Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kickstarted Veronica Mars Promised Digital Download; Pirate Bay Delivers

Unknown Lamer posted about 5 months ago | from the netcraft-confirms-film-industry-committing-suicide dept.

Movies 243

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?"

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Eh. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511469)

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.

How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511539)

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 something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (4, Informative)

xevioso (598654) | about 5 months ago | (#46511599)

tl; dr; stupid, and off topic.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46511745)

Back to hiding -1 posts.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511931)

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 (5, Insightful)

Mullen (14656) | about 6 months ago | (#46512099)

> 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 (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 6 months ago | (#46512833)

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 (3, Insightful)

lucm (889690) | about 6 months ago | (#46513035)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512251)

and now we need a -1 Tedious mod.

Re:Eh. (5, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#46513221)

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.

Investors? Really? (5, Insightful)

OzJimbob (129746) | about 5 months ago | (#46511471)

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? (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 5 months ago | (#46511495)

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? (3, Interesting)

brxndxn (461473) | about 5 months ago | (#46511503)

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? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511563)

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

Re:Investors? Really? (4, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46511681)

"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? (5, Informative)

grmoc (57943) | about 5 months ago | (#46511881)

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? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512061)

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? (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 6 months ago | (#46512187)

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? (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46512163)

[...] 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.com] :

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 [kickstarter.com] 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? (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 6 months ago | (#46512915)

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? (5, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46513263)

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? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 6 months ago | (#46512331)

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? (5, Informative)

grmoc (57943) | about 5 months ago | (#46511505)

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? (4, Informative)

EvilSS (557649) | about 5 months ago | (#46511701)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512051)

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? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46512241)

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 [amazonaws.com] . 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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46513235)

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? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#46511737)

"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? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512197)

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.

Return the money AND the risk premium (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511483)

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

Re:Return the money AND the risk premium (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 5 months ago | (#46511605)

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 (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46512877)

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

Fuck you I got mine (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511501)

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

Download (5, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 5 months ago | (#46511515)

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 (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 5 months ago | (#46511545)

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 (2)

Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) | about 5 months ago | (#46511731)

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 (4, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 5 months ago | (#46511961)

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 (2)

Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) | about 6 months ago | (#46512571)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46513349)

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 (2)

stoploss (2842505) | about 6 months ago | (#46513431)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512257)

> ...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 (4, Informative)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 5 months ago | (#46511553)

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 (4, Interesting)

EvilSS (557649) | about 5 months ago | (#46511739)

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.

So the studio (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 5 months ago | (#46511533)

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 (1)

okle69 (258936) | about 5 months ago | (#46511597)

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 (3, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#46511677)

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

Re:So the studio (1)

okle69 (258936) | about 5 months ago | (#46511977)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512805)

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 (3, Informative)

EvilSS (557649) | about 5 months ago | (#46511769)

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.

Not true. (5, Interesting)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46511551)

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. (5, Insightful)

stevel (64802) | about 5 months ago | (#46511735)

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. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512263)

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. (3, Insightful)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 6 months ago | (#46512647)

"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. (0)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 6 months ago | (#46512521)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512875)

Where can I find this Ultraviolent version?

uh, you paid a studio and expect returns? (5, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | about 5 months ago | (#46511555)

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...

How stupid do you have to be, Hollywood? (3, Insightful)

mhkohne (3854) | about 5 months ago | (#46511561)

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? (4, Informative)

EvilSS (557649) | about 5 months ago | (#46511805)

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.

not news (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 5 months ago | (#46511569)

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 (1)

taustin (171655) | about 5 months ago | (#46511887)

"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 (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 6 months ago | (#46513081)

"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 (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512139)

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 (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 6 months ago | (#46512943)

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.

Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store. (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 5 months ago | (#46511585)

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

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46512003)

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.

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 6 months ago | (#46512247)

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 (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | about 5 months ago | (#46512037)

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

It was even covered on here [slashdot.org]

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

Re:Lies: Show me the legal DRM-free download store (2)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 6 months ago | (#46512193)

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 (2)

HiThere (15173) | about 6 months ago | (#46512495)

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.".

Hollywood is pathetic (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511611)

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 (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 6 months ago | (#46512695)

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.

The shocking part... (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#46511613)

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?

Beta Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511687)

"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?

Re:The shocking part... (1)

Calavar (1587721) | about 6 months ago | (#46512507)

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.

Well, that's a surprise (1)

Smerta (1855348) | about 5 months ago | (#46511659)

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.

Kickstarter LIED (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511695)

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 (2, Insightful)

EvilSS (557649) | about 5 months ago | (#46512009)

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? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 5 months ago | (#46511725)

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? (4, Funny)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 5 months ago | (#46511901)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512117)

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

Re:What is the issue? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 6 months ago | (#46512271)

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? (2)

DutchUncle (826473) | about 6 months ago | (#46513111)

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.

Do it (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#46511785)

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 (2)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 6 months ago | (#46513145)

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.

Nothing to see here.. move along (2)

gearloos (816828) | about 5 months ago | (#46511789)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46511899)

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 (0)

roc97007 (608802) | about 5 months ago | (#46511975)

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 (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 6 months ago | (#46512259)

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

Re:This makes me sad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512537)

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?

Breach of contract... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46512025)

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...

Geek Rage!!! (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 6 months ago | (#46512111)

The Veronica Mars kickstarter [kickstarter.com] 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!!! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 6 months ago | (#46512279)

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!!! (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 6 months ago | (#46512531)

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

Re:Geek Rage!!! (1)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about 6 months ago | (#46512729)

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!!! (1)

DutchUncle (826473) | about 6 months ago | (#46513137)

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!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512865)

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!!! (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 6 months ago | (#46513095)

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.

They Broke It (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512569)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46512755)

The ORIGINAL FAQ says nothing about flixster or UV

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

The real issue (0)

lucm (889690) | about 6 months ago | (#46513127)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>