Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Legitimate eBook Lending Community Closed After Copyright Complaints

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the never-share dept.

Your Rights Online 288

Ian Lamont writes "LendInk, a community for people interesting in using the lending features of the Kindle and Nook, has been shut down after some authors mistakenly thought the site was hosting pirated ebooks. The site brought together people who wanted to loan or borrow specific titles that are eligible for lending, and then sent them to Amazon or BarnesAndNoble.com to make the loans. Authors and publishers who were unaware of this feature of the Kindle and Nook, and/or mistakenly assumed the site was handing out pirated copies, were infuriated. LendInk's hosting company received hundreds of complaints and shut the site down. LendInk's owner says: 'The hosting company has offered to reinstate Lendink.com on the condition that I personally respond to all of the complaints individually. I have to say, I really do not know if it is worth the effort at this point. I have read the comments many of these people have posted and I don't think any form of communication will resolve the issues in their eyes. Most are only interested in getting money from me and others are only in it for the kill. They have no intentions of talking to me or working this out. So much for trying to start a business and live the American Dream.'"

cancel ×

288 comments

Easy.... (5, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | about 2 years ago | (#40926163)

Make a EULA that states you can charge for responding to errant take down notices.
Respond to every take down notice with a bill for hourly services rendered.
Profit??

Re:Easy.... (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#40926389)

And remember all those "Under penalty or perjury" parts. Sue for libel on each and every one.

Re:Easy.... (4, Informative)

HiThere (15173) | about 2 years ago | (#40927013)

You need to read the wording of that more carefully. The filer of the request for a takedown just says that he has a good-faith belief that he is acting on the behalf of the owners of the copyright. The guy who tells him to fire the notice isn't under any kind of oath or penalty at all.

So all the lawyer has to say is "I believed my client." and he's off the hook. And the client was never ON the hook.

Re:Easy.... (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40926499)

The DMCA (which I assume the takedown requests are filed under) already includes a provision that states the claimant is liable for all costs associated with false takedown requests. People just haven't bothered to push them on it.

Re:Easy.... (4, Interesting)

pepty (1976012) | about 2 years ago | (#40926639)

do "all costs associated" include lost revenue or just direct expenses like hiring lawyers? Somehow I don't think the lobbyists who wrote the DMCA would have wanted the former.

Re:Easy.... (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40926959)

17 U.S.C. 512(f) Misrepresentations. – Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Take that as you will, I imagine it depends on a case by case basis but lost revenue should be included, in at least some cases (IANAL, of course).

Re:Easy.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926983)

The DMCA (which I assume the takedown requests are filed under) already includes a provision that states the claimant is liable for all costs associated with false takedown requests. People just haven't bothered to push them on it.

Ahem. (cough, cough).

Ah, attention legal staff of the EFF. This is what we like to call a "golden moment"...

Re:Easy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926681)

no. sorry that won't work. a EULA can't be enforced in that way, if indeed at all. if it did you could host actual pirated content and just put in the eula that no one can sue. a eula s teeth are limited to what's legal. you can't put in as a term of using software or a service of some kind that any user is agreeing to suck your cock, for example. similarly, if the law were to be interpreted to mean that you stood to lose by trying to protect what's yours, no one would have any incentive to create anything that he couldn't afford to give away for free. people like to imagine that artists of various kinds are responding to their muse and not doing it for... filthy lucre, but to quote musicologist Dr. Robert Greenberg, the number of great works of music that were not created for some kind of remuneration can be counted on the fingers of one hand. musicians have bills too, and need to eat and pay the mortgage like anyone else. "There's nothing Bohemian about it, if you'll pardon me, poverty sucks!"
I'll agree the system we have now is a far cry from perfect but if you offer authors and other creative types no protection whatsoever you'll experience a tremendous loss in the creative world. the irony is that by forcing this site to shut down, you'll probably see more piracy if only out of no other reason than spite. there are lots of easy ways around copyright law including sneakernet, and people simply retyping a work with sufficient changes that it is clearly not the same work, perhaps telling the same basic story. for example I could write a novel about a magic amulet that a child finds that makes it hard to see him, which turns out to contain the spirit of a malevolent witch, and center the action of the novel on the trek the child and a few of his friends end up having to take to a far away place where the amulet had to be smashed by a magic ice hammer to rid the world of evil. along the way they are periodically helped or hindered by the medallion's previous owner who is obsessed with retrieving it for himself. he might perhaps be known as Hullin. we could call or heros Fred, his friend Stan, a pair of cousins named Harry and Bippin. A good witch might also periodically show up and help and guide them, maybe we should call her Kandalph. See where this is going? Then it could be released under Creative Commons, and so be made free, like the land of Center Land where the aforementioned story takes place. I may just write such a tale, now that I think about it.

