# Are we allowed to discuss LendInk?



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Since the original thread was locked I wasn't sure. This issue has not gone away and I think it bares additional discussion. I feel as though, although I was aware of the situation and to some degree spoke up, that I didn't do enough. And I am reacting very negatively to the non-apologies that are popping up across the internet. 

A discussion of what we should have done, if some of us should have done more, and how to react would seem to me to be in order, but if not, I understand deleting or locking this.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

I don't know, JR; the one group I'm in where this came up I did what I could and when it seemed people understood they'd overreacted when the site officially came down it simmered up again. Other than these threads there were more people bringing up the reason it wasn't illegal or wrong than those going hyper. 

Other than publically calling out one of the biggest offenders in all of this and posting the links to the blog post to encourage hate comments (which is what would commence) if you're too proud to admit you were wrong nothing is going to force it. 

Just go to the LendInk Facebook page and see the post after post of authors making fools of themselves thinking their high dudgeon is valid. I'd love to see the mea culpa's from each one who proudly sent the cease and desist emails to the host provider. 

I've not been aware of any of the non apologies myself but I also do not know how this might be prevented in the future. Individuals are smart, people in groups are stupid.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Oh, I have seen a number of non-apologies. They have ranged from, "I'm sorry it happened but it was his fault for not explaining our agreement with Amazon to us" to "Well, he wasn't guilty but I'm still proud because it was a shot across the bow to real pirates". (Say what? How is attacking a *non-pirate *a shot across the bow to actual pirates who are sitting there laughing their a**es off)

There is one that is not apologizing because the site had a picture of his cover so he claims that was a copyright violation. The fact that the picture of the cover led to an Amazon link (and it was certainly Fair Use) just seems to be way more than he cares to process. Other authors are trying to delete their posts and tweets to hide what they did, which doesn't work either.

There is a lot of heat on this topic. I think it made authors look both stupid and vindictive because of the HUGE number of authors involved. Some of them are getting flooded with one-star reviews which I don't think is a good thing, but I AM scouring my Twitter lists and UNfollowing most of the authors who were involved except a few who have in fact published apologies -- with NO excuses.

Edit: I also withdrew from a forum where a number of authors were defending their actions. I think KB was one of the few boards where most people actually LISTENED to the explanations and few from here were involved.

I am not posting links to the defenses because I won't feed them traffic. Sorry.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

unfollowing is actually not a bad idea; the one star reviews is just pointless hate if you wouldn't have rated it low in the first place all things being equal but I like the idea that actions have consequences. I know most in my other group realized they'd been wrong though I do not know how many may have written to the host other than writing to Amazon and asking the wrong question.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I feel bad that I didn't respond to tweets to say this was all totally wrong, but I also wasn't following twitter closely. I've been in the middle of heavy edits so my time on Twitter has been quite limited. I wish I had spoken up more strongly. 

I think people who did this and haven't said it was wrong should face consequences, but harassment or 1-star reviews aren't the way. Unfollowing and you can bet they won't get blog traffic from me or any site I control seem like the best and most reasonable reaction I can think of.

I think the tweets that absolutely make me livid are the "I'm being picked on" ones from some of the authors who were the most active in the twitmob.


----------



## IreneP (Jun 19, 2012)

Gah - 

I was on several forums where this was discussed. For those in attack mode that were firing off the cease and desists, no amount of calm logic seemed to quell the panic.  Trust me, there are *still* people who don't understand what he was doing and why it wasn't piracy.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

IreneP said:


> Gah -
> 
> I was on several forums where this was discussed. For those in attack mode that were firing off the cease and desists, no amount of calm logic seemed to quell the panic. Trust me, there are *still* people who don't understand what he was doing and why it wasn't piracy.


Yep. Indeed there are. They don't want to understand because if they do, they have to admit they were in the wrong.

I just had one of them post on my blog. I allowed the one post but in response said that the only posts I would allow from the guilty parties in the future are apologies.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I, too, feel bad for what happened to LendInk, and I feel bad that I didn't know all the craziness was going on over on Twitter. I rarely look at Twitter these days, plus I had a lot going on personally when this whole thing was blowing up. (Good friend passed away.) So, I feel bad, but I don't know that I could have done more than what I did.

