Kickstarter Becomes The Darling Of Sundance By Financing Lots Of Movies… Without Movie Studio Arrogance

from the alternatives-arise dept

We’ve certainly talked about the massive growth of Kickstarter, especially in the movie space, and apparently that’s being noticed at famous movie festivals like Sundance. David Carr has an article at the NY Times, in which he compares Kickstarter to a movie studio but without the arrogance of a studio. And, of course, it is a very different proposition. Unlike in a studio relationship, the artist retains the ownership of the work. Unlike in a studio relationship, there’s no one at Kickstarter who has to “greenlight” the picture to get it made. Instead, it’s entirely tied to the ability of filmmakers to get people to pay up (in small bunches) to make it work. And it does seem to be working:

[Kickstarter] had helped finance 10 percent of the festival’s slate, 17 movies in all, including four that were in competition.

And did it all without the obnoxiousness of a tradtional Hollywood studio/distributor. Of course, this really highlights a point that we’ve been making for over a decade. While some traditionalists with little vision have spent the last decade screaming about how there are no new business models for producing content, it’s become increasingly clear that where there’s a need, such services and business models will get created. And, even better, they seem to be ones set up in a way where the artist has more choice and more control.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: kickstarter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Kickstarter Becomes The Darling Of Sundance By Financing Lots Of Movies… Without Movie Studio Arrogance”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
PaulT (profile) says:

In some ways this isn’t really new, with previous Sundance films like Clerks and El Mariachi having been financed by credit cards and other alternative methods 2 decades ago. It is nice to see something solid coming out of Kickstarter, however, and it’s interesting to see a single source of alternative funding becoming so ubiquitous.

But, I think the real battle is yet to come – distribution. That these films have been made is great. What we now have to look to is a way to get them distributed and *seen* by people without having to sell off rights to distributors, region block audiences or even sell the film to the “indie” arm of a major studio. Here’s hoping…

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The problem for them will be making money. And it will be interesting to see if any break even.

Ahem – this is Kickstarter remember. They have already broken even before they started.

Kickstarter funds aren’t loans or equity – they are grants (possibly in return for a small reward) to get the work made.

Any further money made is pure profit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

ummm. If kickstarter funded the film 100% they don’t need to generate any revenue to “break even”. They should just put it up on YouTube, screw distribution to theaters. They shouldn’t profit from the film, if they didn’t pay to create it they shouldn’t make money from it, or if they do, they should channel the profit back to the kickstarter investors.

halley (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, pure grants for profit-making projects are still just fine with me, as long as the project says that this is the goal.

I’ve granted money to small artists who needed the cash to press their first CD run. I didn’t invest in that artist, I just supported their dream to make and sell a CD. They did the music, they get the money from the CD sales, I got a named credit in their CD liner notes in tiny 6 point text.

Of course, if you’re of the opinion that people only give money to get money or goods of equal value, then Kickstarter’s really not for you.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

> All they have to do is put their film out in a single
> distribution outlet and then the pirates will take
> care of the rest of their distribution for them.

Typical dinosaur thinking. Limit distribution. Artificial scarcity. Yep, that’s a recipe for piracy.

What they put their film into an online distribution mechanism like Netflix. Or a quasi-internet distribution mechanism like RedBox. What if they put trailers onto rogue websites like YouTube? What if other rogue websites such as Google index their movie’s website?

gorehound (profile) says:

Re: Re:

That will be easier to do now than having to deal with the rip-off MAFIAA Big Content Industry.This is the type of service WE WANT !!! Kickstarter lets you do projects and you as the Artist own your project.And you do not have to deal with any of these Hollywood Suits.Make more films with Kickstarter and think less about going West.The more who do this the better off we all will be.
Hollywood must die !

Anonymous Coward says:

HAHA Thats Funny

Unlike in a studio relationship, there’s no one at Kickstarter who has to “greenlight” the picture to get it made. Instead, it’s entirely tied to the ability of filmmakers to get people to pay up (in small bunches) to make it work.

Oh right they dont need a “greenlight” to get made, they just need a “greenlight” to get the picture made !!!

Instead, it’s entirely tied to the ability of filmmakers to get people to pay up (in small bunches) to make it work.

Thats right, instead of getting one person or a company with lots of money to “greenlight” your movie, you need to get ALOT of people to give you money to “greenlight” your movie !!!!

