Warner Bros. Turns A Kickstarter Success Story Into A Flaming Mess With Proprietary Platforms And DRM
from the how-not-to-do-it dept
Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about a rather encouraging development in filmmaking, highlighting the story of Warner Bros. film studio working out a deal with the producer and actors of the popular Veronica Mars TV show, that if they could prove demand for a film via Kickstarter, Warner Bros. would fund the rest of the film. Basically, Warner Bros. had been unconvinced that there was enough demand for a movie to finance it upfront. But, with tools like Kickstarter today, you can prove demand upfront, taking away a big part of the risk. And that's exactly what happened, as the project raised over the $2 million target very quickly, and eventually brought in $5.7 million. Part of what was interesting about this was it showed how movie studios could actually embrace crowdfunding as well, creating some interesting hybrid models that don't always involve some studio head deciding what people will and won't like.The movie came out last week to very good reviews... but leave it to Warner Bros. to totally muck it up, screw over the goodwill from all those backers and scare people off from such future collaborations. That's because one of the popular tiers promised supporters that they would get a digital download of the movie within days of it opening. But, of course, this is a major Hollywood studio, and due to their irrational fear of (oh noes!) "piracy" they had to lock things down completely. That means that backers were shunted off to a crappy and inconvenient service owned by Warner Bros called Flixster, which very few people use, and then forced to use Hollywood's super hyped up but dreadful DRM known as UltraViolet.
The end result? A complete disaster for the film's biggest fans and supporters:
“My first and last time using Flixster or Ultraviolet,” Jennifer Gottried wrote. “Not happy about what a pain the digital “download” is, but loved the movie!” Carolyn O'Neill said she felt “ripped off,” adding “I will not be supporting anything VMars related in the future, and may never support a similar Kickstarter project again.”Reading through the comments shows an awful lot of angry folks, with lots of blame being directed at Flixster, and some people angry that the creator of Veronica Mars, Rob Thomas, let this happen. He eventually posted that while he had "hoped" that Warner Bros. would allow more options, "unfortunately, it just wasn't possible. In the end, Flixster was the best option for getting the digital movie reward out to all of you, worldwide, at the same time." There may be something to do with regional restrictions, yet in the comments, you see people claim that when they tried to get their digital copy, they were told, "Sorry, the redemption code you have entered is not valid for the territory you are currently trying to redeem from." So, it's not clear how Flixster actually solves that global issue. Multiple people in the comments note that they eventually just gave up getting the authorized version and hit up unauthorized sources instead.
Others labeled Flixster “unreliable,” “crap,” “slow” and “punishing.” There are those who downloaded the movie without a hiccup, and those who did have been effusive in their praise. Yet the majority expressed dismay....
Eventually, Warner Bros. announced that it would provide refunds to backers who had trouble getting the digital download, which seems like the least it could do, given the situation. But, the end result appears to have left a sour taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. So, way to go, legacy Hollywood, for taking an exciting success story of internet-empowered opportunity, and destroying it with crappy and lame proprietary platforms and restrictive DRM. Once again, you show how to screw up just about every opportunity handed to you.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crowdfunding, digital downloads, drm, rob thomas, ultraviolet, veronica mars
Companies: flixster, kickstarter, warner bros.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yet again...
Just DIE already, will ya, MPAA?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet agaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeein...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hanlon's razor at work?
Given the studios really hate services like Kickstarter for providing creators means of funding that doesn't require them to sign all of their rights over, I have to wonder if part of what drove this latest disaster was an attempt at poisoning the well for other creators looking to get funding for their films, funding which, being crowdsourced, wouldn't come with tons of 'strings' other than 'provide backers, and others, with film when finished'.
A few bait-and-switch 'projects' like this, and you'd likely have a whole bunch of people swearing off movie/film kickstarter projects altogether(although a smarter move would be to do the same, but limit it to just studio-based projects).
It's either that, or just another indication that the major studios and those that run them are just as brain dead, and full of contempt for their 'customers' as ever I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hanlon's razor at work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hanlon's razor at work?
