How far is Hasbro C&D willing to go?

[Guest]

Except people HAVE sued over unfounded kickstarters. It's still not even close to hazard free.

Actually they met all the requirements. The only requirement of Kickstarter is you deliver the product, they did. However the quality of the product is almost not a factor. This is where the problem comes: as long as they meet the technical description they set forth they are going through a loophole.

 

In an ordinary investment the quality of the product is important. If the product doesn't sell, they have to find a way to pay the investors back out of their own pocket. Since they have no investors, but instead donators, they are not required to reimburse them regardless of the quality of the product. If the product sucks (which it did) they are out nothing, and the only ones who have wasted money are the donators.

[Barbaloot 198]

Actually they met all the requirements. The only requirement of Kickstarter is you deliver the product, they did. However the quality of the product is almost not a factor. This is where the problem comes: as long as they meet the technical description they set forth they are going through a loophole.

 

In an ordinary investment the quality of the product is important. If the product doesn't sell, they have to find a way to pay the investors back out of their own pocket. Since they have no investors, but instead donators, they are not required to reimburse them regardless of the quality of the product. If the product sucks (which it did) they are out nothing, and the only ones who have wasted money are the donators.

Ok so how much do you think they spent on the movie? Obviously you assume there is a discrepancy here. Out of how much they recieved, how much do you assume they spent on that movie?

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

In an ordinary investment the quality of the product is important. If the product doesn't sell, they have to find a way to pay the investors back out of their own pocket. Since they have no investors, but instead donators, they are not required to reimburse them regardless of the quality of the product. If the product sucks (which it did) they are out nothing, and the only ones who have wasted money are the donators.

It was a feel good fluff piece, but it didn't suck.

[Golurk 468]

I would understand it if they went after the people who make various toys, since those would actually be in competition with Hasbro's official merchandise. Which to my knowledge, they have a bit, and I fully respect that. But if there's not definitively a product to contest, or if the maker of the fan content isn't directly making money from the content, I don't see where the fault lies.

 

Things like Fighting is Magic and Jan's animations were created out of respect for the franchise. They were never made to compete with it, and they were never made to cut into the profit share. In that respect, I don't see where Hasbro has the right to pull things. That sort of thing, I legitimately do not understand. Pulling episodes from YouTube and plushies from eBay, however, is a completely different story. Those could both cut into Hasbro's profit areas, so it makes sense to get rid of those.

 

On this whole issue, I like to think of Valve. Valve is a company that lets fans make animations (even encourages them with things such as the Saxxy Awards), and allows fans to generate material which may become official products. I like to think of Valve as a "more modern" company. Instead of keeping an IP behind lock and chain, they're more open about it, and actively let the fans contribute to it if they so choose. And from what I've heard, Valve is basically universally liked.

 

Ultimately, I feel this is a matter of the law not being "correct". The idea that Hasbro has the right to destroy things that people spent long sums of time on with no ill intent simply disgusts me. I'm not sure if the law ever will be changed accordingly (and it probably won't.  ), but I feel as if making respect-based fan works should be exempt anyway. I don't see any way in which they harm the franchise, or harm Hasbro's profit. Then again, I'm not a business attorney, so I may be missing something. But with my current perspective, this all seems like needless fan-phobia and an example of the almighty dollar sign being more important than people.

 

To actually answer the question, I don't know. I'm not them. But I hope they don't go much farther than this.

 

/end rant

Edited March 26, 2014 by Yerserf

[Guest]

Ok so how much do you think they spent on the movie? Obviously you assume there is a discrepancy here. Out of how much they recieved, how much do you assume they spent on that movie?

I know for a fact they set a figure that they thought would be "ideal" for making the movie. They set their goal to $60,000. They managed to get over $340,000. I understand estimates are rough, but around 5 times what you expected is kind of a bit more than a "rough estimate". It should be more than enough buffer to cover costs you anticipated, wouldn't you say so?

 

They stated the extra money was used to add more content, which is fair, however considering the people who made the film are in show business, they kind of have little excuse for not being able to manage the budget especially when they had far more than their estimate. Would you not agree?

