Active Users:550 Time:15/11/2024 11:56:31 AM
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. DomA Send a noteboard - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM
Discussing the content of leaked copies/illegally obtained copies is at the very least a very good way to get on the publisher's bad side and the publishers would be perfectly in their legal rights to take measures to have these reviews/spoilers removed from sites hosting them. I know it's the case for movie spoilers - I've signed enough NDA in two decades for the stuff I work on to know this - and I don't see why it wouldn't be the same for books that are protected by the same laws.


That's true. Although I think Tor do need to get a bit of a grip. This isn't the new JK Rowling or Dan Brown or Stephen King. Strictly enforcing street dates and refusing to let anyone review the book before it comes out, especially in the current situation with a new author taking over, is a brilliant way of reducing first-week sales until people wait to hear if it's any good or not (Jason's review not being regarded very well, it has to be said).


From what I heard it's a decision from Harriet enforced by Doherty to keep a blanket of secrecy over the content of TGS for fans who have waited so long for the book. I'm guessing for the rest, but I think the marketing folks and publicists have been asked to be imaginative to promote the book and work around the fact they can't do an ARC campaign etc. It might be a reason why they've released two chapters already, so everyone can make their own idea.

Tor didn't turn us down when we discussed with someone there the possibility to get the book a week or so before release, but the answer was something in the vein of "I'd love to if I can, but I'm not able to give you a definitive answer on this yet.". And we didn't ask, they're the ones who reached to us about our TGS coverage.

It's not a matter of not knowing if they'll even get the book in time, they were supposed to have the first copies very soon, if not already.

I thought that's what we were talking about: did we want reviews (spoilery or otherwise) a couple of days before the book was coming out?


From what I understand, it's more than many people claim they have or are about to have the book and want to post reviews soon.
From all I've heard so far, it's not very likely - or not legit review copies anyway.

that the book will be on shelves anything up to a week before its official date, so reviews and spoilers will start appearing then anyway.


It's more likely to happen in the UK perhaps? I don't recall what happened before. From the little I know of the US/Canadian distribution system, it's not so likely unless there's a mistake, because except for exceptional releases they need to work a lot on (say, like Potter and Brown), the chains tend to keep the books at central storage until they're about ready to put them on the shelves in the stores, a day, two before street dates. It's more frequent here to have the opposite and some bookstores missing the street date because the get the books so late that if there's a mistake in shipment they need a day to correct it. I got 75% off and 30% off on another book for quite a few (5 or 6) titles like this in the last years - it's what the book chain I shop at do when they miss a street date. Not being a fool, I started shopping more often on release days.
This message last edited by DomA on 28/09/2009 at 07:58:09 PM
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 925 Views
Sorry wrong place. *NM* - 20/09/2009 05:31:27 PM 408 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 01:12:18 PM 845 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 711 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 412 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 746 Views
Yes, why not? - 20/09/2009 06:18:42 PM 1013 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:30:54 PM 391 Views
Yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 06:39:34 PM 397 Views
Yes. I see no reason not to. *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:08:47 PM 402 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 728 Views
yes *NM* - 20/09/2009 07:46:37 PM 457 Views
Yes - 20/09/2009 08:34:03 PM 671 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 375 Views
I vote yes. - 21/09/2009 04:21:28 AM 748 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 06:12:37 AM 722 Views
Yes - 21/09/2009 09:32:56 AM 717 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 797 Views
I think you missread the rules... - 21/09/2009 08:24:22 PM 1257 Views
so you want to give the admins all kinds of extra work? - 22/09/2009 02:16:56 AM 764 Views
I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 05:06:13 AM 898 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 838 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 11:45:26 AM 764 Views
So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:03:16 PM 732 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:16:57 PM 894 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 12:42:55 PM 1133 Views
Re: So are you going to be the one to enforce this? - 22/09/2009 01:20:58 PM 725 Views
Re: I'm strongly against it - 22/09/2009 02:39:55 PM 913 Views
As I mentioned elsewhere - 22/09/2009 02:51:00 PM 649 Views
I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 05:44:18 PM 718 Views
Re: I had no idea about these legalities. - 22/09/2009 06:25:20 PM 624 Views
Good to know. - 22/09/2009 10:19:57 PM 818 Views
I'm shitfitng to no too. Hope more people change their votes. - 22/09/2009 10:34:22 PM 959 Views
Re: Good to know. - 22/09/2009 11:01:35 PM 763 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 620 Views
Well, Rand IS a transvestite - not exactly a spoiler anymore. - 22/09/2009 08:29:12 AM 729 Views
No, no, no, no, no! *NM* - 21/09/2009 06:31:22 PM 378 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 685 Views
But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 12:36:35 AM 811 Views
Sounds right to me. - 23/09/2009 12:27:57 PM 914 Views
Thank you for the clarification. - 23/09/2009 07:04:13 PM 738 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 23/09/2009 07:33:11 PM 965 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 27/09/2009 02:41:11 AM 778 Views
Re: But that only applies to piracy of the actual book itself. - 28/09/2009 07:53:46 PM 707 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