I actually take away something completely different from this exchange than has been mentioned so far: This video is part of the system working.
Basically, the only reason that dude 1 could sell the puzzle in the first place is because of the internet and more importantly, the social internet. This direct-to-customer model was developed as a way to side-step the kinds of protections (like patents, and NDAs, etc) that older, slower marketing strategies needed to function.
But, inherent in the technologies that allowed dude 1 to succeed (and he did succeed, by all accounts - he is selling the thing, and has sold enough of them to feel as though the kickstarter will actually damage this revenue) is a vulnerability to copying. It’s not just the fact that he has to publish the design (which is honestly not all that novel) and it’s function to sell it. It’s also the fact that the same low cost manufacturing technologies that let a random guy make a complex mechanical toy to sell, basically allow anyone to make a complex mechanical toy to sell. The revolution contains the seeds of its own downfall, as they say.
So here’s where part three comes in. We’ve already seen that the channel of communication (the social internet) can’t be owned, since it is too easy for a competitor to jump on. Likewise, the manufacturing chain cannot be owned, since it’s available to anyone. So Dude 1 is trying to own the only thing which can be owned: The Narrative. He’s using this video to make himself (and his product) seem like a more valuable narrative to be a part of; Like if you buy dude 2’s toy, you have a less “real” or “authentic” story to tell about it, even though the reality is that (unless you’re IRL friends with Dude 1 or Dude 2) both narratives are fully mediated - their authenticity isn’t reducible to a ground truth.
I think this explanation does a better job of addressing why these sorts of “scandals” on crowdfunding sites generate so much community ire and disagreement - not because there is a well-defined ethic that is being violated, but precisely because the ethic is not well defined. Every one of these devolves into a sort of political narrative righteousness building contest.
i don’t know how to fix it, but that’s how I see it.