 

 

Ultimately, I feel this is a matter of the law not being "correct". The idea that Hasbro has the right to destroy things that people spent long sums of time on with no ill intent simply disgusts me.

 

Intent or not, if Hasbro feels or has experienced it to be a threat to their business they have the right to take it down. Just because someone didn't mean to cause harm doesn't mean they are not causing it or that they have the right to do something. That's like saying if I take something from you, I can do that so long as I bring it back before it's missed and it's undamaged. The problem here is they did not get permission, and thus their intent is kind of irrelevant.

[Barbaloot 198]

I know for a fact they set a figure that they thought would be "ideal" for making the movie. They set their goal to $60,000. They managed to get over $340,000. I understand estimates are rough, but around 5 times what you expected is kind of a bit more than a "rough estimate". It should be more than enough buffer to cover costs you anticipated, wouldn't you say so?

 

They stated the extra money was used to add more content, which is fair, however considering the people who made the film are in show business, they kind of have little excuse for not being able to manage the budget especially when they had far more than their estimate. Would you not agree?

Honestly, people fuck up budgets all the time. Heroes did something like this. Tm Schafer just did this with Broken Age. Plenty of other people do this lots, all professionals.

 

And honestly, from my limited amount of movie budget knowledge, $340,000 seems right on track with what they did. It does not seem like they ran off with all the money, like you assume.

 

There is a thing called Feature Creep, where in you get too far ahead of yourself due to lack of restrictions. I think the real issue here is they set a restricted budget, then smashed it, and went "shit, now we can do all this other cool shit too!". Happens far more often than you would think.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Barbaloot

[Guest]

It was a feel good fluff piece, but it didn't suck.

It sucked because it failed to do what it was designed to do: be a documentary. It does not inform, as it does not tell all the facts, and it omits details to make a side look better. It does not educate and let you form your own opinion, it tries to sway your opinion and purposely leaves out details to achieve that. It does not meet the requirements to be a documentary.

Honestly, people fuck up budgets all the time. Heroes did something like this. Tm Schafer just did this with Broken Age. Plenty of other people do this lots, all professionals.

 

And honestly, from my limited amount of movie budget knowledge, $340,000 seems right on track with what they did. It does not seem like they ran off with all the money, like you assume.

 

There is a thing called Feature Creep, where in you get too far ahead of yourself due to lack of restrictions. I think the real issue here is they set a restricted budget, then smashed it, and went "shit, now we can do all this other cool shit too!". Happens far more often than you would think.

I did not say they ran off with the money, simply that they should not have needed to sell the film to make back money to justify its cost because they had plenty to begin with. The film should not have costed them anything, as it was intended to be non-profit. Selling the film kind of strikes me as they are trying to hide a profit.

 

The issue is though that ordinarily you have a budget, you go over, that is a mistake, yes. However in a normal business you have to eat the damages. You can't just siphon more money that you won't have to pay back to cover damages, which is what selling the movie was claiming to do. So even if they were not trying to make a profit, they certainly went about distributing the film in a very assholish way because they were poor in managing their money, so they made the fans eat the damage. That doesn't make sense if they made the film for the fans.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

It sucked because it failed to do what it was designed to do: be a documentary. It does not inform, as it does not tell all the facts, and it omits details to make a side look better. It does not educate and let you form your own opinion, it tries to sway your opinion and purposely leaves out details to achieve that. It does not meet the requirements to be a documentary.

I dunno, that sounds an awful lot like the vast majority of documentaries.

 

Even if it was stupid propaganda, I think they delivered on what their investors wanted. Which happened to be saccharine and not particularly daring.

[Guest]

I dunno, that sounds an awful lot like the vast majority of documentaries.

 

Even if it was stupid propaganda, I think they delivered on what their investors wanted. Which happened to be saccharine and not particularly daring.

It was made to pat bronies on the back, it accomplished that, but it certainly didn't inform many outside the fandom what the fandom was about. Ultimately, I feel it only exists to stroke egos and attempt to cash in on the gullibility of the brony fandom.

