as if they are investing (complicated...but closest shoe to fit) and as a result, consumers should look at it as such. Sometimes investments pay off - sometimes they don't. It is a risk-reward calculation. The Washington AG is likely looking to make a bit of case law on this - more so than any sort of real justice.

I think deterring a few bad apples can only be a good thing, personally... as long as the burden of proof is high for prosecuting fraud on Kickstarter (just like fraud anywhere else) we'll be fine.

I doubt it will deter anyone who is an actual bad apple (might deter some who are under prepared and ill informed...but not the real snake oil types). Even with a high burden of proof for fraud - you still have to show up, otherwise you will loose by default. Showing up for a case filed by the state - especially a motivated attorney looking for a feather in their cap - isn't cheap, and with relatively small dollar amounts involved in these Kickstarter campaigns hardly include enough overhead to cover a legal defense.

However, well meaning, law abiding types may never decide to attempt a KS - even if they would be fully capable of delivering a great product. It may be because they read the stories and become concerned regarding all the "What ifs..." What if the printer increases costs? What if my artist flakes out? What if the Chinese factory uses tainted materials? What if... They will also no doubt get a lot more negative feedback from friends and family. Yah, I am thinking about starting a new business using a Kickstarter to raise capital. Oh, you mean like that guy who is on the run in Costa Rica...are you sure you are thinking strait?

You have a manufacturer where one in every ten customers to get nothing for their money. Why the hell do you want them to stay in business? If one in every ten McDonalds burgers contained a dead rat, would you be complaining when the health inspector shut them down?

I might - more likely I wouldn't care and I would just not eat at McDonalds. The bigger issue though is that when you go to McDonalds - it is a completely different relationship than when you back a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign. There are lots of laws in place to deal with that relationship (I would argue too many...but then again, I am a big fan of personal responsibility). In the same way - if I wanted better protections for my investments, I would invest in traditional ways that also have a bunch of laws.

The thing that I like about Kickstarter and other crowdfunding options is that they are a bit like the Wild West. Because of this - it allows a lot more things to be brought to the field than what you might find if companies were still limited to what they could beg from family members, get signed off from banks or otherwise raise through conventional revenue channels. The risk that you guys seem to think is a bad thing...I generally think is a really good thing. I don't put any money into a crowdfunding campaign that I can not afford to loose - and although I have been disappointed on some, on balance I would say I have gotten much more out of them than I have put into them...without needing anyone to get in and regulate things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait how is letting these 31 people get their day in court picking sides again? I thought the point of a court case is to get to the truth of the matter or have the court resolve a dispute going on between two or more parties so everyone can move on with their lives. So you honestly want to deny people their day in court and potentially the justice they deserve because it could maybe potentially hurt future kickstarters? Really?

It isn't a question of not letting them have their day in court...in fact, it isn't even their day in court.

If they wanted to, they could have files a small claims court case for their $35 dollars (at the cost of around $75 to file) and gotten their day in court.

This case in particular is about a State AG who wants to make case law. Already by the time he had written up his court papers for the initial filing, he spent more state money than what the whole state of Washington was out in terms of real damages. By the time it goes to court - they will likely have spent many times more than the KS campaign actually raised. If the state is successful, they will receive nothing. Washington can not seize assets from Tennessee, and it is likely that if the company actually had any assets to seize...they would be gone by now.

This case is nothing about justice.

And yes, I worry greatly about the chilling effects and that proverbial slippery slope. I don't think cases like this are a good idea. If each of the individuals wanted to get their money back - heck even if all the backers wanted to get their money back and filed a joint claim in a Federal court...more power to them. Let them get their moral victory (which would not get them their cards...though at least then, a Federal lien might be able to be placed...).

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Silly risk taking needs to be punished. If not, it continues. If there are no consequences it isn't really a risk, is it?

Shouldn't the same hold true for backers?

The same backers Kickstarter policy clearly states are owed a refund by the legally liable project creator? Those backers?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait how is letting these 31 people get their day in court picking sides again? I thought the point of a court case is to get to the truth of the matter or have the court resolve a dispute going on between two or more parties so everyone can move on with their lives. So you honestly want to deny people their day in court and potentially the justice they deserve because it could maybe potentially hurt future kickstarters? Really?

It isn't a question of not letting them have their day in court...in fact, it isn't even their day in court.

If they wanted to, they could have files a small claims court case for their $35 dollars (at the cost of around $75 to file) and gotten their day in court.

This case in particular is about a State AG who wants to make case law. Already by the time he had written up his court papers for the initial filing, he spent more state money than what the whole state of Washington was out in terms of real damages. By the time it goes to court - they will likely have spent many times more than the KS campaign actually raised. If the state is successful, they will receive nothing. Washington can not seize assets from Tennessee, and it is likely that if the company actually had any assets to seize...they would be gone by now.

This case is nothing about justice..

If you honestly think that the state did this entirely on their own and none of the 31 backers let them know what is a foot or are behind this move then you don't understand people. I seriously doubt that washington state has an AG surfing through all the various kickstarters to find which one hadn't delivered the goods to Washington's citizens. I am 99% positive a pissed off backer or someone around them brought this case to the AGs attention.

And even if Washington state did this entirely on their own with zero input from any of the backers (which I seriously doubt), the state is still allowed to take cases on for the behalf of citizens and therefore is fighting on their behalf. For instance in murder cases the "complaining witness" is dead, but state is still fighting on the victims behalf in court. So this is the backers day in court as well as the states. Also the state doesn't need everyone to be 100% for or against any given case for it go to court.