Re:Easy.... (4, Insightful)

dark12222000 (1076451) | about 2 years ago | (#40926933)

EULAs, like any contract, are limited to what is legal.
It IS legal, as per the DMCA, to bill for false takedowns.
Therefore, so long as the EULA otherwise survives Probate (and is a valid contract), then you can, in fact, bill people for wrongful takedowns.

However, in this case, it seems like these are just very loud complaints, not actual DMCAs. Complaints carry no legal weight, but may, say, convince your hosting company to turn you off.

Re:Easy.... (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40927117)

And now they are engaging in book-burning..... I mean topic erasing. The topic where the authors complained has been deleted. They are trying to cover-up their actions.

I created a new topic here: http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,122736.0.html [kindleboards.com]

Re:Easy.... (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40927213)

And now I got banned.
No warning of any kind.
They just didn't like my copying of slashdot's article to their forum. That shows you how these authors operate in the real world. Censorship and shutting-down personal websites of their readers/buyers.

Can't he sue? (4, Funny)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 2 years ago | (#40926205)

Surely this falls under harassment, or something equally court-worthy. The American dream isn't to start your own business, it's to sue some rich asshole and get showered with money.

Re:Can't he sue? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40926375)

According to the DMCA process, the hosting company must take-down "claimed" infringing content. Then the victim has the right to respond and say "This does not infringe copyright. We are following the lending rules laid-down by Amazon, B&N, and the Authors Guild. This ie perfectly legal."

The next step under DMCA is for the complaining authors to sue the web owners/users. Of course I doubt that they will. The authors have better things to do then spend money they don't have fighting a court case they know they will lose.

BTW that KCHawkings chick is a babe. I'd like to be her scribe. :-)
http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,122241.msg1818315.html#msg1818315 [kindleboards.com]

Re:Can't he sue? (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | about 2 years ago | (#40926425)

More than likely the 'Authors' arent involved but the 'Publishers' are the ones with complaints. That said what they can do is just keep bogging you down in DMCA complaints.

It almost looks like it was an orchistrated effort on the part of the copyright lobby to mass-complain on a single site to get it shut down.

What he should do is just redirect everyone to tuebl.com :)

Re:Can't he sue? (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40926583)

No. Here's the person who organized the protest and resulting letter-spam. She's a Christian. No surprise there; those types are always quick to judge and execute punishment w/o bothering to do any research.

Even though the Bible specifically says, "Thou shalt not judge." Christians hate that commandment from Jesus & just try to pretend it doesn't exist while they create godhatesfags websites and attack women trying to get abortions (or worse, set fire to the clinic).

http://www.allonbooks.com/author.htm [allonbooks.com]

Re:Can't he sue? (4, Funny)

Br00se (211727) | about 2 years ago | (#40926883)

She's a Christian. No surprise there; those types are always quick to judge...

So by that definition, I guess you are a Christian too.

Re:Can't he sue? (2)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 2 years ago | (#40926947)

I don't think he is professing a holier-than-thou attitude and claiming eternal salvation over the death of his fellow man---so I think he gets a free pass on this one.

Re:Can't he sue? (5, Insightful)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 2 years ago | (#40926907)

I have mod points and karma, but I'm down for losing both...

The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not judge". In Matthew 7:1-2, Jesus says, "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." For the extent of your post it's merely a point of semantics, but it does go both ways. If the measuring rod I will be judged with is my own, then it makes the most sense for me to assume as little as possible, gather as much information, and attempt to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. After all, that's the measuring rod I'd want to be judged with.

That said, as a Christ follower myself, I do my best to put up with a lot of the general anti-Christianity sentiment on Slashdot. Plenty of it is deserved for a lot of reasons, and I realize that it comes with the territory of the name. I consider it quite possibly the greatest irony of all time that "Christian" was a term first used by nonbelievers to describe those following Christ because of how closely they emulated Him. Today, that same name is nearly synonymous with acting the opposite of Jesus.