Nice word twisting Masnick, I guess it is hard for your to differentiate between two things that are basically the same….

But it is amusing to watch you try… (and fail)… so often.

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: HAHA Thats Funny

I don’t see how that is a conflict. They can still make their movie. Kickstarter is a method to help people get started quicker at making their art. Most people who have Kickstarter campaigns have already done the majority of the work and are simply looking for that extra capital to finish it off. Others haven’t started and just want to get going a little quicker than they normally would.

There is no person standing in the path and demanding a toll to continue forward.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: HAHA Thats Funny

Thats right, instead of getting one person or a company with lots of money to “greenlight” your movie, you need to get ALOT of people to give you money to “greenlight” your movie !!!!

Nice word twisting Masnick, I guess it is hard for your to differentiate between two things that are basically the same….

When I first read this I assumed it was another deliberate comedy troll.

If not then I suggest you go study the kickstarter site to see how it works – because you obviously haven’t got a clue…

PaulT (profile) says:


Wow, a quick thing to note for the regulars here…

Look at the first comment on the NYT article from “Ray Burns”. He personally attacks the writer, accuses him of being “sleazy” because of a tangential association with Kickstarter (i.e. he’s used it) that he points out in the article, defends Chris Dodd and essentially claims that the focus of the article is irrelevant because the films aren’t going to be blockbusters.

Remind you of anyone?

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: AC?

Movies don’t have to be block busters to ruin the studios. All they need to be is marginally successful. Already 10% of Sundance is Kickstarter funded movies.

Imagine 10 years from now, when huge numbers of movies are done in this way. Or when the technology makes it possible for anyone to make a good movie by drop and drag editing. With little or no cost except an investment in time.

This year at CES, we saw the beginnings of augmented reality on cell phones and tablets. Very soon we will see the ability to do real time virtual sets, and replace everything around a person with computer generated imagery. Once that happens the TV and movie studios have nothing going for them. Spending $100 million dollars on a movie will never again be profitable. They will be competing with thousands of better, more targeted, and personalized movies.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: AC?

It won’t be Kickstarter. It will be the producers using this technology to create content. It will eventually come loaded on all tablets and phones.

A couple links on Augmented Reality in cell phones from CES.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 AC?

Please, with the ‘shoot first, consider asking questions later’ attitude that seems to prevail these days legally, all it would take is an accusation for them to target kickstarter.

And if you don’t think that kickstarter, and sites like it are a threat to the movie studios and that lot, and that they would just love so shut them down, you haven’t been paying attention.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: AC?

It wouldn’t matter if kickstarter financed 100% of the movies at Sundance, and if anything that would likely spell the end of Sundance as a serious venue for films.

The magic of Sundance isn’t the number of movies presented, but rather that this is a place where indie movies and margin projects might get picked up for distribution (or sometimes remake).

For all the technology, it is easy to forget that it isn’t about the tools used, but the story told. All the technology in the world cannot make a stinker into a great movie. All the crowd sourced funding can’t teach someone how to make a movie, it just teaches them how to collect money.

The question is always how this turns into something biggest, where more than a few art loves and movie buffs get to actually see the work. For everything that has happened, and for the increase in availablity, distribution, exposure, and even access to large screens at multiplexes, we aren’t seeing movies come out of this sort of process that are really rocking the world.

Forget the business model – art is about the art. If the art sucks, how you paid for it is immaterial, except perhaps to a business grad.

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: AC?

The only thing left is the advertising at this point. This is the same issue that independent musicians have. It is still being worked on. We do however have a great new advantage, the distribution can be done digitally

You still have a high cost of entry at this point. Not many people can find +100k to produce something they have been thinking about for years. With Moore’s law, we have twice the computing power at the same cost every 18 months. With that the cost of production and post go down substantially. Real time CGI, real time virtual sets, real time special effects. We at the cusp of when things change.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: AC?

“It wouldn’t matter if kickstarter financed 100% of the movies at Sundance, and if anything that would likely spell the end of Sundance as a serious venue for films.”

I haven’t got a clue where you come to this conclusion. Kickstarter is merely a tool to get a film funded. More funding and more films doesn’t mean that the quality filmmakers get locked out – quite the opposite in fact. However, Sundance would still have the pick of which films to screen at their festival. They would just have a wider pool to choose from (as is already the case compared to when they first started).

