Active Users:302 Time:14/05/2024 09:22:19 PM
I had no idea about these legalities. Seriana Sedai Send a noteboard - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM
Someone can't violate copyright just by reading and reviewing a book, at least from what I know.


After the book's release, no.

But anyone who gets an unreleased book/movie he's not supposed to have or got it legally but isn't allowed to publish an advanced review by the publisher yet posts publicly about the book's content in any way can be causing prejudice to the copyright's owner, its marketing campaign etc. Publishing bogus reviews is also causing prejudice. The publisher would be in its right to send C & D and worst - either you got the book illegally, break an agreement not to reveal something about it, or you invent things about the book and spread them among Tor's customers.

It would be different if Tor had printed ARCs or sent copies for review, but they have not, meaning what's around are illegal copies or - far more likely - invented ones. They used to send ARCs for previous WOT books - they used a more classic marketing strategy then, but for TGS they have not. They/Harriet don't want advanced reviews other than the ones they authorize down the line.

Legalities aside, it's extremely disrespectful to Harriet and Brandon and all people involved with the book to go against their expressed wishes. It's their book, their choices - to a fan it shouldn't even matter that this is illegal, that it's against the wishes of the creators and their publisher should be more than enough not to touch that.

Crafting faked reviews is worse in a way (and there's been several at Wotmania in the wake of Jason's real and by then only authorized review - from well-known posters of many years here who should know better - and that have been deleted by the admins. If it were my site, those idiots would have been banned). With those you create false expectations that could ruin the experience of fellow fans naive enough to trust you. A WOT fan should be ashamed to do this to other fans who've waited for 5 years for this book - people are all extremely eager for info about the new book and it exploits their weakness. And be sure details, even so called 'non spoilers' (faked or not) are gonna spread from here to other WOT sites not allowing reviews - giving a very bad name to RAFO in the WOT community.

Fan sites have been blacklisted by movie companies/book publishers for doing stuff like this (it's happened to several SW sites in the days). They can even be sued and closed down.





I really didn't. I assumed if someone had a copy there was a reason, like they were supposed to share their opinion.
Knowing this, I would like to change my vote. If we are specifically not supposed to then it shouldn't be an option. I hadn't considered some of these repercussions.
Reply to message
Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 08:40:03 AM 1506 Views
Yes. - 20/09/2009 11:56:22 AM 859 Views
Sorry wrong place. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:31:27 PM 369 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 01:12:18 PM 752 Views
No. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:26:48 PM 382 Views
No, I prefer to see them after the 27th. - 20/09/2009 01:42:38 PM 651 Views
They don't have to read them if they don't want to *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:54:30 AM 373 Views
NO! *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:05:47 PM 423 Views
No *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:22:15 PM 471 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:08:41 PM 420 Views
Yes please! *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:40:41 PM 433 Views
NO *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:16:55 PM 381 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:17:32 PM 416 Views
Re: Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 05:33:49 PM 654 Views
I just hate getting interupted. even if I'm at work *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:13 PM 374 Views
Sorry wrong place *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:54 PM 385 Views
We need them to maintain the spike in activity. - 20/09/2009 05:34:14 PM 749 Views
YES. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:44:48 PM 392 Views
Can anyone who voted no explain why? - 20/09/2009 05:51:51 PM 685 Views
Yes, why not? - 20/09/2009 06:18:42 PM 946 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:30:54 PM 359 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 362 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 370 Views
No, I'll just read them and then go regretting it *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:18:27 PM 357 Views
Yes! - 20/09/2009 07:30:59 PM 658 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 425 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 590 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:08:42 PM 374 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:17:51 PM 375 Views
Yes- Give ppl the option to see the reviews *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:03:27 AM 364 Views
Yes *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:33:13 AM 336 Views
I vote yes. - 21/09/2009 04:21:28 AM 683 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 656 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 646 Views
Yes. Don't click the link if you don't want to read it. *NM* - 21/09/2009 02:39:16 PM 402 Views
No - 21/09/2009 06:15:19 PM 729 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1194 Views
so you want to give the admins all kinds of extra work? - 22/09/2009 02:16:56 AM 692 Views
I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 05:06:13 AM 823 Views
I hadn't thought about all that, you should have made some kind of pros and cons list - 22/09/2009 08:53:39 AM 775 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 693 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 666 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 829 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1065 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 658 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 850 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 565 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 644 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 563 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 753 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 900 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 676 Views
Interesting - 23/09/2009 12:16:38 AM 773 Views
How much is that infamous COT review to blame? - 24/09/2009 05:01:29 AM 553 Views
Well, Rand IS a transvestite - not exactly a spoiler anymore. - 22/09/2009 08:29:12 AM 665 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 340 Views
You're going to ban/forbid spoiler filled reviews? Weak. - 22/09/2009 08:26:15 AM 618 Views
Ever hear of Napster? - 22/09/2009 12:11:02 PM 621 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 742 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 836 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 667 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 892 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 709 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 629 Views
Baloney. The two are not related at all. *NM* - 23/09/2009 07:00:47 PM 408 Views
Yes, as long as no-spoiler policy is employed. *NM* - 23/09/2009 12:04:41 AM 353 Views
No *NM* - 25/09/2009 07:05:03 AM 367 Views

Reply to Message