So you’re more concerned about the “obnoxious” wealthy looking for financial help to fight against an obvious wealthy IP predator who’s trying to steal their stuff? Got it.
This.
I can be both?
Once again, some of us aren’t interested in picking sides. You can criticize an individual move by P&F without being Team Stardock.
No one here knows what Paul Reiche and Fred Ford’s personal wealth is.
Most times, people think that others are loaded and it turns out that’s not even close to the case. We have a President who won’t allow people to see his tax returns potentially for the very reason that he’s not actually rich like he says he is. Never assume that you know how much someone is worth. It’s usually wrong.
That’s what irks me about this idea that them asking for legal defense help is some kind of bad faith move. You have no idea if they can afford it themselves, and if you choose to think they can, then simply don’t give them money. That’s the easy option right?
I don’t care whether you have a side on this or not. My own commentary has nothing to do with what I think should or will happen on the case. I’m not emotionally invested in anything. Perhaps one useful piece of evidence of this is that I’m not running around trying to assign a bunch of random motives to anyone.
And as I said, you are welcome to it. But your attempts to support this opinion have been bad. Really bad.
You know what’s way more important than the appearance and public perception of the lawsuit?
The actual lawsuit.
You know I know that? It (1) involves something they created and appear to have loved and still love (2) they face losing that thing and (3) it’s an extremely fucking expensive fight to try not to lose it and (4) this is Paul and Fred’s resources on the line. Not some corporation’s money. Their own. The same thing isn’t true for Stardock.
No PR will impact the case directly. All it could impact is (1) the decision making of either party in the case or (2) the ability to raise money via the GoFundMe The legal fund is simply one part of what P&F will use to make a decision to keep going/settle/etc. These are “facts” as you call them.
If the PR (by either side) is supposed to influence decision making, it has utterly failed because this is full steam ahead and so far there hasn’t been any suggestion there will be a settlement. Those discussions won’t happen publicly of course, and the Lawyers will probably keep that avenue open. And they have may have been talks behind the scenes. But so far, we don’t know where those things sit. If you think it’s possible Paul and Fred could have presented the gofundme “differently” and gotten better negotiation leverage. . . well that’s an argument. I think it’s a flimsy argument, but I’m open minded.
The motives behind the legal fund are never going to be fully known, as I said. Maybe they thought it was a way to try an attract a bigger lawyer. Maybe they thought it could help change Stardock’s mind, or be an additional tool when it came to negotiation. No idea. But that time is past, and there’s no evidence whatsoever Stardock would back down. Initiating the lawsuit included a non trivial amount of backlash and that didn’t stop them. Additionally, the strategic decision making for the lawsuit is. . . well it’s odd but again we don’t know everything. In either case, I do know the gofundme represents a way to mitigate risk on P&F’s side (even if it won’t mitigate very much). That’s also a fact. Whoopity do.
[quote] I did not say whether i cared if they raised money, I frankly don’t. I find it interesting that they decided it was a good idea to do it that way when they could have done it differently and avoided the negatives that surfaced in people’s opinions because of it. I am not saying those opinions are wrong or right, I am saying they were formed by people.I think that could have been avoided.
[/quote]
The negatives in people’s opinions, in this thread, are largely gibberish. Here, let me give you another example:
Paul and Fred are being sued. They stand to lose their creations/properties, and the only recourse they have is to pay money out of their own pocket to fight it. The idea that the gofundme is being done to “benefit themselves economically” is insane.
You think they should have taken another tack with the legal fund, but you haven’t actually made a good argument as to why. It’s just feels on your part. That’s deeply ironic given that you think I am “emotionally invested”. The thing is, feels aren’t automagically invalid. It’s ok to not like what they are doing based on your feelings, and to exercise your right not to donate. But don’t act like it’s anything other than feels driving you.
What is it you think this accomplished? Again, if you think it hurt the godfundme. . . maybe. I doubt it. But maybe.
Yes but if you criticize the move by P&F by painting their motives as bad faith then you wind up looking silly in light of the actual lawsuit.
And that has nothing to do with “sides”.
If P&F had started a lawsuit like this to block SC:O coming out, say, and then started a GoFundMe to help with the legal fund for the case that would be entirely one thing. But that’s not the scenario we face here.
The defense fund might be a miscalculation, but it’s a defense fund. Not a “fuck it, we’re going streaking, someone be ready to bail us out of jail” fund.
Part of this case is being tried in the court of public opinion. Because current and future sales matter to both parties.
Thanks for helping me support my opinion, since I was doing such a bad job of it.
That’s, like, your opinion, man.
People can be fully aware of the lawsuit, be completely opposed to Stardock, want P&F to succeed, and still feel like one particular move on P&F’s part wasn’t a good look.
Um, that’s exactly what it means. Regardless of who’s suing who, they either pay legal fees out of their own pocket, or the gofundme people do. Anything the gofundme people pay is a direct economic benefit to P&F.
The same could be said of any charity drive. Someone trying to fund their cancer treatment? Exploiting average people’s sympathy for their own economic benefit!
Calling the mere asking for donations to a legal defense fund disgusting and shameful is just plain ridiculous. There has been some funny stuff in this thread but the righteous indignation over a legal defense fund takes the cake.
I can understand not liking it, but how does this rate even above a “meh” much less into “disgusting and shameful”?
This is true, and I don’t think that goes against the point Ginger was making.
I am not disputing the technical validity of the point, only pointing out that it’s quite silly.
I need to know where it falls on the silly scale compared to
I mean, the whole point is to raise money to reduce their personal expenses. You don’t really get a more direct “economic benefit” than that, so I have no idea why it’s supposed to be insane.
I think it’s probably a semantic issue. Some people see “losing less money” as benefiting economically, others see it as insane. Certainly when one sees the phrase “benefit themselves economically” your first thought is that someone is making money, it’s not that they’re losing less money to attorneys they have to hire to defend themselves.
Good point! P&F surely aren’t looking to turn a profit on any of this.
Insane is indeed a strong word but an obvious figure of speech. And if we are getting technical you do get a more direct economic benefit than reducing expenses, income.
No, in a “technically correct” way it is not insane, figuratively or technically, to consider a reduction in expenses an economic benefit. However to cast a legal defense fund as if it is some sort of scheme to take advantage of people like it was some sort of for profit scam is a bit nuts.
I should point out that while you expressed displeasure with the defense fund, I don’t believe you called it shameful and disgusting or anything like that. Unless you also feel that way don’t get caught up defending an opinion that may not be your own.
To be clear, I’m not saying any of that. I’m not making any moral judgment at all. I don’t have strong opinions on it either way, and if people want to give them money, that’s on them. I’m just saying it clearly benefits them economically. This isn’t like raising money for charity (unless, somehow, you had a contractual obligation to pay that charity money).
Yeah, I believe I’ve tended to word it as “rubbed me the wrong way” and “not a good look”. I still feel the same way, but I don’t think P&F are running some sort of scam to enrich themselves. :)
No worries. Sorry if it seemed i was attributing those words to you. I didn’t mean to. I was just referring back to the sentiment that began this part of the discussion.