Unless you’re going to somehow assert that Kickstarter funding either has a negative effect of film quality as a whole, or that their funding negaties the independent status of the film, I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea from.

Anonymous Coward says:

out of the 17 movies (and 4 in the competition) how many of them have turned a profit, and been able to repay it’s investors ? Any ?

and if so, how much profit was made ? as a relationship to the money and time/labor invested?

I guess, because you have mentioned none, that the list would be zero in size..

Because we all know Masnick NEVER leaves out facts…

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Wow, clueless as ever…

“out of the 17 movies (and 4 in the competition) how many of them have turned a profit”

None of them, because they haven’t been released yet. It might also amaze you, but not every one of these films was produced with profit in mind.

Also, if you had bothered to read the article (assuming your name isn’t actually Ray Burns), you would have read that one of them has already been optioned for development as a series on HBO.

“been able to repay it’s investors”

Who is there to repay, exactly? On what terms? That depends on the promises made in return for the donations. If the people who donated only wanted to see the film produced, did so for an onscreen credit or a part in the movie, then they have already been paid in full.

You don’t actually know how Kickstarter works, do you?.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

and still no list !!!!!

You know what “paid research” is dont you ???


ie, the reason the research is done is to prove a point of view you allready hold..

This is the opposite to unbiased, independent, and accurate research based on facts.

When you are paid to come to a specific conclusion, and NOT paid if you fail to provide that specific conclusion.
Then it is NOT research, it is PAID OPINION..

Why else would they PAY Masnick to produce this “research”. haha..

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“All – actually – but then if you knew how kickstarter worked you would know that already – and you wouldn’t have posted that stupidity.”

I’ll be fair for one second and accept that the Kickstarter funds could have been for something other than the production of the film itself. For example, while browsing there earlier, I noticed a film that had been completed, the Kickstarter funds were just required for the costs of submitting to various festivals. It’s perfectly possible that some of these films had financing from other sources that has not yet been repaid.

But, yeah, it’s more likely that he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

explicit coward (profile) says:

Re: Art vs Profit

A “true” artist is not in it for the profit, he or she is in it for the opportunity to express him- or herself. Sure, to make a living out of it is a necessity, if you want to dedicate yourself fulltime to your art, but to make a profit? No it’s not, not for the “true” artist.

It’s for the middlemen called studio though… they are not interested in the enrichment of culture, they are interested in the bucks flocking into their pockets.

The investor is people like you and me, who want to see the artist’s vision become reality. That’s what we get for our investment. I wouldn’t want money in return for my investment – just the right to enjoy the artists product from the moment it’s finished until the end of my days.

Why are you so focused on profit? Or better – why is your definition of profit so narrow? It’s a win-win-situation: The artist gets to make his vision come true, the investor gets to experience the result.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Art vs Profit

“Why yes, I am a ‘true artist”. Now, can I take your order please?”

Wow. What a condescending thing to say. Consider this:

“Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write; see whether it has spread its roots into the very depths of your heart; confess to yourself whether you would have to die if you were forbidden to write. This most of all: ask yourself in the most silent hour of your night: must I write? Dig into yourself for a deep answer. And if this answer rings out in assent, if you meet this solemn question with a strong, simple “I must”, then build your life in accordance with this necessity; your whole life, even into its humblest and most indifferent hour, must become a sign and witness to this impulse.”

This is Rainer Maria Rilke’s advice to a young poet named Franz Kappus in 1903. This has been paraphrased by Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit as:

“I went to my mother who gave me this book called Letters To A Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke. He?s a fabulous writer. A fellow used to write to him and say: “I want to be a writer. Please read my stuff.” And Rilke says to this guy: “Don?t ask me about being a writer. lf, when you wake up in the morning, you can think of nothing but writing then you?re a writer.”

If, when you wake up in the morning, you can think of nothing but piles of money then you should become an accountant.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Art vs Profit

Obviously, you have never been around theater and other performance venues. The comment is my recollection of print on popular t-shirts worn by would-be actors who audition incessantly, changed only to substitute “true artist” for “actor”.

Ahh. Context makes a difference there. I incorrectly assumed that it was a continuation of the sentiment that started this thread. It’s not so condescending when a “true artist” makes a joke like that at their own expense.

And, no, not whole lot of exposure to actors and other performance artists. For some reason, I’ve always found those folks to be slightly over dramatic for my tastes.

explicit coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The right to be an artist

“Why yes, I am a ‘true artist”. Now, can I take your order please?”