The reason I bring this up is this: Yes, Christianity has its issues. Yes, we've got a bad reputation that we've, in many cases, brought upon ourselves. Yes, we could, as a whole, stand to become a lot more loving and a lot less judgmental. We could stand to do a lot more listening and a lot less talking. BUT...having been raised in church - and a fairly stiff, conservative one at that - and having visited several others in my area from many different denominations - I have yet to meet ONE Christian who agrees with abortion clinic bombings or the Westboro Baptist protests. On the contrary, they're generally just as outraged as you are about those issues.

I know it goes against the stereotype, but unfortunately an extremely vocal minority gets a lot more press coverage than the positive groups that help feed homeless people, work to facilitate drug rehabilitation, and just in general try to service their communities. Don't believe it happens? I've personally been involved in these activities numerous times throughout the years, but think about it: the people picketing want attention, and get it. People actually helping, generally don't do it for the publicity, so they don't get any.

No church is perfect, and some are more involved than others. That doesn't mean that churches generally support causing harm or performing acts of vandalism to the staff and buildings of abortion clinics or wish physical harm toward homosexuals.

Hiding her actions now.... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927169)

The lady is now currently scrubbing her website of all her posts on the subject. Try these google caches

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Spl34jUBXMMJ:allonbooks-thekingdomofallon.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-is-pirate-site.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Spl34jUBXMMJ:allonbooks-thekingdomofallon.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-is-pirate-site.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Oh, and she hates Neil Gaiman.

DMCA irrelevant (4, Informative)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#40926453)

I did not see DMCA mentioned, only "cease and desist". The "were infuriated" link contains equal parts infuration and people reminded the infuriated that lending was part of their agreement, if they checked the box to allow it.

You invented DMCA because you associate it with copyright protection. What seems to have happened, based on the information presented, is that the hosting company was inundated with C&D notices instead of DMCA. These are legally backed threats which can lead to lawsuits directly, outside of the control of the DMCA process.

In other words, the hosting company most likely had a choice between shutting down the service and responding to multiple court summons, if not full blown cases. Were I the hosting company, I would have folded, and I would have laid the responsibility of responding to the customer, just as this company did.

C&D is a lose-lose proposition unless you have deep enough pockets to defend yourself. DMCA covers the host well enough if tey do what they are supposed to do. Which is most likely why the authors went with C&D instead of DMCA. One is quicker, one is more effective. If you're going for the kill, as the summary says, C&D is the way to go.

Re:DMCA irrelevant (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40926643)

Then the hosting company can be sued. They are not supposed to remove material (or suspend accounts) unless they FIRST receive a DMCA-compliant takedown request. Plus give the owner a chance to respond to the request. That is the current federal law and the ISP violated it.

Also I doubt there was a single lawyer involved; just a bunch of angry authors sending nasty messages. Those have ZERO legal standing, unless they were specifically formatted as a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:DMCA irrelevant (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#40926775)

That would depend on the agreement between the hosting provider and the hostee. Most likely it says "we can take down your stuff whenever we feel like it".

Re:DMCA irrelevant (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40927279)

Yes and my housing association contract says, "No antennas or dishes allowed on roofs." That clause was nullified by the 1996 Telecommunications Act and so too is any ISP clause that is nullfied by the DMC Act.

They are not allowed to suspend a user simply because of an email from a complaining author or lawyer. They MUST follow the DMCA process and give the user a chance to respond, "No this does not infringe anybody's copyright or ownership."

Re:DMCA irrelevant (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#40926809)

DMCA and cease and desist are two completely different things. If a DMCA notice comes in, they have to remove the content until they get a counter-notice. Cease and desist is a warning of future legal action, and you can decide whether to comply or fight. This host decided to comply.

You are correct that a cease and desist notice has zero legal standing, except that they are warnings of impending legal action if not complied with, or adequately responded to. And your last phrase kinda makes my point. The host decided to fold, rather than being legally required to, because they were not formatted as a DMCA request (again, based on the information I have, unless you have something else you're not sharing).

I know of no requirement that DMCA be the only method of preventing copyright infringement. I have already discussed why it is sometimes preferable, and why a cease-and-desist warning might be preferable in different situations. Therefore your statement "That is the current federal law" is a lie of omission, assuming that there is no other option. DMCA is a current federal law, but it is not the only one. Further, the continuation "and the ISP violated it" only applies for DMCA notices.

You seem rational and thoughtful in the global warming threads. In copyright threads, you seem to make assumptions, take sides, and apparently not even bother to be informed enough beyond what you remember from slashdot posts to make your point. Almost as if two different people were posting under a single user name. Please go read up a bit, ask a lawyer, or at least think for a short time on why I might have bothered to reply to you.