I'm just sad that things were so misunderstood, and then blew way out of proportion. Hopefully we can all learn from this. And I hope Dale can get his website back up and running, if that's what he wants. (And if he's given up on it, I feel really bad. Hopefully he can sell it or something to get a little back from all his work.)


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

I didn't realize this was so big on twitter either, only really watch Facebook and this board on a regular basis. But, stemming the tide might have been tough and appearantly this thing still seems to have legs.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

Victorine said:


> Good friend passed away


Sorry for your loss. Although I'm sure your thoughts would have been helpful in all this but sometimes we have to tend to our own needs. No need for you to feel bad.

This whole thing has been bad all around. I just hope that people will read things a little more clearly and not be so quick to draw a sword.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Sorry to hear about your friend, Vicki. I don't think you have anything to feel bad about.

I don't really think that my speaking up on twitter would have made a difference, but I would feel better if I had tried. Hopefully, as Bethany says, some lessons were learned.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

In defense of my ignorance, I have been buried in wordcounts and house selling, but I have no clue what is going on or even what LendInk is. I'm off to google now to see if I can get a summary. Sounds like I missed something big.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> In defense of my ignorance, I have been buried in wordcounts and house selling, but I have no clue what is going on or even what LendInk is. I'm off to google now to see if I can get a summary. Sounds like I missed something big.


I briefly explain what happened on my blog if you want to look there. JR Tomlin on Writing and More. Nasty, nasty affair that I very much wish had never happened.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

KayBratt said:


> In defense of my ignorance, I have been buried in wordcounts and house selling, but I have no clue what is going on or even what LendInk is. I'm off to google now to see if I can get a summary. Sounds like I missed something big.


Someone was running a site to help connect readers wanting to legitimately borrow ebooks, the one-time-lends Amazon allows. A large number of authors got confused about lending and thought it was piracy. They issued a lot of take-down notices and got the site shut down. Many are realizing too late what the site was doing wasn't piracy at all and that the site didn't even host their books, just their covers and links to Amazon, where the books could be borrowed. There's now a lot of backlash against authors in general because of the site getting shut down.


----------



## Sara Fawkes (Apr 22, 2012)

I never even heard about the kerfluffle until I saw a Passive Guy post about the site being shut down. It's sad to see ignorance ruin what was a good way to get your stories out to the public. Hopefully people are a bit more educated on what the Lending tickybox really means, but the people crowing how this was a "blow against pirates" really irks me...


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Sorry to hear about your friend, Vicki. I don't think you have anything to feel bad about.
> 
> I don't really think that my speaking up on twitter would have made a difference, but I would feel better if I had tried. Hopefully, as Bethany says, some lessons were learned.


I just popped onto Twitter and searched on LendInk and wow, some of the blogs I found are still trying to educate a few of the denser of authors still trying to justify their role. But, I also found plenty of people who were tweeting about this days ago trying to speak sense to idiocy.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Sara Fawkes said:


> the people crowing how this was a "blow against pirates" really irks me...


Same here.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Yikes, I just read a few blog posts and what a mess.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I briefly explain what happened on my blog if you want to look there. JR Tomlin on Writing and More. Nasty, nasty affair that I very much wish had never happened.


I still feel it's unfair you're calling CC out as a bad group since (although I haven't seen how it went down on this place) I found them to handle the situation well. There were one or two people who simply didn't like what the site did after they found out what the site actually did (and they were allowed to) but I didn't see how any of us involved in that topic would have been part of the huge mob that wanted the site down.
Sometimes people just don't agree with something, that happens and I feel it is wrong to call out Critique Circle for being a bad place just because some people simply didn't like a website. The rest of us (the other 10+ people involved in the topic) understood what was going on and never were part of the mob and there were even apologies.

Of course it's your choice that you left but I feel you are making CC out to be a bad guy when they weren't.

