Active Users:949 Time:15/11/2024 09:22:22 AM
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 1576 Views
Yes. - 20/09/2009 11:56:22 AM 923 Views
Sorry wrong place. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:31:27 PM 408 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 01:12:18 PM 844 Views
No. *NM* - 20/09/2009 01:26:48 PM 413 Views
No, I prefer to see them after the 27th. - 20/09/2009 01:42:38 PM 710 Views
They don't have to read them if they don't want to *NM* - 21/09/2009 01:54:30 AM 408 Views
NO! *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:05:47 PM 459 Views
No *NM* - 20/09/2009 02:22:15 PM 511 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:08:41 PM 459 Views
Yes please! *NM* - 20/09/2009 03:40:41 PM 465 Views
NO *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:16:55 PM 411 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 04:17:32 PM 458 Views
Re: Do you guys want pre-release reviews on this board? - 20/09/2009 05:33:49 PM 724 Views
I just hate getting interupted. even if I'm at work *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:13 PM 405 Views
Sorry wrong place *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:12:54 PM 419 Views
We need them to maintain the spike in activity. - 20/09/2009 05:34:14 PM 821 Views
YES. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:44:48 PM 426 Views
Can anyone who voted no explain why? - 20/09/2009 05:51:51 PM 745 Views
Yes, why not? - 20/09/2009 06:18:42 PM 1012 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:30:54 PM 391 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 396 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 401 Views
No, I'll just read them and then go regretting it *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:18:27 PM 397 Views
Yes! - 20/09/2009 07:30:59 PM 726 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 457 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 670 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:08:42 PM 408 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 10:17:51 PM 410 Views
Yes- Give ppl the option to see the reviews *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:03:27 AM 399 Views
Yes *NM* - 21/09/2009 12:33:13 AM 374 Views
I vote yes. - 21/09/2009 04:21:28 AM 747 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 722 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 715 Views
Yes. Don't click the link if you don't want to read it. *NM* - 21/09/2009 02:39:16 PM 434 Views
No - 21/09/2009 06:15:19 PM 796 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1256 Views
so you want to give the admins all kinds of extra work? - 22/09/2009 02:16:56 AM 763 Views
I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 05:06:13 AM 897 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 837 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 763 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 731 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 893 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1131 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 724 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 912 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 648 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 717 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 622 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 816 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 958 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 761 Views
Interesting - 23/09/2009 12:16:38 AM 845 Views
How much is that infamous COT review to blame? - 24/09/2009 05:01:29 AM 618 Views
Well, Rand IS a transvestite - not exactly a spoiler anymore. - 22/09/2009 08:29:12 AM 727 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 377 Views
You're going to ban/forbid spoiler filled reviews? Weak. - 22/09/2009 08:26:15 AM 691 Views
Ever hear of Napster? - 22/09/2009 12:11:02 PM 684 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 810 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 913 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 737 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 963 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 777 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 705 Views
Baloney. The two are not related at all. *NM* - 23/09/2009 07:00:47 PM 436 Views
Yes, as long as no-spoiler policy is employed. *NM* - 23/09/2009 12:04:41 AM 386 Views
No *NM* - 25/09/2009 07:05:03 AM 395 Views

Reply to Message