 

But we're getting off track.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Guest

[Barbaloot 198]

It sucked because it failed to do what it was designed to do: be a documentary. It does not inform, as it does not tell all the facts, and it omits details to make a side look better. It does not educate and let you form your own opinion, it tries to sway your opinion and purposely leaves out details to achieve that. It does not meet the requirements to be a documentary.

I did not say they ran off with the money, simply that they should not have needed to sell the film to make back money to justify its cost because they had plenty to begin with. The film should not have costed them anything, as it was intended to be non-profit. Selling the film kind of strikes me as they are trying to hide a profit.

 

The issue is though that ordinarily you have a budget, you go over, that is a mistake, yes. However in a normal business you have to eat the damages. You can't just siphon more money that you won't have to pay back to cover damages, which is what selling the movie was claiming to do. So even if they were not trying to make a profit, they certainly went about distributing the film in a very assholish way because they were poor in managing their money, so they made the fans eat the damage. That doesn't make sense if they made the film for the fans.

Right now I'm actually trying to find where it says it's non-profit, because I don't actually remember that being the case.

 

yeah I can't find that at all. Are you sure it was non-profit?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Barbaloot

[GrimCW 658]

They even encouraged collecting, they even geared they're marking of MLP to 'collecting' ponies.

 

back then it wasn't about quality and collectors though. It was about quantity. 

They pushed out the high number, cloned dolls, and "mail order" ones in order to get kids to push their parents into buying as many as they could to get the points needed to get more for "free".

It was under the guise that kids had the "most disposable income" at the time.

They did the same for transformers at the time, where most of the figures were just repaints of the SAME mold over and over again (StarScream, Skywarp, Thundercracker, and a host of others were literally all just one figure repainted and renamed for each version). This was also the same for the ponies. Just a ton of repaints from the same 3-5 molds that existed, and mixed box art and names.

 

When I say collectors, I mean statues, high end figures, paintings, and such.

I mean things like this "figure" of Luke Skywalker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is a POSEABLE figure

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/collectibles/star-wars-commander-luke-skywalker-hoth-sideshow-collectibles-21591/?ref=Z1C3-luke

 

It costs a bit to start up the original mold, but costs crap to produce. Then sells for a TON over the actual creation costs.

Edited March 26, 2014 by GrimCW

[DJpon-3 56]

Honestly I can't say I fault them.

After browsing through deviantart, so many people copy the actual style of the show and ponies themselves that it could be borderline infringement.

 

However, I have to question the purpose as to how stringent they have become.

For example, if digimon, pokemon and yugioh became as strict as Hasbro, many sites and people would have their art an videos shut down.

[KarentheUnicorn 218]

back then it wasn't about quality and collectors though. It was about quantity.

They pushed out the high number, cloned dolls, and "mail order" ones in order to get kids to push their parents into buying as many as they could to get the points needed to get more for "free".

It was under the guise that kids had the "most disposable income" at the time.

They did the same for transformers at the time, where most of the figures were just repaints of the SAME mold over and over again (StarScream, Skywarp, Thundercracker, and a host of others were literally all just one figure repainted and renamed for each version). This was also the same for the ponies. Just a ton of repaints from the same 3-5 molds that existed, and mixed box art and names.

 

 

We are talking collectable for kids but they actually did make some glass figures of g1 mlps back in the 80s. I never was interested in those...higher valued collectable figures to be honest.

 

I have to disagree with you about MLP in the 80s.

 

As far as quality...I have ponies from the 80s whose quality far surpasses any of the g4 hasbro is producing now. I have ponies from the 80s who still look just as good as the day I opened it back then. While I have g4 ponies which are already showing discoloration and flaws that never happened new in g1.

 

And collectors of mlp have a name for low quality ponies and that is a fakie. If people put a low quality fakie beside a g1...they're gonna know which one is better quality...

 

Id like to point out that with g1 mlp each set of mlp had its own new artwork for each set so there was a lot of work involved in creating a new set. The stuff now uses the same image over and over. Plus with g1 each pony came with a backcard story its own accessories its own individual sticker. There was a lot of individuality in the toy line of the 80s.