On the topic of LendInk, I tried to get a few groups to understand what was going on but people simply kept shouting that is was bad and either ignored or simply refused to understand when I tried to explain it. I did leave a few groups because of it, but this had already been long overdue since there had been fictions for a long time before that.

I feel bad for the guy, especially since his webhost won't get the website back online until he has dealt with all the hatemail personally, which in some cases will mean legal actions. The guy has health problems, I don't think he would want to deal with his all by himself. I would get it if he doesn't want to get his website back up because of that.

Here is a link to an article that best explains what has gone on, which also explains why Dan might not get the website back up: What happened to LendInk? The owner responds.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

kiazishiru said:


> Here is a link to an article that best explains what has gone on, which also explains why Dan might not get the website back up: What happened to LendInk? The owner responds.


I'll note that the linked article is by KB Member Ian Lamont.

Betsy


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I saw the start of the first thread on here about it - but a couple of people had already pointed out that lending was allowed, so I didn't bother to wade in, as I didn't want to make the OP feel that people were having a go at her when she'd already acknowledged that it wasn't a pirate site and thanked people for explaining.

I didn't check the thread after that until I saw it had been locked (bad me I know, but locked threads are always more interesting!)  

By that point the site had already been taken down.  I saw Dale's post on here and thought what had happened to him was really unfair.  As the thread here was closed, I sent him a message over Facebook expressing my sympathies/commiserations and encouraging him not to give up.  I hope he tries again with a new host (and hopefully a bit of support) - but after the threats he's received (and probably continues to receive) from people who don't understand that it's all legitimate and allowed - I wouldn't blame him if he decided to move on.


----------



## Strayer (Jul 30, 2011)

What was it that writers didn't understand that the links went back to their books on Amazon. I thought writers had to have some sort of reading comprehension. I read the explanation on the first thread and I understood it.
We have lost a site where our books got more exposure.
The mean and ignorant have tried to destroy someone who helped writers.
For any writer who participated in getting the site taken down, good going ace. You just cut off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

kiazishiru said:


> I still feel it's unfair you're calling CC out as a bad group since (although I haven't seen how it went down on this place) I found them to handle the situation well. There were one or two people who simply didn't like what the site did after they found out what the site actually did (and they were allowed to) but I didn't see how any of us involved in that topic would have been part of the huge mob that wanted the site down.
> Sometimes people just don't agree with something, that happens and I feel it is wrong to call out Critique Circle for being a bad place just because some people simply didn't like a website. The rest of us (the other 10+ people involved in the topic) understood what was going on and never were part of the mob and there were even apologies.
> 
> Of course it's your choice that you left but I feel you are making CC out to be a bad guy when they weren't.
> ...


I don't think I called CC a bad group. In fact, there is certainly good to be said about CC. I got a lot out of my membership but I simply strongly disagree with how it was handled there and what people were saying. Some of the people from CC were involved in the whole thing and continued to defend what they did, so I left. After receiving threats to his family, I hardly blame him for not being eager to get back into the whole thing but there are people out there (including at least one on CC) who are using that as an excuse to continue attacking him.

Yes, the links from LendInk went to Amazon. It took a couple of clicks for me to go there and figure that out. If you are going to accuse someone of breaking the law, you should at least do due diligence to make sure that you have at least SOME reason for the accusation.

*sigh* This has been a horrible episode and has not made indie authors look good. Normally, I say when a single author misbehaves it doesn't reflect that much on us, but in this case it was a whole lot of them. There's not much we can do about it, but for sure the people involved won't get my support.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Strayer said:


> What was it that writers didn't understand that the links went back to their books on Amazon.


Many of them had no understanding that they'd agreed to allow their books to be in the one time loan program. It's hard to understand people who sign up for things and refuse to read the TOS, but many do. Questions on different forums make that clear. For that matter I know a lot of people who sign other kinds of contracts without reading them (and then want to get out of the terms based on their own negligence).


----------



## eBooksHabit (Mar 5, 2012)

What irks me is people still not admitting they were wrong.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Isn't there a penalty for filing false DMCA claims?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Gregory Lynn said:


> Isn't there a penalty for filing false DMCA claims?


