Interesting. I thought the terms had changed. While I'm sure not everyone will agree, the new ones seem to make a lot more sense. After all, if you had the money why would you run a Kickstarter (other than for the marketing/feeling out the market) if you were really, truly, personally on the hook to give it all back no matter what? And, if you didn't have the money before the Kickstarter, there's pretty much an inherent risk that things are going to go south as in this case.
I understand Kickstarter wanting to keep the pressure on project creators while minimizing the perceived risk in the eyes of funders, but the current TOS seems to mirror the reality much better than the old one. (Threats of lawsuits and so forth notwithstanding.)
1) The rewards aren't dependent on project success, or
2) The rewards are dependent on project success, but the project is being Kickstarted to fund something that is prototyped and ready to go into production, and the funding level is set appropriate to pay the production costs for the delivered rewards plus whatever premium the company expects to need to go forward.
Its only unreasonable if the project sets the rewards and funding levels at levels that are unreasonable.
When the project sets the funding target and the offered rewards, its not unreasonable to expect the project to be responsible for actually being able to meet the promised rewards if it meets the funding level it set.
No one forces you to put a project on Kickstarter, or sets the funding target or reward levels for you.
I was going to point this out, as well. There is a certain level of physical pain where your ability to focus on anything external to the pain is severely diminished. Having recently spent time with people in end of life situations, I have to say that the urge to "fight on" is definitely championed more often by those who are far removed from the day-to-day details.
Not sending it to places like the e-waste dump in Agbogbloshie, Accra, Ghana is a benefit. I'm not sure how to weight each thing - the increased CO2 emmissions are bad; not poisoning poor people who do things like burn the PVC insulation off cables to get the copper is a good thing.
Certainly agree with that sentiment! We are getting to the point where it makes sense to have 'disassembly' robots, this paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967066108...) looked at that (it wasn't the focus per se but an example). I can clearly see that 'anti-factories' where raw materials are recovered and unrecoverable materials made inert will be a thing.
Still, the market isn't going to solve this on it's own. Other peoples children are going to be cheaper than robots for the foreseeable future. In fact, poisoning the local population could be considered a minor issue compared to contaminating the water tables. Sick people die, but a contaminated water table keeps killing people for generations.
I think strong local regulations, as well as an emphasis of recycling locally is the best short-term solution. It does expose the actual cost of recycling (safely) -- but also cuts energy to shipping, and can be used as a stimuli for a more re-cycle friendly value chain (eg: make sellers of electronics take the bill for recycling, and demand local, safe recycling) -- which in turn puts pressure on suppliers to deliver items that are cheaper to recycle safely.
We may have sufficient regulations that the market can push it over the top. After all if you can create a facility that converts ewaste into resalable raw materials you can both sell the service to municipalities who are required by law to dispose of their ewaste safely, and the raw materials to manufacturers as a recycled product. That combination might get you into an internal rate of return to make it worth while.
It's not rocket science but it's not instinct either.
What/who defines the appropriate behavior in a business context. I say this because I've read books on appropriate business behavior in the context american vs chinese businesses, and its different.
People have different interpretations of what appropriate behavior is in different contexts.
Example: in some southern cities in the us, its weird or rude not to say hello to strangers on the street.
In New york, its weird and rude to say hello to strangers on the street.
How do people actually learn whats appropriate in business context ?
Personally I read books like Corporate Confidential, How to make friends and influence people to learn it, but I found it far from easy.
edit: anecdote: I've had women business managers compliment my hair style, I didn't feel it was inappropriate.