Everyone has the right to be an artist, but no one has the right to make a living out of it, neither under the current system, neither under any other system – except if robots did all the work we don’t want to do and all of us could spend their time being creative.

Jim says:

Re: Re: Art vs Profit

“Why are you so focused on profit? Or better – why is your definition of profit so narrow?”

Not to speak for anyone else here, but for me “profit” means money. Money that I can use to purchase both necessities (i.e. clothing, shelter, food, transportation) and wants (i.e. nicer food, clothing, shelter, etc.)

I’m fairly certain that while there are many definitions of the word “profit”; only the currency kind, can be used to purchase stuff. Hence, as someone stated earlier, “I got a hat, out-take reel, etc.” none of which could be used for that purpose.

Of course that’s just my opinion

explicit coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Profit vs Make a living

As I stated before, you have to be able to make a living out of it, if you want to dedicate yourself fulltime to your art – but that still does not mean that you have to make more money than needed (for a living) – that’s where the monetary profit starts for me: If you get more than it costs to make it, that’s a profit.

Of course we could discuss at length what definition the “minimal standard living” is, but that would be pointless. In essence what I mean to say is the following:

The enrichment art brings with it goes far beyond any monetary thought.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Art vs Profit

A “true” artist is not in it for the profit

Yes, that might be true, but any artist needs to eat, and somewhere to sleep.

A “true” researcher is NOT in it for the profit..

Masnick is in it FOR THE PROFIT, Masnick is NOT a TRUE researcher.

In Australia it’s called “cash for comments”, and it is illegal….

explicit coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Art vs Profit

“Yes, that might be true, but any artist needs to eat, and somewhere to sleep.”

Never wrote anything against it.

“A “true” researcher is NOT in it for the profit..”


“Masnick is in it FOR THE PROFIT, Masnick is NOT a TRUE researcher.”

I do not know Mr. Masnick personally so I can’t judge his motivations, but many of the things he writes make sense to me – as does this “kickstarter”-story. Could we get back to the story instead of trying to dissect the author?

“In Australia it’s called “cash for comments”, and it is illegal….”

I don’t know the legal situation in Switzerland but to be honest, everybody who writes any sort of publication gets paid one way or the other these days. But what I really abhor are people who write stuff for money that go against their own conviction.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Well, don’t know about everyone else, but I chipped into a film on kickstarter.
Lunchdate as it happens, and it has just been shown in the Santa Barbara Film festival.
I got what I paid for, some early access, the film on DVD, some souvenirs and contact with the creators.
To my mind it cut out the middleman, I paid what I considered a reasonable price for what I got I just made the payment before the film was made and that payment and those of the others, allowed the film to be made.
Whether a short film can be made to actually enter into profit for the director is another matter, shorts don’t generally make any money, but I suspect that if the writer/director used the internet to distribute, it could actually do it.
Whether she will or not is now entirely up to her.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re:

> out of the 17 movies (and 4 in the competition)
> how many of them have turned a profit,

Out of every Hollywood movie how many of them have turned a profit?

Answer: zero!

> and been able to repay it’s investors ? Any ?

And how many Hollywood movies have been able to pay their actors what they should?

Answer: zero — because even the biggest blockbuster movies of all time never make a profit.

Michael says:

Good news

It’s refreshing to see people who are willing to go their own way and experiment with new business models. We need more stories of upstarts like these.

If Hollywood had its way, Kickstarter would be blocked from the internet. All they can do right now is send their trolls onto sites like Techdirt and spew their usual brand of ridicule. People don’t need Hollywood’s permission to create a movie.

Skeptical Cynic (profile) says:

Re: Good news

It’s refreshing to see people are supporting the arts without having to use tax payer dollars to do so and still get good stuff out.

I like this model so much better than having my money taken from me every payday and then the politicians decide where the money goes. I can pick and choose what movies I want to fund.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Good news

It’s refreshing to see people are supporting the arts without having to use tax payer dollars to do so and still get good stuff out.

Are you saying, that all the people who invest in movies with kickstarter never pay taxes ?

Is there some form of tax exemption for anyone who invests with kickstarter ?

amazing ignorance !!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Good news

“If Hollywood had its way, Kickstarter would be blocked from the internet. All they can do right now is send their trolls onto sites like Techdirt and spew their usual brand of ridicule. People don’t need Hollywood’s permission to create a movie.”