I've read that there is, but don't know how that works. It's an interesting question whether it will be pursued. The fact that there at least potential penalties should give people pause before they take that kind of action without being sure of the situation.


----------



## LucyFrancis (Sep 8, 2011)

Not only was I flabbergasted at the number of authors who didn't comprehend the one-time lend (and some who swore up and down that they would NEVER allow lending), but I've been shocked at the number who don't understand the difference between the one-time lend and the Prime membership Lending Library.

I'm so disappointed in the failure to apologize by the writers on my loops who went after LendInk after the situation was explained ad nauseum. What really gets under my skin are those who went after him and issue a sort of back-handed apology and then want the subject to disappear because they're tired of it now.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm going to say this for what it's worth, and okay, it may be a controversial opinion... I think the authors involved with this deserve every one star rating they get.

They shut down a site that was bringing exposure to authors and providing a service to readers. In a very real way, they took money out of the pockets of authors as well as Dale himself, both for what LendInk was and for what it could have become. And for what? For the idea, the shocking idea, that someone, somewhere, _might_ have gotten a copy of their book for free.

Not 'they did get a copy'. 'They _might _have gotten a copy'. They attacked LendInk without even knowing for sure that their livelyhood had ever been harmed.

If they had done any kind of due diligence, they would have seen that the lends went through Amazon's and B&N's systems, and it was not on LendInk if the books were not supposed to have that functionality. If they had done any kind of due diligence, LendInk would still be online.

On top of that, it's one thing to destroy a legitimate business because it could be used for piracy, but it's quite another to destroy a legitimate business because you can't tell the difference between that and actual piracy. As far as I'm concerned, any of these authors that still maintains they did the right thing needs to get slapped around with bad ratings - there is no other way, realistically, for the community to punish them. The ones that apologise? It's good that they're willing, but they're not owed forgiveness from anyone, and if they continue to catch flak for what they did, then so be it (though they have my respect at least).

Having said all that... I don't think it reflects on indie authors as a whole. We are all of us an island, in a way - we can't really be judged collectively. It would be like judging bloggers as a single homogeneous group. It simply makes no sense, as the methods and choices we all make in how we publish vary from author to author. What we can say is yes, this group behaved badly - but there are far, far more who did nothing or missed the whole episode or defended LendInk.

The things that reflect well or reflect badly on indie authors are the things that are common to all or the vast majority of us. This event, I think, was not one of those things.


----------



## eBooksHabit (Mar 5, 2012)

Gregory Lynn said:


> Isn't there a penalty for filing false DMCA claims?


From what I gather, most if not all of the requests were simple Cease & Desist, not formal DMCA claims (unfortunately).

Had they been DMCA claims, then I am pretty sure Dale would have legal recourse.

For authors that have admitted to stuff, it seems like most of the complaints followed this type of format: "OMGZZZ!!!?!!1 tAKE DOWN MY BOOK NOW U ROTTEN PIRATE" and not a formal DMCA takedown.

The host was a small host, and they didn't wanna deal w/ the overwhelming amount of messages, so they just shut it down, despite the lack of actual requests.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> I'm going to say this for what it's worth, and okay, it may be a controversial opinion... I think the authors involved with this deserve every one star rating they get.
> 
> They shut down a site that was bringing exposure to authors and providing a service to readers. In a very real way, they took money out of the pockets of authors as well as Dale himself, both for what LendInk was and for what it could have become. And for what? For the idea, the shocking idea, that someone, somewhere, _might_ have gotten a copy of their book for free.
> 
> ...


I can't totally disagree with you about the reviews. I won't do that but I can't criticise the people who make that decision. Finding out who was involved isn't hard and there is a site that has posted screenshots of author comments. We should do due diligence about authors who took part just as they should have done due diligence about LendInk. A lot are trying to cover their tracks but that isn't too easy to do, I'm happy to say.

And I hope you're right this debacle doesn't reflect on all indie authors because not all of us were guilty.


