3 ms·

I don't agree with your characterization of Kickstarter. They've always been quite clear that there is a legal contract between backers and businesses that obli

I don't agree with your characterization of Kickstarter. They've always been quite clear that there is a legal contract between backers and businesses that obligates the business to provide the goods and services they promised. [1] The company in question broke the terms of their contract. As such, backers are legally entitled to their money back. If the company cannot pay, the company is insolvent and may need to declare bankruptcy. That's life as a business; you need to pay your debts. [1] As mentioned in the article, that contract changed recently. Businesses can now be absolved from their obligations by being transparent. Basically, backers for new projects are entitled to know what happened if the project fails. https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4 https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#section4

JacobAldridge 12y ago
You make a good point in regards to Kickstarter, and while I still feel some of the responses in the piece are naive the link you provided certainly supports some of their arguments in a way I didn't fully appreciate. I still don't think it extends as far as the two quotes I used (the first one was the NYT paraphrasing; the second was direct). Even in a direct customer situation, where far less "there's a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised" grey area exists than with KS backers, there's no entitlement to know everything about the company. And to suggest people who try, and risk, and fail aren't even eligible for barista work sickens me personally and would create enormous problems for society.