Active Users:305 Time:13/05/2024 10:05:30 PM
Interesting Werthead Send a noteboard - 23/09/2009 12:16:38 AM
1. Tor insisted this week once again that there are no pre-release copies, and that Jason is the only one who has access to the book.


Tor are not Orbit. Orbit are releasing the book across all Commonwealth territories and, although Tor will sell vastly more copies, Orbit theoretically have access to a bigger market. Orbit are sending a very few selected review copies to a few selected bloggers, although as far as I know apart from myself just about none of them are regular WoT fans and will be reviewing the book before release. I'm not sure if Ken or Pat fall into that category either (I imagine they'll be dealing with Tor). My review copy isn't expected until maybe a week before the street-date anyway, around the time the book will be hitting the shelves anyway.

2. That pre-release distribution of the book is a copyright infringement which Tor are serious about nailing down on. RAFO will become a focal point for every person who has messed with Tor, even if they have done so unwittingly.


I'm pretty sure it isn't a copyright violation at all. Issuing a book early happens all the time and is not a major problem unless it's a huge amount of time early (such as the month-early release of CoT in the UK in December 2002, which I know RJ was unhappy with). KoD was also on the shelves more than a week before the official release date (in the UK anyway), as was NEW SPRING. Unless you're JK Rowling or Dan Brown, enforcing street dates can be a really bad idea, if not handled correctly as Bantam UK recently discovered when they tried to enforce the DUST OF DREAMS release date with the net result bookshops refused to stock it until a week AFTER release as they couldn't have multiple 1,000-page hardcovers taking up their stock rooms and they missed out on the series possibly hitting (the lower reaches of) the bestseller lists for the first time.

3. Even if there are decent reviews, there are bound to be hoaxes and lies which will damage our reputation as posters or as a place with worthy content.


I think you are blowing this out of proportion. I was here (well, on Wotmania) when KoD came out and was a lurker at the time CoT did and don't recall the issues you outline here. I remember a few lame jokes which were obviously people having a laugh, but I do not recall anyone attempting to carry out a deliberate campaign of misinformation. I do recall the point-by-point, 100% accurate spoiler review someone posted about two weeks before KoD came out.

4. Risking our reputation and exposing the board to all manner of trash is not worth it when the book is coming out in 5 weeks anyway. We've had the Prologue and the first chapter, and to go beserk for the rest of the book is utterly pointless.


As others have said, no-one has to read the thread. I remember people regretting reading the KoD thread at the time (including me, as I didn't realise it would be a blow-by-blow summary of the book), but that's up to them. And as has been said, it's a specifically spoiler free situation.
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 751 Views
No. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:26:48 PM 381 Views
No, I prefer to see them after the 27th. - 20/09/2009 01:42:38 PM 650 Views
They don't have to read them if they don't want to *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:54:30 AM 372 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 419 Views
Yes please! *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:40:41 PM 432 Views
NO *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:16:55 PM 380 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 652 Views
I just hate getting interupted. even if I'm at work *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:13 PM 373 Views
Sorry wrong place *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:54 PM 384 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 391 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 358 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 361 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 368 Views
No, I'll just read them and then go regretting it *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:18:27 PM 356 Views
Yes! - 20/09/2009 07:30:59 PM 657 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 424 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 589 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:08:42 PM 373 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:17:51 PM 374 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 682 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 655 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 645 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 728 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1193 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 773 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 691 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 665 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 828 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1064 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 657 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 849 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 564 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 642 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 562 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 752 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 899 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 675 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 664 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 339 Views
You're going to ban/forbid spoiler filled reviews? Weak. - 22/09/2009 08:26:15 AM 617 Views
Ever hear of Napster? - 22/09/2009 12:11:02 PM 620 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 741 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 835 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 666 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 891 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 708 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 628 Views
Baloney. The two are not related at all. *NM* - 23/09/2009 07:00:47 PM 407 Views
Yes, as long as no-spoiler policy is employed. *NM* - 23/09/2009 12:04:41 AM 352 Views
No *NM* - 25/09/2009 07:05:03 AM 366 Views

Reply to Message