----------



## Owen (Aug 24, 2011)

The whole debacle has been one of those catalysing moments where you suddenly see how the rest of the world sees you. All of a sudden, I gained a new appreciation for those book reviewers with their "No indies" signs. I did attempt to engage with one or two on facebook, but it didn't get very far. I'm not going to go out there and bomb them with one-star reviews, but I did decide not to financially support anyone who participates in a baying mob.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2012)

Gregory Lynn said:


> Isn't there a penalty for filing false DMCA claims?


The penalty is for knowingly filing a false claim. There are, unfortunately, no penalties for simply being stupid.  

And it is less a matter of poor reading comprehension than not reading at all. The people complaining never read their TOS agreements. They never actually visited Lendlink and read the site's policy. They heard from a friend who heard from a friend and saw a post on FB about a tweet from a guy who knows a guy. NOBODY stopped to go back to the source material and see what was actually going on. Its like the old saying about how a lie can travel around the world before the truth puts on its shoes.

Further, and this is not just a problem with writers but the public in general, people tend to believe the first version of a story they hear. Particularly if they hear it from someone they know. This is a documented physchological phenomena. People actually need to train themselves to not believe the first version they hear and go to the source material. At least once a day I have to make a trip to snopes.com to discredit some stupid "share if you agree!" post on FB because people continue to reinforce myths that have already been disproven.

And the situation is only getting worse because too many people are in a hurry to jump on a hot topic (for SEO, for publicity, for traffic to their site) that they just repeat the story without doing the work to check the source material. We have lost the ability to independently research ANYTHING. Instead, we just post a link that says "Hey, does anyone know about this it seems weird" and get MORE people riled up instead of stopping and thinking.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Idiots. Too bad some writers don't think before they type.


----------



## eBooksHabit (Mar 5, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> At least once a day I have to make a trip to snopes.com to discredit some stupid "share if you agree!" post on FB because people continue to reinforce myths that have already been disproven.


With the election ramping up here soon, this is only going to get worse.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

1-stars aren't the way to go about it. 

a blog or website should be created with a black-list of authors who railed against LendInk. The list can be updated as public apologies are made. Then people who care about the issue can make purchases based on their feelings for the authors. Without a bunch of illegitimate 1-star reviews. Remember, reviews are supposed to be for the quality of the book, not the author's actions or beliefs. We can't start condoning 1-star reviews as retribution for acts that we disagree with, lest the entire review system become corrupted by people reviewing up or down people they like or dislike.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

I am embarrassed this happened. Though I didn't take part in any of the harassment of this site, its owner, or the host (it took me a very short time to figure out it was legal, and from there I saw how beneficial these sites could be for unknown writers), I kind of blush over how silly (yet destructive) it all was.

Again, I am under the "this makes us all look like clowns" shame, though I know this has been debated a lot on these boards. I just can't help but feel like it harms the indie/small pub image. (MHO) (ETA: Perhaps not the lynching itself, but a lot of the rhetoric around the postmortem has reflected this. Sadly, a lot of people are pouring this on all of us, whether we participated or not.)

What really gets me steamed is the number of people who continued to bash away even after the site was closed, and still do! How much clearer could the issue be made? Even if they felt "misguided" (which many of them do say, as if they were under the imperious curse), how long can that last once all the facts are out?

I hope this situation can be educational for people. I saw *publishers* encourage their writers to send letters! Authors who decided to trust them blindly assumed the publishers would know the facts, when they didn't. Many other authors just trusted other writers, for no reason other than it was a Twitter moment.

I hope this reminds people to just look for themselves, and not assume any random person with a Twitter account, or some publishing company, knows what's going on. It literally took me under ten minutes to decide this site was legit. I am baffled by why others found it so confusing.

I hope Dale is okay. This must have been quite stressful. If I can help with the rebuilding, if that's what he wants, I am willing do what I can.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Actually, the penalty is for filing a false DMCA takedown, period. There is no "knowingly" clause. If you file one, the onus is on you to be right. If you are wrong, you're probably going to get sued. That's important - vital - in protecting people from others abusing the system.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense in US courts. This is really important for all writers to understand. The DMCA takedown is a powerful tool for us to use. But there are penalties for its misuse.