Re:DMCA irrelevant (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#40926889)

A Cease and Desist Notice is an entirely different animal than a Cease and Desist Order, signed by a judge.
It's far more likely that random authors sent out copypasta C&D threats^w notices and the hosting company folded as a result of ignorance.

Re:Can't he sue? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 2 years ago | (#40926571)

Actualy the hosting provider is only required to take down properly formatted DMCA requests. With few exceptions this can never be a whole site. So in this case they would need to have lined to books they have control over the copyright. Now it sounds like he screwed up and did not file counter claim for each and every inbound take down notice. He should be suing everybody that sent these DMCA notices. His provider probably has it covered in his tos the DMCA is weak in allowing you to get out of liability via contract but lets face it this was one sided legislation.

In this case it also sounds like he is hosting none of it so his risk is very low, it's not reasonable to expect that a large company like amazon of B&N are allowing copyright infringement.

Re:Can't he sue? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#40926655)

The DMCA does not permit you to file false DMCA claims, under penalty and you can seek damages in court against false claims.

Re:Can't he sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926903)

I think Atunah kicks KCHawkings' buuutt.

Re:Can't he sue? (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40926481)

Here's a perfect example. I would not accept this bitch's apology if it were me. She probably saw the site and 30 seconds later was sending a takedown notice w/o ever bothering to do any research. And she ruijhne d an's website because of ti. I hate bitches (and bastards) like her....... mshe should be fined $1000 for filing a false DMCA request

DEBBY WRITE:

Owner of Website - if you are reading this. It might be worth getting a list of those who complained, you know? I was one of them. I overreacted, didn't read the small print and I apologise.

(Too late dummy. Who's an ass. It's like you're a ..... dumbass.)

Cry me a river (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926221)

So much for trying to start a business and live the American Dream.

That's exactly what the authors said. They can only afford to bleed so much before they become a statistic themselves.

Re:Cry me a river (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926257)

The authors' claims don't have any more legitimacy than someone arguing that people should be forced to buy their products because otherwise they won't make any money. This was a legitimate community. I guess we should get rid of book lending, though.

Re:Cry me a river (1)

dark12222000 (1076451) | about 2 years ago | (#40927055)

Yeah! Let's burn down all the libraries! We'll murder the inter-school lending programs too! And all of their administrators!

Crowdsource (5, Interesting)

ktappe (747125) | about 2 years ago | (#40926235)

Crowdsource the job of responding to them all. I'm sure enough of us are infuriated at this turn of events that we could all lend a hand. I think the first thing you'd need is a lawyer-type to draft a boilerplate response. Nothing too long, but substantial enough to explain in, say, 3 paragraphs that you are 1) your site is 100% legal, 2) this is a standard feature of the readers, and 3) no money will be paid out to anyone under any circumstances. Then let us volunteers each "adopt" a complaint to handle. If a sufficient percentage can be done away with, perhaps your venture can survive.

Re:Crowdsource (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926355)

I'll help, but I'm not interested in a boilerplate response. I'm already cooking up my own responses, complete with language that will peel paint off the walls and threats to enlist my friends in a negative review campaign on Amazon for the book. I would also sign up for free Miley Cyrus posters to be delivered to the author's home address.

Re:Crowdsource (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40926365)

There is another option.

Go with a provider that has some backbone and won't just shut someone down on some specious and dubious copyright claims.

He is a business already paying fees, why not just give those fees to a place like Free Speech hosting?

Re:Crowdsource (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926559)

whois reveals that their host is: http://www.medialayer.com/contact/index.html

Re:Crowdsource (3, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40926607)

I let them know what I thought about the situation and how they could help recover at least a little goodwill. Dropping the requirement for them to respond individually to the ridiculous "complaints" would be a good start.

Re:Crowdsource (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926405)

I would happily volunteer to call these people. I will even be professional and polite when I discuss my legal rights at length.

Re:Crowdsource (4, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#40926581)

Crowdsourcing is only a viable option when you only need "good enough", and you can get an informed crowd together. In this case, not only is it inadvisable, it is dangerous. I would not trust volunteers to respond. An inadequate response could very well led to an undesirable situation.

If no reply is sent, the author's representation will almost certainly file suit, so you want to ensure no response is overlooked. If you do not sufficiently address each point of a C&D, your response will be considered evidence against the person you are trying to help. If in any way the volunteer gives the impression of disdain or dismissiveness, intentional infringement will be claimed.

