Active Users:459 Time:13/12/2025 04:25:37 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 1917 Views
Yes. - 20/09/2009 11:56:22 AM 1240 Views
Sorry wrong place. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:31:27 PM 602 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 01:12:18 PM 1167 Views
No. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:26:48 PM 591 Views
No, I prefer to see them after the 27th. - 20/09/2009 01:42:38 PM 997 Views
They don't have to read them if they don't want to *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:54:30 AM 634 Views
NO! *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:05:47 PM 651 Views
No *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:22:15 PM 727 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:08:41 PM 655 Views
Yes please! *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:40:41 PM 660 Views
NO *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:16:55 PM 623 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:17:32 PM 665 Views
Re: Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 05:33:49 PM 1015 Views
I just hate getting interupted. even if I'm at work *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:13 PM 591 Views
Sorry wrong place *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:54 PM 597 Views
We need them to maintain the spike in activity. - 20/09/2009 05:34:14 PM 1134 Views
YES. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:44:48 PM 611 Views
Can anyone who voted no explain why? - 20/09/2009 05:51:51 PM 1035 Views
Yes, why not? - 20/09/2009 06:18:42 PM 1344 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:30:54 PM 598 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 582 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 584 Views
No, I'll just read them and then go regretting it *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:18:27 PM 631 Views
Yes! - 20/09/2009 07:30:59 PM 1054 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 655 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 975 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:08:42 PM 589 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:17:51 PM 605 Views
Yes- Give ppl the option to see the reviews *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:03:27 AM 592 Views
Yes *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:33:13 AM 567 Views
I vote yes. - 21/09/2009 04:21:28 AM 1089 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 1028 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 1015 Views
Yes. Don't click the link if you don't want to read it. *NM* - 21/09/2009 02:39:16 PM 637 Views
No - 21/09/2009 06:15:19 PM 1105 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1546 Views
so you want to give the admins all kinds of extra work? - 22/09/2009 02:16:56 AM 1073 Views
I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 05:06:13 AM 1269 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 1177 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 1081 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 1016 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 1206 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1443 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 1072 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 1231 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 957 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 1052 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 955 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 1179 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 1279 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 1065 Views
Interesting - 23/09/2009 12:16:38 AM 1146 Views
How much is that infamous COT review to blame? - 24/09/2009 05:01:29 AM 954 Views
Well, Rand IS a transvestite - not exactly a spoiler anymore. - 22/09/2009 08:29:12 AM 1028 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 575 Views
You're going to ban/forbid spoiler filled reviews? Weak. - 22/09/2009 08:26:15 AM 1018 Views
Ever hear of Napster? - 22/09/2009 12:11:02 PM 938 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 1146 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 1236 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 995 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 1301 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 1118 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 1033 Views
Baloney. The two are not related at all. *NM* - 23/09/2009 07:00:47 PM 607 Views
Yes, as long as no-spoiler policy is employed. *NM* - 23/09/2009 12:04:41 AM 573 Views
No *NM* - 25/09/2009 07:05:03 AM 575 Views

Reply to Message