Likewise, libel is a big deal. If you tweet something about someone, and what you tweet is untrue, you have just committed libel. "Oh, I was just passing along what I heard" is not a defense in a libel suit. Ever. (Citing someone else is ok: if you Tweet "Joe says Ralph is an ebook pirate!" and Joe really said that, it's not libel. If Joe tells you Ralph is an ebook pirate and you tweet "Ralph is an ebook pirate!" and Ralph isn't, then you have just committed libel. Prepare to be sued.)

With the high profile nature of this thing, it would shock me if the site owner was not able to get a lawyer interested in working these cases.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Hmmm...nope. No, two wrongs still don't make a right. Sorry, guys.
> 
> In all seriousness: all considerable ethical issues aside, this is annoying, _as a reader_. There are plenty of terrible people who've written great books that I'm glad I had the privilege to read. Someone who engages in this is 1-starring the book as a way of punishing the author, and this is just as big of an abuse of the reviewing system as any other form of BS. There are no ratings features for author pages, probably for really good reasons. Finally, I believe Amazon has immediately removed all such 1-stars. That should probably tell you something.
> 
> And if you meant to make a distinction between "they deserve the 1-stars" and actually condoning the practice of giving them 1-stars...honestly I think that's a distinction without a difference. They may be bad people; then call them bad people in public forums, on websites, whatever. Let the world see them for what they are. Don't _join_ them.


Honestly, I am not sure.

Is it valid to post a review that says: This author is a jerk who libeled someone and you shouldn't buy their book.

Well, it might violate the Amazon guidelines and they _might_ remove it, but I can't say that people don't have the right to that opinion. AND to voice it.

Edit: As I said, I won't post 1-star reviews like that, but I will not criticise the people who do so. It is their decision. I won't support those authors as indies though. The ones I followed (and it wasn't many of them which may be partially why I missed a lot of the hysteria) I have UNfollowed. I'll see that they are not welcome on my blog, etc. That's not much but it is actions that *I* feel comfortable with. If someone else feels comfortable with giving review warnings... I still can't criticise them for their choice.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2012)

KevinMcLaughlin said:


> Actually, the penalty is for filing a false DMCA takedown, period. There is no "knowingly" clause. If you file one, the onus is on you to be right.


Anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not you can be cited for filing a false report is if you commit _perjury_, which is knowingly making an untrue statement. Specifically, when you file a DMCA notice, you are testifying under perjury that the statements are true. There is a fundamental legal difference between making a statement you believe to be true but is not, and knowingly making a false statement. If not, every witness that has ever testified in court could be cited for perjury, even when they 100% beleived what they were saying at the time. Believing something that is wrong is not the same thing as perjury.

When you file a takedown notice, the responsibility is on you to provide evidence to support your claim. However, if someone cites you for perjury, they in turn would need to present evidence that you willfully made false claims under the definition of perjury.


----------



## Vera R. (Jun 13, 2011)

It's sad. 

I'll admit I was misinformed about LendInk (I found out through another writer's group) but when I came on here and read the original thread, I changed my opinion and applauded. No, I didn't go post an angry message on LendInk's FB page or send an equally angry letter. Honestly, I didn't do anything. Had I known or even predicted what happened, I would've done more. I totally missed the Twitter uproar. 

I would not be surprised in the least bit after all this that e-book piracy will become even more prevalent. Why would anyone pay for their book if they can just get a pirated copy? A 1-star review can get removed. If you really want to hurt someone, you will hit their wallet and watch the snowball effect.