 

You say it was quantity over quality but I do think you are wrong. At least in comparison to the stuff we get now with g4. And this includes other stuff like the so called funko collectable ponies which I think are pretty cheap looking imo compared to a g1.

 

As far as g1 body molds being used over and over...its more like over 15 different body styles/molds/poses for g1 adults...and I'm not even counting the babies body styles or flutters or dream beauties or sea ponies I'm just looking at my shelves and doing a quick count of adult mlp body styles.

 

IMO g1 mlp was better quality than g1 transformers...and I own both by the way and there was a lot more variety. I have seen the quantity over quality argument before...but imo collecting is about both those things...and without variety in the line its pretty damn stale if you ask me. But apparently kids today are satisfied with the same 6 ponies over and over...but for me the toy line of the 80s was better.

[Glitterheart 64]

Ultimately, I feel this is a matter of the law not being "correct". The idea that Hasbro has the right to destroy things that people spent long sums of time on with no ill intent simply disgusts me.

Well again, as I understand it, they basically *don't* have the right to shut that stuff down, but what they do have is a waaaaay bigger lawyer budget than the people they target.  They just rely on it not being worth their targets' time or money to fight it.

[Sigma 768]

The makers of Button Mash have made quite a few things that wouldn't be suitable for young ears. Not rule thirty-four, but still, outright disgusting. This may be an unpopular opinion considering the one good video they created, but I would have done the exact same thing in Hasbro's shoes.

 

Fighting is Magic? Hmm, I think this is before Hasbro started to embrace the fandom an give the bronies shout-outs (pay close attention to the show, and you may see a few).

 

I believe that Hasbro is starting to understand that the bronies are a significant force that will make My Little Pony successful. For instance, look at this game, which has gone a long time without getting any threats from Hasbro.

[Guest]

Right now I'm actually trying to find where it says it's non-profit, because I don't actually remember that being the case.

 

yeah I can't find that at all. Are you sure it was non-profit?

I mispoke. It was never specifically called "non-profit" but they definitely mislead people.

 

1. It was claimed to be made "for bronies" no mention of a profit was made on the initial kickstarter.

2. When people brought up they were selling the movie, they quickly stated all proceeded went to paying back the costs of the film.

 

This would imply they are trying to pass it off as non-profit. They avoided mentioning they would be making a profit off of the film, and eluded the question, which would imply they were in fact trying to pass it off as non-profit, shy of actually specifically saying the words "non-profit". It does not really make their actions any less underhanded though. It does not change the fact that they attempted to make a profit using a business model that is more or less borderline in legality to make a quick buck.

 

Once again though, let's reserve this for another discussion. I do like this conversation, but we're getting too far off track.

[Grumpy Enchantress 587]

There's a huge gray area when it comes to using copyrighted characters in your own work when you do it for free and aren't claiming it to be your own. I think Hasbro is in the complete moral wrong with what they're doing to Button Mash and others but legally it's questionable. As odd as it sounds, I hope they take someone to court so we can get an actual fucking answer on if we have freedom of expression at all or if the first amendment is completely and utterly bullshit. Hasbro can send a C&D to whoever they want, but it's up to the content creator if they'll fight it and I really want someone to soon.

 

Honestly I can't say I fault them.
After browsing through deviantart, so many people copy the actual style of the show and ponies themselves that it could be borderline infringement.

The style is 100% irrelevant. You can't copyright a style, but you can copyright characters. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to draw a damn picture of them, though, it means you can't sell them or claim them as your own. Fan art being posted online is a gray area that still hasn't been answered, but I have no idea how anyone can honestly say they support having less rights. (Unless they're just greedy and want to own everything.)

 

Well again, as I understand it, they basically *don't* have the right to shut that stuff down, but what they do have is a waaaaay bigger lawyer budget than the people they target.  They just rely on it not being worth their targets' time or money to fight it.