And the case only being about setting case Law? No offense but is pretty common attack on AG and DAs, I have seen that line, or something akin to that, used in so many law and order type shows that it has gotten old. Everybody thinks that a AG is only doing something because that want to make case law. That is pretty common bull gak claim made to distract people from the actual case. Besides how do you know why the AG is doing this?

And the AG doesn't only want restitution from the defendants but also fines and a injunction so they can't continue in this behavior. Also AGs don't run law offices like a business where they only go after cases that are a net profit for a government.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
And yes, I worry greatly about the chilling effects and that proverbial slippery slope. I don't think cases like this are a good idea. If each of the individuals wanted to get their money back - heck even if all the backers wanted to get their money back and filed a joint claim in a Federal court...more power to them. Let them get their moral victory (which would not get them their cards...though at least then, a Federal lien might be able to be placed...)

No offense but do you really want to ignore real potential crimes in the present in order to protect kickstarters from future theoretical problems? That doesn't sound convincing to me, I say let the courts play this one out.

BloodHawk, the only reasonable explanation for why the Washington state Attorney General would spend oodles of state money to persue this case is to make case law.

I'm sure someone brought the issue to the attention of the AG, but I don't see where Sean claimed that wasn't the case. You don't need to know how people work to understand this, you need to understand how lawyers work, and in particular government attorneys, to understand what is going on in this case.

This AG has a beef with crowd funding and is using this lawsuit as a way to address his issues with Kickstarter. Now, this is not to say whether or not the AG is acting in the public good (if not persuing justice for the 31 Washington state residents - which he knows he isn't). I expect that he believes he is. But whether this lawsuit is in the interest of Washington state residents and US residents in general is very much open for debate.

As I said previously, one should appreciate the context of an issue like this before jumping on a bandwagon.

For example, last year I worked pro-bono on a death penalty case brought against a convicted murder serving life in prison with no possibility of parole (the mandatory sentence for aggrivated murder in the state of Louisiana). That's right, a convicted murderer serving a life sentrnce being charged with another murder, allegedly committed during an escape attempt.

Now, the state was seeking the death penalty even though the defendant was as I said already serving life inprisonment with no possibility of parole and was serving his sentence on death row for security purposes. So, why was the DA seeking the death penalty?

One might say that the reason was the principle that it would be the only way to punish the defendant for the crime. One might also say it was merely a means to death qualify the jury, statistically increasing the odds of a conviction. One might also say it was purely a political motivation, or a mix of all of the above.

The point is that whether the DA was acting in the interests of the citizens of the state of Louisiana was absolutely a matter open for debate. Your conception of justice is not mine, and the laws of a state do not provide a bright line delineating just from unjust. This is why DAs are elected officials, as are state attorney generals in 43 US states. Don't forget that.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
But does that mean suddenly all crowdfunded projects are pre-orders, or should be treated as such?

No. It should be pretty bloody obvious that nobody backs a Mantic Kickstarter for Mantic's sake - they are backing for the product being offered in exchange. Nobody would pay Mantic $350 just so that they'd make Dreadball Xtreme - they're paying so that they'll get a copy. On the other hand, nobody would pay Sarkeesian $100 just to get a postcard - they were doing it "for the cause", so to speak.

NOT true - I backed the Kings of War Kickstarter because I wanted an alternative to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to be on the market.

The level that I backed it to was influenced by the models as they became available - but my initial backing was so that the FREE version of the rules would be published.

That's a neat trick, given the free rules had already been published two years before.

Again - NOT true - it was a new edition, not the same rules that were already on line for free.

The first two versions were betas - a public test of the rules, with changes made as each was posted.

The Kickstarter was for the full release.

The $5 that I pledged would have gone to help print the hardcover of the new version of the rules - BUT I would not have received the hardcover at the pledge that I originally made.

A print version means a store presence that the free rules from on line would not have - though those same rules were included with two different versions of the starter sets.

So far you are two for two at being wrong.

I suspect that three for three is on the horizon....

Sometimes people DO back a Kickstarter because they feel that the product should be produced, not just because they want good stuff cheap.

That same reason was why I backed Wastelands II - not just because I wanted the game, but because I wanted the game to be produced.

There have been a number of Kickstarters that I have NOT backed, even though I want the miniatures - I did not back McVey Studios, Defiance Games, nor did I back Drake. I liked the miniatures, but felt that the projects themselves just did not matter that much to me.

An exception was Zombicide - where getting the game cheap was why I made my pledge - but the Kickstarter had already reached its starting goals, long before I had even heard of the game.

If Mantic has a Warpath Kickstarter... I will likely pledge, but I would do so as much to have a competitor for 40K in stores as for whatever miniatures that I get out of it.

On the other hand, if they guaranteed that they would have Deadzone rules for all the new models.... Then I would indeed be pledging to get good stuff, cheap. (That was the thing that made me pledge for Mars Attacks.... I had no interest until the Deadzone rules were mentioned....)

The Auld Grump

The thing is Kickstarter and Indigogo, etc. were supposedly started as funding sites for creative artistic type projects like making an indie film.

Such projects are inherently highly risky which is why they have difficulty getting funding the conventional way and why it is fine for individual backers like me to give them some money because essentially we don't expect a "fair" return for our contribution.

However what has happened is that people are using the sites to set up small businesses and/or get pre-orders for conventional products like say nude pin-up space cowboy furry hero figures for role-playing games that are basically profit making if you know the level of orders you will achieve.

If you get the orders and payment in advance, such products are fairly standard manufacturing jobs which any competent experienced manager should be able to bring off within the set budget. It is therefore reasonable for backers to expect that if they pay their $30 for their nude pin-up furry space marine figure they will get it.