|Binro the Heretic - 2015-06-08 |
Holy shit! Uwe Boll made something I enjoyed!
He beat up Lowtax. That's a career high point, for sure.
Yeah, beating up Lowtax was pretty good, I'll give him that.
I enjoyed that part of Alone in the Dark where the dead woman started to get up off the ground before the scene ended.
|EvilHomer - 2015-06-08 |
Now THAT'S the Uwe Boll I remember!
There are a number of underlying problems with the crowdfunding method - chief amongst them being the complete lack of rights and profit-sharing for investors - but one of the NICE things is that it democratizes capital, and makes it nearly impossible for shitbag hacks like Uwe to amass huge fortunes, as he could do under his previous state-and-tax funding schemes! Sure, you can fool Kickstarter once or twice, but as a purely Voluntarist service, reputation matters, and after you've squandered your social capital you'll find it difficult, if not impossible, to get another chance. People know Uwe. They know his reputation. They've seen his work, and they aren't willing to take on a burden for more of it.
This made me look up the Kickstarter fees to see if they get anything on stuff that isn't funded.
I discovered that their "discounted micropledge fee" for pledges under is actually HIGHER than the normal fee if the pledges are over .
With the normal scale, a pledge of will mean $.50 in Kickstarter fees. Under the "discounted" scale, a pledge of will mean $.50 in Kickstarter fees.
A risk is a risk, no matter how small. If I'm taking a tiny risk, then it's not unreasonable to ask that I be cut in on a suitably tiny share of the profits. A businessman is asking me to fund his for-profit economic venture? Then given a choice between my name in the credits, or a single measly stock, I'd much rather take the stock, thanks.
Content-creators like crowd-sourcing because the resulting funds are over 90% raw exploitation (even the 10% fee taken by Kickstarter is nice, since it is a flat, one-time payment, with no further monetary obligations). Backers like crowd-sourcing because they generally think as you do, boner, "it's a tiny risk, so what?", and also because most of them don't even realize that they SHOULD be entitled to a share of the profits in the first place.
It's like the old Record-Label trick: offering an upfront pittance to an up-and-coming young band, when really, the band should be demanding a percentage.
Anyway, I don't want to come off as too critical, because overall I like crowdfunding, and I think with only a few tweaks it could be a truly spectacular social development. IN RELATION TO THIS VIDEO, my point is simply that Uwe is angry at crowdfunding over one of the things crowdfunding does *right*.
I think there are legal problems that haven't really been worked out. Like how do you actually give thousands of random people shares in your corporation, or a profit sharing deal, and actually manage it properly and without breaking regulations. There is probably too much overhead. It's worth it for one investor with ,000 but not for 1000 people with 10 bucks each.
If they can work out a way to take from 1,000 poor people, I'm sure they could work out a way to compensate those poor people, if they really wanted to. It's not like determining stock ownership is a big complicated ordeal; again, all you'd really have to do is treat each Kickstarter like a really cheap initial public offering, and instead of stupid bullshit like a baseball cap or a thank-you letter, give backers one share of stock for every however-many dollars they contribute.
Take the Oculus Kickstarter, for example. VR isn't exactly new tech, and it's entirely possible that Oculus (as well as its contemporaries) will crash and burn like all the other attempts before it did. On the other hand, it COULD wind up being a huge success, and there's potential there for it to make everyone with a significant stake in the technology billionaires multiple times over. The original developers more or less bilked .5 MILLION from investors, mostly young people and fat nerds and other folks too poor to realize that they have just as much right to a return as some rich asshole investment banker. And then, last year (after the crowdfunding campaign was complete), Facebook bought Oculus for billion. Billion!!!! That's a thousand times more than the initial worth of .5 million. Now obviously this is a very rough estimate (I'm sure Oculus had more worth than just the stuff begged out of Kickstarter), but think about it: if you owned even a mere worth of "Oculus stock", you'd suddenly be up ten fucking thousand dollars! Every dork who ponied up cash for that Kickstarter would be able to buy a modest new car thanks to that sale, or even hold onto their ownership rights in hopes of seeing an even bigger return. But instead, the Oculus guys made out like emperors, and everyone else is left sitting on their couch, hoping that they'll have enough money to afford a computer that can run the Oculus system if and when it finally hits the market.
I think you're missing the point, homer. The issuance of stock is a very well regulated thing: right now they avoid dealing with the SEC by "donation" of funds rather than the more traditional investment arrangements.
If you want to invest in the traditional manner, there are a unending stream of financial products for you to use. It's pretty much the only industry America has, so there's a boat load of options.
This is different. What you are suggesting is to remove the one thing that does differentiate this product from the rest.
I see some real weaknesses with the crowd sourcing method, but this is not one of them.
As far as Oculus goes, I thought it was stupid until they brought out the version that works with just a phone, so you're not tethered to a computer. That thing is going to be awesome in a few years.
|Old_Zircon - 2015-06-08 |
"I have enough money to play gold 'til I'm dead."
|Hooker - 2015-06-08 |
I will have you know that slope-browed man whining like a child about the "important" second sequel to his grotesque violence/revenge-fantasy Rampage not being funded by the intended audience is DOCTOR Uwe Boll.
|jangbones - 2015-06-08 |
Ha I failed at it so it stinks now.
|infinite zest - 2015-06-08 |
Uwe Boll is the Werner Herzog of our generation. All we need is some young indie singer songwriter to hang him or herself to the ending of Blubberella.
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2015-06-08 |
Uwe Boll in 720p 60FPS.
|StanleyPain - 2015-06-08 |
Hah hah Germany closed the bullshit criminal tax code loophole you were making to produce your shitty movies.
|Hooker - 2015-06-08 |
Did this jump back up the page somehow?
Yeah that's weird. I think if a video gets universally 1-starred it leaves the front page, but I've never seen the reverse, not even for popular favorites. Maybe Mr. Boll is on here and is one of the people who donates on the front page!
I noticed that, too. I watched it when it first showed up, went to work, and when I came home there were half a dozen new videos under it but it was still at the top.
|Spaceman Africa - 2015-06-10 |
this video gets funnier when you realize the framed pictures in the background are pictures of the Lowtax fight
| Register or login To Post a Comment|