Keep in mind, you will win any lawsuit, because they agreed to lending as part of the publishing agreement. But paying for the defense could be expensive, especially if multiple suits are filed. One volunteer screwing up and you are probably financially ruined.

And no need to bring up the "have to be rich to get justice" garbage, it's been beaten to death. Yes, it's not fair, and yes in most cases it is true. We have discussed it to death, just leave it be.

Re:Crowdsource (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40926651)

If you know you're going to win why pay for a defense? Just represent yourself. The facts in the case are self-evident.

Re:Crowdsource (4, Informative)

number11 (129686) | about 2 years ago | (#40926795)

If you know you're going to win why pay for a defense? Just represent yourself. The facts in the case are self-evident.

You never know you're going to win. It's always a crapshoot. Sure, sometimes the dice are loaded in your favor, but even loaded dice fall wrong sometimes. You didn't know the proper legal procedure? And no, it's not intuitively obvious. You're screwed. Even if you did everything legal right, dotted all the "i"s and crossed all the "t"s, it's still a crapshoot. Especially if an opinionated judge, or a jury, is involved.

"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." It's unfortunate, but true. Sometimes, if you have a sympathetic judge, you can get away with it. But don't count on it.

Re:Crowdsource (2)

mark_elf (2009518) | about 2 years ago | (#40926645)

There are lots of easy ways forward for him, but he seems to be even more butthurt than the people complaining to his host. All he was asked to do was respond to them. Fine. We don't need to crowdsource that. Don't handle any complaints, just send them all the same three paragraphs and be done. Add some text to the site somewhere to discourage this in the future. We don't need to hold this guy's weiner for him, if he wants to be in business he knows what to do.

The fact is, the site owner has a reasonably cool idea but can't be bothered with managing it. Just seems like a convenient opportunity to play the victim. Nothing to see here.

Re:Crowdsource (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40926913)

That..... and he lives in California, which Amazon is in dispute with. They suspended all affiliates in that state, so the guy's "business" has not made any money in 9 months. I can understand why he has no motivation to restore a website from which he gets no income.

I don't get it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926247)

Why doesn't he just sue the hosting company? I mean, imagine if you leased commercial space to run a store and the owner of the property came by and just randomly shuttered your shop for a few days and then opened it back up? Fine, if under some sort of court order. Complete bullshit if just arbitrarily done by the owner, as in this case. Fuck them and fuck the authors.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926447)

Because suing costs time, money, and is very stressful (even more so if you have much less money than the adversary). Weird, I know, but some people don't like to deal with lawyers, judges, and crooks in general.

He should host it through Tor or Freenet. If he really have to put it in the clear web (bad idea!), host it somewhere with saner copyright laws, like Eastern Europe or China (and possibly block local IPs to make your server less of a problem for the local government). Never host anything that might have a chance to get you in trouble neither on your country nor in the US and its puppets. Use an anonymizing service to pay for the hosting (although now it's too late for his anonymity).

Paradigm Shift Backlash (2)

Elgonn (921934) | about 2 years ago | (#40926255)

Every time the world's underlying assumptions shift there's some backlash and attempt to prevent the future from inevitably coming. But honestly either I'm just too knowledgeable about current events or everything I've read about other historical similarities seems tame in comparison. Yeah it was more violent but the world was just more violent then. Easier to club some heads or burn some equipment than employ lawyers. The breadth and scale of the backlash across everything in the digital space is just depressing.

Copyright, first sale, fair use, etc.

This was just the equivalent of a book club (slightly monetized). A twist on a library. This is getting ridiculous.

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#40926393)

"This was just the equivalent of a book club"

The first rule of book club is: You do not talk about book club.
The second rule of book club is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT BOOK CLUB...

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash (4, Funny)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#40926515)

"This was just the equivalent of a book club"

The first rule of book club is: You do not talk about book club.
The second rule of book club is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT BOOK CLUB...

It'd be a little ironic if you couldn't write about it, though.

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#40926915)

The third rule of book club is: You bring bagels and coffee when it's your turn

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926403)

Say goodbye to your free speech, USA.

They and It will come! Probably shortly after they confescate your ability to defend yourself ;-)

We've about to say "goodbye" to ours. The ability and responsibility to defend ourselves was handed over to authorities in the late ninties and now we have the Finkelstien report...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_totalitarian_instinct_in_finkelsteins_report/

But, the bigest fish of all is the USA. Beleive they're coming for you guys. And while you have people bleating like they do about an online "book club" it provides the fuel for their fire.

