|
Post by bed on Aug 25, 2015 21:40:27 GMT
I do not endorse this - I believe you take the *risk* when you back a crowd sourced thing and hate litigation like this - but this certainly sets a strong precedent for the whole thing: www.kickstartadventure.com/home/unfinished-kickstarter-projects-can-end-in-fines/"Asylum Playing cards came to life in its crowdfunding form as early as October 2012, having raised over $25,000 from backers. Sadly, progress soon came to a halt with no new updates since July 2013. The community, understandably enraged, decided to take matters to the courts and after a two year long process a decision was finally made. A Washington court decreed that Asylum Playing cards creators, Atlius Management and Edward J. Polchlopek woud have to pay over $54,000 in fines and settlements. For those keeping score, that’s twice as much as the amount originally garnered via crowdfunding. Polchlopek is forced to offer $668 in restitution per backer residing in the state of Washington, plus $31,000 for violating the Consumer Protection Act and an additional $23,183 in costs and fees."
|
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Aug 26, 2015 9:05:00 GMT
I would argue against the "buyer beware" mentality when it comes to Kickstarter. If you put your Kickstarter up knowing that you don't intend to deliver, you're a con and should be fined. If you put your Kickstarter up and you know that you might not be able to deliver, then I believe the mentality ought to be "seller beware" or make the public fully aware of those risks instead of just going "yeah, we're gonna do this". If the public are made aware of the risks then that's the point where the whole "buyer beware" thing comes in. The reason your investment is at risk should not be "whoops", it should be something more concrete (prices for materials shot up for some unknown reason or the project did not scale well with the sheer number of backers). As a consumer I am not aware of the risks behind printing playing cards. Given that they are practically ubiquitous to the point where custom decks can be ordered via the internet it would be reasonable to assume that the project is, by default, low-risk. In fact, their "risks and challenges" section details only delivery dates as being a potential risk.
Please note that I am stating the above sentence as an example to explain my stance on the litigation, I have no judgement for the actual project as I did not back it and do not know the ins and outs concerning it. With the information I can find, though (can't see the updates as you need to be a backer), dropping off the face of the earth for two years is not a sign of delivery dates going wrong, it's a sign of something pretty bad happening. Given I don't know what that "something bad" is, I have no idea if the fine is justified or not.
Not sure how I feel about the whole "we're going to crack down on Kickstarter projects" statement, though. Kickstarter is a wonderful source of innovative projects and if people believe they might just get kicked around by the judicial system over a risky project then I think we'll end up seeing less and less creativity and more and more "safe" projects. As I said above, a risky project is fine, but make the risks known to the backer otherwise you're potentially just fleecing someone.
|
|