Yes I may be cynical, but when dealing with people like that, it's all but impossible not to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will reproduce one of the insanely prize-y comments:
I'm a truck driver from [insert impossibly named countryside town with barely any broadband] and I loved Ultraviolet, it's so good to have a crippled digital file! Oh, the movie is good too. All in all it was amazing experience taking it up in the ass!
Old MacDonnald
AMIRITE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even as investors, we're treated like criminals.
Once bitten, twice shy, as I will never again back a project if Hollywood has its greedy fingers anywhere on the project.
I feel incredible pity for Rob Thomas, who saw his dream come true only to have Warner Bros. drop its pants on the entire thing.
Let's hope next time, Thomas distributes the movie on YouTube and stays the hell away from Hollywood "distributors".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The indie film movement of the 90s proved that you didn't need Hollywood to make films, but Hollywood has done everything they can to control film distribution. That's why indie films are largely confined to film festivals, where they hope to get bought by Hollywood's faux indie distributors.
The internet is a direct threat to Hollywood's distribution system, but aside from Netflix it has yet to topple Hollywood's iron grip on the American film industry, and probably won't as long as people fall for Hollywood's marketing hype and go to see awful sequels and subscribe to cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reminds me of the pre-KS days.
Y'know, when, even as customers, we're treated like criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA/RIAA taint
I still enjoy video games, although I won't allow anything from EA on my computer or phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA/RIAA taint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MPAA/RIAA taint
Since DRM is removed I consider that my 'encouragement' for the industry to drop DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the new start ups that dont happen and recent start ups that are forced to close down are prevented from loading the government coffers with tax dollars. a whole lot more is not paid into the system by these 'businesses' than ever would be by Hollywood etc!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They will realize it once the new businesses start contributing more to their campaigns than the established businesses. Since new businesses don't have the money established businesses have, never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was shocked by the sheer number of fans who were telling those with every right to be pissed about this crap, that they weren't allowed to because they "donated" to the movie and shouldn't have expected anything.
This seems to be a common misconception about crowdfunding, that you just throw your money away and pray.
If this was the case why would there be offers of getting anything in return?
I think the people who funded this deserve what they were promised, and that not being upfront about Flixster being involved was a big mistake.
While it is "nice" to see WB offering to pay people back for obtaining it via the other offical pay channels, the fact they were unable to deliver should be a huge wakeup call that the service is shit.
This episode should also be a wakeup to other creative types that going with a traditional distributor might be a bad idea. Many of the backers who were entitled to a free copy, still went out and bought tickets or the digital download from another outlet. If you have a fan base willing to do this, you don't want them treated like crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bullshit. Offering to pay back investors their investment instead of their contractual payout once you successfully completed an endeavor and see that you can get more money out by nullifying the investment is robbery.
It's like paying the tenth of setting on a number in roulette, and when the number actually turns up, giving the other 9 investors their money back.
Just because an actually useful, namely DRM-free copy is now worth more than what WB is willing to pay does not mean that they get to decide to pull back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money for nothing @ Warner Bros
If the movie makes a killing at the box office, those Kickstarter investors, logically, should have a share of the profit. Yet somehow I'm sure that Warner will fight tooth and nail to keep all the profit for themselves for a project funded almost completely by other people's money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: money for nothing @ Warner Bros
To be fair, a movie's listed "budget" is usually just the production budget. It does not include marketing, which can be many times the production budget...
If the movie makes a killing at the box office, those Kickstarter investors, logically, should have a share of the profit. Yet somehow I'm sure that Warner will fight tooth and nail to keep all the profit for themselves for a project funded almost completely by other people's money.
That's a very different issue. At no point did anyone suggest that anyone was buying any equity in the movie, so it's accurate that the crowdfunding backers don't have any claim on the profits. If they *did*, well, then the SEC might want to get involved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: money for nothing @ Warner Bros
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"There may be something to do with regional restrictions, yet in the comments, you see people claim that when they tried to get their digital copy, they were told, "Sorry, the redemption code you have entered is not valid for the territory you are currently trying to redeem from.""