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash (3, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | about 2 years ago | (#40926813)

I just wonder how we're going to get rid of this false concept of ownership, which is what needs to happen for us to have any chance of keeping our free speech and open internet, considering the last time it required a civil war. "Occupying" a park certainly isn't going to change things, nor is voting, nor is the libertarian dream of "voting with your feet."

"So much for the American Dream" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926317)

WAAAAAAH this makes me so sad. The business owner clearly did not give a flying fuck if authors' revenues dried up as a result of strangers swapping ebooks in his digital marketplace, rather than buying them from Amazon or B&N. Tough shit for them, they need a better business model, he would've said.

Instead, it's tough shit for the business owner.

Re:"So much for the American Dream" (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#40926423)

Ignore the irony of book authors who can't (or can't be bothered to) read. They gave him the rights to do what he did, and they had day after remorse.

Re:"So much for the American Dream" (2)

SilverJets (131916) | about 2 years ago | (#40926619)

WAAAAAAH this makes me so sad. The business owner clearly did not give a flying fuck if authors' revenues dried up as a result of strangers swapping ebooks in his digital marketplace, rather than buying them from Amazon or B&N. Tough shit for them, they need a better business model, he would've said.

Instead, it's tough shit for the business owner.

No. Amazon gave the strangers the ability to swap ebooks. All this guy did was make a place where strangers could meet and compare lists of books.
If anything these authors and publisher should be kicking themselves for giving Amazon this ability.

Re:"So much for the American Dream" (4, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 years ago | (#40926837)

Authors had to sign contracts allowing said lending though. Not all did, and you can't lend out those books, not even once.

Thing is, book lending is good for sales, as Baen has discovered.

Re:"So much for the American Dream" (2)

mdenham (747985) | about 2 years ago | (#40927321)

For that matter, Baen has also discovered that giving away copies of certain books is good for sales of later books in those series.

God, I love the 1632 series.

Here's my response: (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40926319)

(knock)(knock)(knock)

Hi yes. I received this email that you are complaining because I (and others) are loaning out books with our Kindles and Nooks. This is perfectly legal under the terms of Amazon and Barnes & Noble's contracts with the Authors' Guild.

"I don't care. I will porsecute you and rape you for all your money!!!!" - typical author at the door

Oh okay. (BAM). From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants (and any others who would seek to limit freedom within these united States). So that's one tyrant down. Who's next?

Fully Automated Solution (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#40926325)

for Complainer in Complainers:
          print("Dear " + Complainer + ", \n");
          print("No.");

Alternative? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#40926351)

Crap. I wish I knew this existed before. Is there any alternative sites out there? Maybe I should start one myself.

Re:Alternative? (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40926435)

>Is there any alternative sites out there?

Yes, it's called bittorrent, because clearly the publishers are not interested in playing by the rules anyway. If it was up to them, brick and mortar libraries would disappear too.

--
BMO

Re:Alternative? (4, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | about 2 years ago | (#40927149)

It's not the publishers doing it in this case, it was the authors. And most authors don't want libraries gone completely. Oh no, they want them to pay the author 10 cents each time the book is loaned out. That's what they managed to get in England, and they are furious at how small it is (the fee, not England). They say that since each loan is a loss of a 5-10 pound sale, they are reasonably owed at LEAST one pound each time somebody borrows a book from the library, absolute minimum. The lesson is the oft repeated "give an inch and they'll take a mile." You extend copyright a year, they'll keep demanding it again and again until, oh look, it lasts 150 years. You give them a cent and they will demand a million dollars because they have come to rely on your government handouts but find they are insufficient. In this case the list of anti-sharing, anti-reading, authors needs to be published so they can be boycotted.

Re:Alternative? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#40926679)

I haven't used it yet but I just found Lendle [lendle.me] for Kindle users.

Re:Alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927053)

Is there any alternative sites out there?

Yes. The library. Most libraries have ebook lending these days.

If you are done with it, open source the code. (5, Insightful)

beernutz (16190) | about 2 years ago | (#40926361)

This would let a LOT of these kind of sites flourish.

I say, turn it around on them. Let them all spaz out when they see 100 more sites offering this service pop up.

Publish and they'll perish (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926377)

He should publish the name of the authors who complained. Authors are definitely vulnerable to negative press. And certainly legal threats can't be thought to be private.

Re:Publish and they'll perish (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | about 2 years ago | (#40926459)

This would be awesome.

Put it all for the public to see.