----------



## ilamont (Jul 14, 2012)

I've written a follow-up blog post to my original mini-interview with Dale Porter. Here's the latest:

*LendInk Witch Hunt, Part II: It's gone too far*

Summary: I documented some of the online discussion that's taking place about LendInk. I've also noted the rise of a new torch mob whose fringe is carrying out a campaign to punish those authors who have failed to apologize or are unrepentant about their original actions against LendInk


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ilamont said:


> I've written a follow-up blog post to my original mini-interview with Dale Porter. Here's the latest:
> 
> *LendInk Witch Hunt, Part II: It's gone too far*
> 
> Summary: I documented some of the online discussion that's taking place about LendInk. I've also noted the rise of a new torch mob whose fringe is carrying out a campaign to punish those authors who have failed to apologize or are unrepentant about their original actions against LendInk


Thank you but I do not think that insisting that those who wronged this man should pay is the equivalent of going after someone who did nothing wrong.

Edit: Your assumption that anything one does is fine if you apologize (and many of these people are NOT) and that there should not be consequences for wronging someone is simply wrongheaded. I could not disagree more.

You also totally miss the point that he was not guilty of piracy. They *are* guilty of libel. So if what you see on this thread is in your opinion a "mob" then I think you need to put on your realism spectacles.

I have every right to refuse to support fellow authors who behave in this manner and shame the indie community. I have every intention of carrying out that right.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> You also totally miss the point that he was not guilty of piracy. They *are* guilty of libel.


Which makes it a civil matter for LendInk to pursue.

Look, everyone knows I have no issue "calling out" bad behavior, and we SHOULD call out bad behavior. But it has to be done in the right way at the right time and in the right place, otherwise it just makes the matter worse. The poor behavior of one person never justifies the poor behavior of another.

Yes, we should continue to discuss this issue to try to prevent it from happening again.
Yes, we should encourage people to check their facts before leveling accusations at any person or site.
Yes, we should call out people who spread misinformation.

But, witch hunts have a way of hurting innocent people. Who is going to be responsible for creating the "blacklist" of authors? And who is going to take the responsibility if an author with a similar name gets caught in the crossfire of accusations?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Stepping in here....

Let me quote, in part, what I posted in the last LendInk thread.



> The LendInk situation demonstrates how quickly bad information can go viral. Avoiding mob rule is one of the underlying principles for our WHOA policy--What Happens On Another Site stays on that site or should be handled on that site. Though the LendInk situation wasn't technically a WHOA, which is why the discussion was allowed, it underlines the wisdom of that policy. People do tend to go off without knowing all the facts. KindleBoards does not condone these kinds of mob reactions.


I do not see mob behavior in this thread. However, I think outside KB, there is a very real possibility of lynch mobs forming in retaliation. And obviously, there are people who have realized that they were wrong about LendInk. And perhaps they've apologized publicly someplace. But their names could still be on some list somewhere as having been involved. There's no guarantee that the mob will see the post or site where they've apologized. Please, bear in mind that the LendInk situation went viral and real harm was done.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Which makes it a civil matter for LendInk to pursue.


Charges of perjury are not brought by individuals in any case (not in the US, at least). They are brought by governments.

Perjury's a crime. Defamation, however, is a tort --- which means all the plaintiff need prove is that the defendant was _negligent._

Tort decisions do not require going "beyond a reasonable doubt" like crimes do. They require a mere "preponderance of the evidence". It's not a hard standard to meet.

Negligence does include statements that are carelessly made, with the knowledge that they _could_ harm another person's reputation. Specific intent to hurt their business need not be proven. The plaintiff would have to prove that they suffered harm from false allegations; once that's established, the defendant would have to try and prove that even though they were wrong, they took reasonable care to research the facts, and reached a false conclusion in good faith.

I think few courts would say that authors who failed to check the lending rights in their own TOS with Amazon --- or else ignored the TOS --- took reasonable care.

And a finding of this kind of negligence can result in monetary damages. It would require LendInk to prove financial loss resulting from these events, but that doesn't seem to be much of a hurdle.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Again, I am under the "this makes us all look like clowns" shame, though I know this has been debated a lot on these boards.


I'd say the people looking are smarter than that.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Stepping in here....
> 
> Let me quote, in part, what I posted in the last LendInk thread.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with you there. I think we should be very careful in not going too far. I have tweeted about this maybe twice except for links to my own blog post on it. Twitter it too prone to simplistic excess.