What a load of horseshit. Do you serious buy this?

Why would they block kickstarter from the internet? They aren’t doing anything new, which in turn means nothing really special.

You don’t need Hollywood’s permission to make a movie. Are you fucking daft?

Anonymous Coward says:

I am looking for the “new business model”, and I just can’t see it.

Getting movies made with your friends and family’s money has pretty much been the norm for as long as we have had movies. At best, kickstarter is allowing the term “friend” to be a little more loosely taken.

When you find a new business model, let us know.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You really are deliberately obtuse, aren’t you?

The new business model here is that a mediator has appeared who facilitates relatively risk-free funding on the part of both the artist and the would-be funder. They provide a communications platform for people to get together and make art. You know, providing the alternative source people have been looking for without having to go massively in debt, risk the movie failing halfway through to lack of funding or selling your soul to a corporation. has that ever existed before?

Let me guess, because something bears a vague relationship to something that’s happened before, it’s not new, nothing’s changed and the studios can continue to rip off independent filmmakers without conscience, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

sticking “platform” and “facilitate” into something doesn’t make it new. It’s the same old same old, no different from putting an ad on the film school bulletin board looking for people to help you make a movie, collecting money from your slightly rich cousin and your girlfriends dad to do it.

All they have done is expand the circle you can work with, allowing people who don’t know you directly to finance your work.

It’s not a new business model, just a modern interpretation of what has gone on since the start of film.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

well said, but Masnick and his boy’s own business model is to convince you otherwise.

Yes, anyone with a brain can tell this is what happens with kickstarter, getting your dad to lend you some money, getting a grant, or a publishing house, or saving up, or as you said, putting a notice on a notice board at your art school for help.

It is just like Masnick’s amazing ‘new’ business model, “reason to buy” and “connect with fans”.

As if that is something new !!!!! Masnick believes this is new, that people from the beginning of time have been providing product that people want (reason to buy) and telling people they have this product they might want (connecting with fans)..

how often do you think people buy things for “no reason” off someone they dont know exists !!!

and, how often do you see people buying things “FOR A REASON” off someone they know (or a company they know).

“I have a reason to own a car (to get to work), the type of car will be one I am aware of (I have been connected too by car companies), so I have a reason to buy, and I have a source for that product.”

Basic economics, and masnick promotes it as an innovation !!!


Anonymous Coward says:

Netflix would have to agree to include it in their offerings. Same with Redbox and I don’t know whether Redbox buys from individuals. I suspect they only deal with distributors so as to avoid every desperate wing nut who think’s he just made “Citizen Kane” with his mom’s HandiCam.

Maybe people will be content to self-distribute or perhaps an indy film site will emerge that can figure a way to pay creators and still make a buck.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There are TONS of b-movie, indie, and not-released-in-theater movies on Netflix.

Look for Low Budget Pictures, they make some of the most off-color schlock movies out there and most if not all of their movies are on there.

Here is a list of films from on of their directors:

And these could be exactly what you describe as “desperate wing nut who think’s he just made ‘Citizen Kane’ with his mom’s HandiCam.”

I think Kill Mulva 2 had a budget of $500. I don’t think they have any deals with distributors.

So what were you saying?

Capt ICE Enforcer says:

Kickstarter #1 pirate site.

This is bad, Kickstarter is stealing jobs and money from Hollywood. And destroying the worlds economy. They obviously did not realize that the words movie and entertainment are owned by Hollywood and needs to be licensed and approved by them. But do not fear people. I will not stop until this rogue website is shut down, along with all the criminal terrorist connected to them. How will you do that Capt ICE Enforcer?. Good question concerned citizen in the back. 1st, I will get rid of the demand by making everyone who wants movies or entertainment criminals and prosecute them to the fullest. 3x life sentences for each infringement. Now we will make room in federal prison by releasing the rapest, murders, and other misunderstood bad guys who are not as dangerous to the world as these movie and entertainment thieves. 2nd I will destroy all access to kickstarter website, and place all people within 3 miles of the IP address in indefinite confinement. After all, those who are not proactive in stopping this crime is an accessory to it and deserves swift punishment. With these two measures, jobs will increase, and money in the economy will increase 4.5 million %. I promise.