When Ultraviolet was announced, I recognised it as being a piece of crap that's not worth bothering with - so much so, that I actually avoided buying Blu Rays that use it. Alas, some people still send me over such discs mas gifts - the movie choices are usually correct, but I'm not allowed to access the digital content that's been paid for as part of the disc purchase. usually with the error message reported above.
So, in the name of trying to "fight piracy", they're not only pissing off people buy the films but now those who *fund* the films. Unless, as suggested above, this is some kind of pyrrhic plan to defeat competition, it's just another example of how the entertainment industry hasn't got a clue what it's really addressing.
No doubt we'll get some half-assed excuse accusing everyone affected as being pirates before this thread's finished, if not from WB themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of ruins the argument that DRM is a necessity nowadays to protect the creators. Now, if only the MPAA and it's members would understand this logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GOG sells non-DRM video games. And people still buy them.
Steam sells video games with virtually unnoticeable DRM. And people still buy them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this story illustrates, that legacy gatekeepers have a hard time adjusting to new realities. Though, I have to admit, what Warner pulled here, is far worse than what MS required. Fulfilling the DRM clause of your license with Steam, is pretty lightweight compared to the insanity that is UltraViolet (which has funny region restrictions, that go above and beyond what the actual physical disc has attached and other "fun" limitations).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are just the worst of the Ferengi Alliance in human skin.
Example:
http://www.scottevest.com/company/shark_tank.shtml
"1. First of all, I absolutely did enter the Tank looking to strike a deal with the Sharks. It was not for the "free" publicity, which is anything but free. Not only did it take dozens of hours of preparation, but there is a secret clause to appearing on Shark Tank. It actually appears in fine print at the end of every episode. As quoted at the end of the show (in extremely small print and only for a second):
“Sony Pictures Television, a Designee of Mark Burnett, and ABC may receive equity in or a share of revenues generated by the businesses included in this program.” Specifically, buried deep in the agreement (which you can see by clicking here), by merely appearing on the show, whether a deal is made or not, I have to give 5% of my "business" or 2% of the profits forever to the producers. So, my appearance was not free. Since the business I was presenting was TEC-Technology Enabled Clothing®, I now have partners in that business, even though a deal was not made with The Sharks. Free? They make money out of every deal I make from here forward."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This regional crap started early.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuking the digital download with DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuking the digital download with DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nuking the digital download with DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kickstarter could solve this going forward
Should the next step be to require projects to disclose if a digitally delivered reward will contain DRM or region locks?
I already assume any project that doesn't state up front DRM Free on rewards will be crippled, but the enforced transparency would be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kickstarter could solve this going forward
You already see a number of people complaining and saying they will not invest in another kickstarter project like this one.
If enough people stop investing in these projects, they will either fix the reason investors are not attracted (remove DRM or whatever) or there will be no more projects like this for people to be screwed by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kickstarter could solve this going forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cant.Tell.If.Serious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how may people have torrented the movie, even though they have a copy on flixter, just because they want to be able to play it on any device they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAt would happen
LIKE Youtube? NO REGION CODE, no restrictions!
MILLIONS of people introduced to a NEW show to watch on TV..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAt would happen
Still wouldn't be available in Germany.
Because GEMA, that's why.
Not to mention blocking in other countries, for "reasons", specific to those individual countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opportunity or threat
How will the movie-production process work in the future if anyone can fund something a movie from a TV show? What's next? A Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Voyager movie?
This process will disrupt how studios can pick and choose which movies get made solely on how much money they think it'll make. A Star Trek: Deep Space Nine movie? Too fan-specific to give a decent return. Transformers 4? Sure, the first three weren't very good, but they make millions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave it to big corps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Avoiding Piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“We have listened to feedback, and since June last year our policy for all of PC games is that we only require a one-time online activation when you first install the game, and from then you are free to play the game offline, and you will be able to activate the game on as many machines as you want.”
EA on the other hand, well f**k EA. People who still buy crappy EA games makes my brain hurt. Look at the last fail game SW:Battlefront, I warned people but people still bought the game and look - FAIL - EA is more worried about DRM, micro transactions and their EA spyware rather than focusing on making a decent game that gamers want to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best article
In some cases money can be the cause, but other indulgence. There are no good guys in this whole story on both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concursos PĂşblicos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]