Good point. They need to attack someone who's able to afford a good enough lawyer to fight it. Maybe the person could counter sue for the price of the lawyer even. It needs to happen eventually, not just for Brony fan projects, but for freedom of expression as a whole.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Grumpy Enchantress

[ColtofPersonality 855]

With the recent C&Ds to fanon projects (Button Mash/Molestia/Double Rainboom.)  I'd like to know what does the future hold for BronyCON and and other small conventions? What about the fanon songs that are being written and produced? Technically speaking the songs are the property of the song writer but when you read the letter to JAN Animations it says



Now would that mean all songs written and produced by us bronies have to have all references to MLP removed? Technically speaking lets say 'Discord' by Living Tombstone or SimGretina's remixes. The name and song are intellectual property of Hasbro..as for conventions even the words 'Brony' are fine but given the unauthorized Hasbro merchandise being sold (Plushes/Art/Toys.etc) would that mean they'll need to shut down the cons too? This all very frightening realities I don't want to contemplate but very real if Hasbro is trying to shut down anything in likeliness to their product. But as previously said in the other thread remixes don't seem to really do much harm.
 

Edited March 26, 2014 by BuckShot

[Glitterheart 64]

I believe that Hasbro is starting to understand that the bronies are a significant force that will make My Little Pony successful. For instance, look at this game, which has gone a long time without getting any threats from Hasbro.

To be honest, I'll be amazed if that game makes it to release without a C&D.

[Andaasonsan 3,205]

To be honest, I'll be amazed if that game makes it to release without a C&D.

Yeah, they're seriously asking for it. And they're setting their sights way too high if they want to have a full MMO that is not for profit.

[Barbaloot 198]

I mispoke. It was never specifically called "non-profit" but they definitely mislead people.

 

1. It was claimed to be made "for bronies" no mention of a profit was made on the initial kickstarter.

2. When people brought up they were selling the movie, they quickly stated all proceeded went to paying back the costs of the film.

 

This would imply they are trying to pass it off as non-profit. They avoided mentioning they would be making a profit off of the film, and eluded the question, which would imply they were in fact trying to pass it off as non-profit, shy of actually specifically saying the words "non-profit". It does not really make their actions any less underhanded though. It does not change the fact that they attempted to make a profit using a business model that is more or less borderline in legality to make a quick buck.

 

Once again though, let's reserve this for another discussion. I do like this conversation, but we're getting too far off track.

If you could, could you also link where they said that all proceeds would go to that? I'm trying to find that as well, but it's too vague to make Google work it's magic.

[XxConfusedUnicornxX 834]

Hasbro is over reacting. I mean, why delete something that is fanmade that the fans love? Non-bronies who haven't watched the show and stumbled upon a pony music video might or might not become a brony! I've seen lots of people in the Welcoming section with links to music videos that they watched which made them watch the show. Hasbro should be thankful that these videos add more fans to the MLP:FiM fanbase!

[ColtofPersonality 855]

What's bothersome is the length some Bronies go to when something is C&Ded. (Threatening Meghan McCarthy, DHX Studios to the point their staff wanted to quit. The rage that brewed when Fight Is Magic got the axe.) I know we are all bad asses behind the keyboard who drink cider by the big gulp cup but really we all do and go to work like everyone else and slide on our pants on leg at a time like no other ordinary person..but that being said what does one think that someone not right of mind would actually go that far to physically harm a Hasbro executive?

Edited March 26, 2014 by BuckShot

[Sigma 768]

To be honest, I'll be amazed if that game makes it to release without a C&D.

 

If Hasbro wanted to destroy the game, they would have done it by now. If anything, they'll probably threaten the makers when it's finished, take it for themselves, and slap a monthly price on it. Either way, the game survives.

[Glitterheart 64]

If Hasbro wanted to destroy the game, they would have done it by now. If anything, they'll probably threaten the makers when it's finished, take it for themselves, and slap a monthly price on it. Either way, the game survives.

I think there's a good chance they simply haven't noticed it yet, or are waiting to see if it fails on it's own.  They only seem to go after projects that have become really "big" and influential, and that game seems to be a really tiny part of the fandom so far.

 

But if it keeps going, it's gonna get their attention eventually...