Capt ICE Enforcer
Making the world a better place

Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Future financing model?

Can you imagine a big budget Hollywood blockbuster being funded this way? I would contribute $5.00 to a live action version of, say “Ghost In The Shell”, and if 20 million others did as well you’d have a decent budget -paying union rates to the crew! Then the finished product would be s distributed for free.

Don’t laugh. I’m serious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Future financing model?

great sceme, ok you raise $100 million dollars, you make a big pile of cash and you have that to a movie producer.

You tell him, “THAT IS IT” with that money you have to make the movie and make all and any profit from that movie.

The more money you spend on the movie, the less you will have left over as profit, the more you pay your crew and actors the less you will have for post production and promotion.

and BTW: after you make the movie you have to GIVE IT AWAY, and allow others to profit from your work.

do you know what the result of that would be, can you guess ?

If you cannot work it out look at FOSS for an example, there is no financial incentive to create a product that is commercially viable, that means you dont have to make something that people are willing to pay for.

The end result is a heap of crap..

If masnick is given $10,000 dollars to write a “research paper”, he knows that $10 grand is all he is going to get, if he can produce that research paper for $500, he can pocket $9500 dollars.

If he spends the entire $10,000 on producing the research paper, he makes $0 dollars.

So what do you think “the masnick” would do in that situation ?

What should happen and what produces far better results is if, masnick is asked “Write a research paper” AFTER you have written it, we will look at it, and pay you a fair price based on the quality, and quanity of the research, up to $10,000.

Then Mikie has an incentive, that strong incentive is to create something of value, something that people are willing to pay a fair price for.

This would force ‘the masnick’ to actually DO THE WORK, and produce something of quality, because he knows he wont be paid if he produces crap.

Yes, it is a great scam, and a good way to ‘launder’ money, but it is not the way the real world works.

You do not pay a builder the full sum of money before he builds your house, if you did you would get a crappy house, or none at all.

Movies produced that HAVE to make a profit are (or try to be) of a specific quality to do so. If there is no requirement to create a “reason to buy”, then the movie will be a failure.

Paying for it before it is produced, and not requiring it to be of any specific quality, will only ensure human greed takes over, and having allready been paid all he is going to get, the producer of the movie will create the lowest quality, cheapest product he can, because he does not care if anyone watches it or not !!!!! he’s allready been paid all he is going to get..

It is a failed model from the start, and goes against Masnicks “reason to buy”, there is no reason to buy, as there is also no reason to sell !!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Future financing model?

Your logic seems faulty in a number of ways:

First of all you seem to have a pessimistic view of human nature, suggesting that no one will ever try to do good unless they have infinite profit potential. In my experience this is not true.

Second , many types of projects are produced for a fixed budget, documentary films produced on grant money for instance, or scientific research. If I contract someone to build me house, we agree on the price beforehand.

One motivation for the filmmaker to do a good job is she might want to have subsequent future projects funded.

Everyone gets paid a far price in this scheme.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Future financing model?

“and BTW: after you make the movie you have to GIVE IT AWAY, and allow others to profit from your work.”

But the creators (producer, crew, actors, etc.) already got paid a fair wage, so all good, right? If someone can make secondary profit good on them (as long as it doesn’t violate the terms of the original contract with the “crowd investors”, which is to make a movie available with no additional cost to the consumers). If some members of the public who didn’t invest get to see the movie for free, no problem. It’s called a “benefit to society”.

You seem against the idea that anyone could ever get anything for free. I think that’s fine -as long as the original investors got what they bargained for and the crew got paid.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Future financing model?

sure, if you feel you can ‘trust’ someone like Masnick, who has consistently displayed a significant bias, to write an unbiased research paper, and if you think masnick has created such a paper, (I have read it, it’s not a ‘research paper’, and it is highly biased, as intended).

But generally, like masnick has consistently display, ‘human nature’ is how I have demonstrated it to be.

When you pay a builder to build a house you DO NOT simply agree on a price, you agree to a STANDARD and specification.
And a specific time frame, and if the builder cannot reach that standard, he does not get paid. or if the purchaser does not feel the result will be at the required standard or specification alternative arraingements can be made.

But to give a builder (or a producer or a masnick) a lump some of money and say “give me ‘something’ in return” and keep the rest of what I have given you as profit.

Then profit is what they are working for, and they will pay the lowest possible price or do the minimum value of work to gain the maximum profit.

