Active Users:3301 Time:02/05/2026 12:08:58 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 2016 Views
Yes. - 20/09/2009 11:56:22 AM 1335 Views
Sorry wrong place. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:31:27 PM 650 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 01:12:18 PM 1283 Views
No. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:26:48 PM 636 Views
No, I prefer to see them after the 27th. - 20/09/2009 01:42:38 PM 1091 Views
They don't have to read them if they don't want to *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:54:30 AM 691 Views
NO! *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:05:47 PM 695 Views
No *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:22:15 PM 781 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:08:41 PM 694 Views
Yes please! *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:40:41 PM 702 Views
NO *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:16:55 PM 676 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:17:32 PM 716 Views
Re: Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 05:33:49 PM 1118 Views
I just hate getting interupted. even if I'm at work *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:13 PM 638 Views
Sorry wrong place *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:54 PM 643 Views
We need them to maintain the spike in activity. - 20/09/2009 05:34:14 PM 1238 Views
YES. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:44:48 PM 659 Views
Can anyone who voted no explain why? - 20/09/2009 05:51:51 PM 1120 Views
Yes, why not? - 20/09/2009 06:18:42 PM 1443 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:30:54 PM 652 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 627 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 631 Views
No, I'll just read them and then go regretting it *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:18:27 PM 677 Views
Yes! - 20/09/2009 07:30:59 PM 1152 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 696 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 1078 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:08:42 PM 629 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:17:51 PM 648 Views
Yes- Give ppl the option to see the reviews *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:03:27 AM 636 Views
Yes *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:33:13 AM 612 Views
I vote yes. - 21/09/2009 04:21:28 AM 1194 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 1121 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 1115 Views
Yes. Don't click the link if you don't want to read it. *NM* - 21/09/2009 02:39:16 PM 681 Views
No - 21/09/2009 06:15:19 PM 1214 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1639 Views
so you want to give the admins all kinds of extra work? - 22/09/2009 02:16:56 AM 1189 Views
I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 05:06:13 AM 1369 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 1307 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 1201 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 1121 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 1303 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1537 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 1167 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 1349 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 1044 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 1157 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 1077 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 1278 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 1375 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 1173 Views
Interesting - 23/09/2009 12:16:38 AM 1241 Views
How much is that infamous COT review to blame? - 24/09/2009 05:01:29 AM 1058 Views
Well, Rand IS a transvestite - not exactly a spoiler anymore. - 22/09/2009 08:29:12 AM 1135 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 618 Views
You're going to ban/forbid spoiler filled reviews? Weak. - 22/09/2009 08:26:15 AM 1121 Views
Ever hear of Napster? - 22/09/2009 12:11:02 PM 1045 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 1258 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 1345 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 1086 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 1403 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 1229 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 1128 Views
Baloney. The two are not related at all. *NM* - 23/09/2009 07:00:47 PM 652 Views
Yes, as long as no-spoiler policy is employed. *NM* - 23/09/2009 12:04:41 AM 623 Views
No *NM* - 25/09/2009 07:05:03 AM 625 Views

Reply to Message