Re:Publish and they'll perish (5, Funny)

canajin56 (660655) | about 2 years ago | (#40927327)

People are currently scraping forums looking for authors complaining about the site and bragging about getting it taken down. Their works are being compiled into a single torrent for easy piracy ;) The idea is to get all of these beyond-retarded inbreeds tilling at TPB so that they won't bother burning down any more libraries.

Re:Publish and they'll perish (5, Interesting)

number11 (129686) | about 2 years ago | (#40926831)

He should publish the name of the authors who complained. Authors are definitely vulnerable to negative press. And certainly legal threats can't be thought to be private.

Mod this up!

Names? No, publish the entire email. So that we can, for instance, write the authors and share our opinion with them.

I want the names of the authors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926401)

So I can boycott them forever.

Re:I want the names of the authors (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#40926713)

Sounds good to me.

This is why you don't host with GoDaddy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926429)

Because they're dicks. This kind of stuff just keeps happening.

Sqeaky Wheel gets the grease (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | about 2 years ago | (#40926487)

I just read a bunch of the posts in the Kindle forum which is populated by the indie authors. The overwhelming majority there is fine with the lending and feel bad for Dale. The vocal few always get things their way ...

What's weird is that I don't understand how he was going to monetize this? Ads? Priority lending status for paying members?

He can solve his problem by going to another host and start again. I'm sure he has a backup somewhere. Just host it outside the US to be safe.

Re:Sqeaky Wheel gets the grease (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926527)

Minsc, is that you ? You've gone soft !

Re:Sqeaky Wheel gets the grease (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926579)

He was making money through amazon's referral program, getting a cut from every book that was purchased via clicking through his site. That's no longer the case because of Amazon's spat with California's new sales tax law. (He's based in California.)

Don't quit now (2)

genocism (2577895) | about 2 years ago | (#40926547)

Don't quit now, you just got the media attention that you need! You've worked hard on this project and owe it to your self to see of your new found publicity is the tipping point. Good luck.

As an Indie Author Myself... (4, Informative)

Synchis (191050) | about 2 years ago | (#40926563)

This really disappoints me. :(

I saw this coming when the site started circulating the facebook groups I'm involved in. In each case I explained how the site worked, and defended LendInk.com for what they were doing.

The knee-jerking that resulted in this sites shut down is a perfect exampled of what happens when a bunch of frustrated indie authors don't take the time to read or research a site before crying foul.

This is why I still buy paper books (3, Insightful)

SilverJets (131916) | about 2 years ago | (#40926577)

I own them. Neither Amazon nor the author can take them away from me.

I can loan them to whomever I wish for however long I wish and the author can go pound sand.

Re:This is why I still buy paper books (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#40927237)

Yeah, but Chronus, bookworms and the Catholic Church can still destroy your books...

That's not a take down! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926595)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/08/2232243/kim-dotcom-raid---what-really-happened now that's a take down! Coming soon to a house near you!

If you don't want to have similar problems... (1)

milonssecretsn (1392667) | about 2 years ago | (#40926617)

You might want to avoid the following webhost:

$ whois lendink.com | grep -a1 servers

      Domain servers in listed order:
            NS3.MEDIALAYER.NET

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926637)

Switch to a better hosting company.

Must not have been a good business... (1)

Memroid (898199) | about 2 years ago | (#40926641)

"I really do not know if it is worth the effort at this point" - If the site creator isn't willing to respond to a few hundred emails, then the business probably wasn't worth much to them to begin with. Responding to the complaints "individually" doesn't mean having a full on conversation with each person complaining either. If you don't want to respond each person, then just switch to a different host: problem solved!

Re:Must not have been a good business... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926721)

"I really do not know if it is worth the effort at this point" - If the site creator isn't willing to respond to a few hundred emails, then the business probably wasn't worth much to them to begin with. Responding to the complaints "individually" doesn't mean having a full on conversation with each person complaining either. If you don't want to respond each person, then just switch to a different host: problem solved!

Amazon dropped Lendink as an Affiliate due to digital rights violations or new digital rights laws in California. This is 100% false. Lendink is a California based company and as such, was cut off from earning money from sales when Amazon and the State of California disagreed over the collection of State Sales Tax. Amazon cut off all of their California affiliates from earning money via their affiliate program. It was not just Lendink. This only prevented us from earning money via Amazon. It did not however stop use from matching people for book lending.

reading is hard.

Authors still attacking their Facebook page (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926753)

Right here:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/LendInk/124974504234948

Interesting discussion there.

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927017)

Oh shit! Those authors are f*cking dumb.