If someone contracts me to design them some electronics system (gruntmaster 2000), all the fine details are worked out, and the client will be informed of the specifications of the equipment, how long it will (or should) take to do, and what the client will get for their money.

They might pay me a certain amount of money “up front” to keep me alive long enough to finish the project, but they will not pay me the full amount until I meet my obligations in terms of performance, quality, budget, and time.

If I turned up at the time, with something that did not do what they wanted, because I decided to save money and not do the work.

Then I dont get paid (any more), and usualy as a term of my contract, I have to PAY THEM..

If there is no requiremen to create something of value, then the initial money you get ‘up front’ is all you are going to get, you have allready gotten that money, so any of that money you spend on your product IS A LOSS, and any money you DO NOT spend on your product is PROFIT.

This ‘producter’ has gotten his money, he’s not getting any more, and therefore there is NO incentive to even bother to create a product at ALL..

Let along one of very poor quality,

You problem is the more effort he takes and the more he spends on quality, the less he makes.

If you make LESS money when you produce higher quality, what are you going to do ??

Thats right, you are going to produce crap, and take the higher profit.

You do not need to create a ‘reason to buy’ because you dont even have a ‘reason to sell’ or even the ability to sell !!!!

the only difference between what you are proposing and what allready happens with the major publishes, is that majors enforce a level of quality, and promote the arts, by ensuring that if the producer makes something that is able to make a profit, (able to provide a reason to buy), then the better his product is the more he will make.

With kickstarter and the likes, the more you spend on quality and production the less you make as profit.

Therefore the ‘scam’ is failed from the start,,

FOSS programmers are not paid, they are not paid if they write the best software in the world, or the worst.

Microsoft, pay their programmers, and sell their product, the quality of their product is directly related to the amount of people who will pay money to own it.

The higher the quality the more money they make, and the more programmers they can hire and pay.

compare FOSS and MS, one is a quality based product and one is a quantity based product, so you have an ‘infinate’ supply of FOSS software, that you can get for free.

Or you can purchase software from MS and pay actual money.
People will take quality over quantiy every time, people will pay a fair price for a fair product.

The failure of the FOSS ‘experiment’ clearly shows this to be true, if it were not, then FOSS would be in the position where MS is not, and MS would be bouncing off zero % market share…

Anything else is just an amusing dream world you are living in, that has little relationship with reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Future financing model?

Paul, what do you call someone who posts a comment and does not address any of the issues raised ??


thanks for your contribution to the debate, I guess if you have no reasonable counter argument, you can always resort to attacking the person.. That does not require any thinking on your part.. we’ll done..

If you have a point, now is the time to air it. or do as you probably should and STFU.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Future financing model?

You wrote a rambling, paranoid screed making some bizarre references to the idea that Kickstarter somehow limits a creator’s ability to create quality work, make some bizarre assertions about FOSS, all without citations or even direct references to what the hell you’re talking about. I call you on it, and I’m a troll? Yeah, right…

Learn to write coherent sentences backed with evidence and/or clear points, and try again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Future financing model?

For fuck’s sake, darryl.

You want to know what a good reason to buy would be? It’s because if we supported the systems you support, like Rupert Murdoch’s system, we’d be paying him and you’d be standing in the peanut gallery, calling us “idiots” for paying. Why the fuck would anyone want to support a system and be called an idiot for it?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Future financing model?

so what is your ‘reason to buy’, now that you think you have worked out mine. Allthough that was not too hard was it! after all I told you..

why would I ever call you an idiot ? there is no need, you have done that well enough for yourself, you dont need me to confirm what everyone already knows.

So you dont support Rupert Murdoch’s system, but this is about indie, and kickstarter, and therefore you are supporting THE SAME KIND OF SYSTEM, but one that does not promote quality. That is up to you, do you think I care, and like it or not, watch FOX or not, you are supporting ‘his’ system.

When ever you purchase a product that has been advertised on FOX or some other free service (or the radio), you are supporting Murdoch’s system. You PAY Murdoch, because you pay more for the product you buy, because they pay your share of the purchase price of your product on advertising, and therefore you pay murdoch, so if you dont watch FOX it does not matter, you STILL PAY, so thanks for that, because YOU PAY, I get it for less !!!..

So I would call you an idiot for not even knowing that you are already paying, like it or not, or watch it or not.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...