Can they not read? How do they write books?

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page (3, Insightful)

Ian Lamont (1116549) | about 2 years ago | (#40927083)

Go to the "see all" discussions on this page [facebook.com] to see authors' misguided complaints (most are in early August). Some samples:

Remove my books from your lists immediately...The Eternal Question and Children of Hamelin. I am seeking legal action... ... I own the copyright to my books and I did NOT give you permission to put them on your sight for lending. REMOVE THEM IMMEDIATELY! ... Please remove my three books from this site. My novel Queen Sacrifice took over a year to write and I consider book piracy to be theft from authors. Any readers who download stolen books are also guilty of stealing from authors. ... I'll add my name to this list of people pissed off that you are lending my book without my permission. This will serve as your only notice that you are to remove my book Morgan: The scandal that shook Freemasonry from your service immediately.

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#40927181)

No shit.

Which side of the intellectual property argument is suffering entitlement issues again?

I really wish that those fuckholes could be enjoined in a conspiracy to commit harassment, and wrongful prosecution case.

Simply because you are an author does not make you fucking superman. By all means, protect your works, but don't turn into a fucking spazzmonkey lynchmob with pitchforks and torches because you feel butthurt that people might *DARE* to exchange books for awhile, and that *somebody* might do the "heinous crime" of bringing such people together for that purpose.

The whole "If you are reading it and didn't pay for it, you are a pirate! No exceptions!" Crowd can go fuck themselves. They don't deserve my respect. They don't deserve my money, and as far as I am concerned, they don't deserve to get published.

The very idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926771)

is ludicrous anyway. Virtual lending? Are you serious? This is beyond ridiculous; even more ridiculous then the used digital download games business. Why go through all the trouble and theater? Just send a copy to your friends and be done with it; it makes no difference.

It's amazing the absurdities people are willing to subject themselves to...

Re:The very idea... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927007)

is ludicrous anyway. Virtual lending? Are you serious? This is beyond ridiculous; even more ridiculous then the used digital download games business. Why go through all the trouble and theater? Just send a copy to your friends and be done with it; it makes no difference.

It's amazing the absurdities people are willing to subject themselves to...

You can't just copy it. They are encrypted and tied to the account you purchased it with. You can send the file, but it's not viewable on any other e-reader.

(Unless you downloaded it from TPB in the first place anyway, which you probably should have - or just figuring out how to decrypt every file you send that you bought )

The Great American Dream! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40926825)

No, it's not home ownership, it's vigilante justice.

Yes folks, if you are an American you can shutdown -k a the website of your choosing simply by complaining. There's not waiting for some crusty old judge or lawyers saddled by common law or the rules of evidence. Just pick a site and complain to their hosting service that something on the site violates the Mickey Mouse/Sonny Bono law Copyright or the DMCA and wait for 5 minutes.

Publicly Post Each and Every Complaint (3, Interesting)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#40926851)

Let the crowd have their Names and Contacts. If they're lucky 4chan stays out of it.

And piracy stll goes on (3, Insightful)

SealBeater (143912) | about 2 years ago | (#40926867)

I bet this didn't make the slightest dent in book piracy either.

It certainly did make a dent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927085)

just not in piracy.

Re:And piracy stll goes on (2)

Synchis (191050) | about 2 years ago | (#40927089)

Book piracy is very much like Music Piracy.

You can't stop it, no matter how hard you try.

I don't enable DRM on my books. Why? Because DRM doesn't stop piracy. I don't *want* people to pirate my book, but I don't honestly believe there is a damn thing I could do about it if my book *did* get pirated.

The hope is that the exposure I gain from any kind of piracy will offset the piracy itself. Right? :)

Re:And piracy stll goes on (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#40927243)

Quite the opposite. I wonder how many ex LendInkers, frustrated that their legitimate channel for sharing books was denied, threw their hands up in frustration, said "screw playing by their rules then", and took themselves away to the Pirate Bay.

Yet again (2)

Trogre (513942) | about 2 years ago | (#40926955)

Once again, thank you copyright.

With a capital F.

The American Dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927151)

Did someone tell him that magically, good things happen when you start a business?
It's all fun and games until legal issues come about.

Yet again, Stallman was right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40927157)

"The Right to Read"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Oh, come on! (1)

Stiletto (12066) | about 2 years ago | (#40927311)

The 'business owner' needs to grow a pair. "Ohhhhh! Woe is me, I have to sit in my easy chair and answer E-mails! THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD!" A little dramatic, are we?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...