I don't think anyone should be strung up. I CERTAINLY oppose harassing them or hacking their sites which some say has happened. But that also doesn't mean I am going to forget this affair any time soon or chose to support authors who took part. I am not even sure an apology is sufficient since material harm was done.

At the moment pretty much all authors who took part are off my Twitter list, etc. I don't know that that will change in the foreseeable future. I doubt that is going to do them a lot of harm, but I don't believe we can just ignore this matter. I agree with this:



anne_holly said:


> I just can't help but feel like it harms the indie/small pub image.


How can we ask people to support indie authors and have this kind of behavior accepted in our community?


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

This is a totally different tack on this, but it all makes me wonder - what would my webhost do if faced with a similar flood of complaints for some reason? I'm not blaming LendInk's webhost, or addressing this particular situation - just pondering all of our situations. I'd hope that my webhost would look into matters first, and find me at fault of something before taking down my site, but I honestly don't know. Is it better to be with a large host (ie. Go Daddy) or a small one (my local telecom/ISP)? I don't know. I certainly don't expect to be accused of any wrong doing, but it makes me curious about how quickly a web host takes down a site, and whether they give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser or the accused (their client). It might be worth it for us all to ask our hosts under what circumstances they would take down a site, how quickly (and if) they would release your domain name so you can host it somewhere else, etc.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Am slightly dumbfounded that some people think leaving 1 star reviews about things other than the book is okay. I wonder if those condoning that will feel the same way when it happens to them.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

There is a chance it will happen to any of us. I have political views which I don't exactly keep secret. You think one day one of the people who dislike my publicly stated views may not leave a bad review? I am only surprised that as far as I know it hasn't happened yet. I've had people threaten to do so on _The Guardian_.

Will I like it? Of course not. I may even whine about it but will I consider it part of the cost of being an author?

Yep.

Edit: This is something that I admit my opinions on has evolved on. I still only leave reviews related to the book but lots of people leave reviews related to price and shipping and their opinions on the seller. I have come to realize that most people consider a review to be about the whole package which includes us as authors.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Edit: This is something that I admit my opinions on has evolved on. I still only leave reviews related to the book but lots of people leave reviews related to price and shipping and their opinions on the seller. I have come to realize that most people consider a review to be about the whole package *which includes us as authors*.


No it doesn't.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Nathan, I think JR's point is not that SHE thinks it should include the author as a person, but is simply to acknowledge that a lot of people -- she actually feels it's "most" which I would disagree with, though I have no empirical data -- are of the opinion that that IS fair game.  You may think it's not.  But that doesn't change the fact that there are many who think it is.

I have no dog in the fight.  I neither write books nor leave reviews.  I actually rarely read reviews.  But, when I do, I am certainly able to distinguish between the part of the review that addresses that the book is good or bad from the part that complains that it wasn't delivered on time or that the reviewer doesn't care for the author's hairstyle in the picture on back.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Nathan, I think JR's point is not that SHE thinks it should include the author as a person, but is simply to acknowledge that a lot of people -- she actually feels it's "most" which I would disagree with, though I have no empirical data -- are of the opinion that that IS fair game. You may think it's not. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many who think it is.
> 
> I have no dog in the fight. I neither write books nor leave reviews. I actually rarely read reviews. But, when I do, I am certainly able to distinguish between the part of the review that addresses that the book is good or bad from the part that complains that it wasn't delivered on time or that the reviewer doesn't care for the author's hairstyle in the picture on back.


I will admit that I can't back up the "most" but it certainly seems to be a widely held view. Look at the thousands of reviews that have been posted complaining about price.

I simply think that we can't tell buyers what they can and cannot comment on. And as Ann does, other buyers will decide whether it's something that will affect their buying decision or not.

I wonder what Nathan was saying No to. That my opinions have evolved? Indeed, they have. That people very frequently leave reviews that consider factors other than the book itself such as their opinion of the author? Indeed, they do.

I suspect his No is to that he doesn't like it. Well, they paid their money so they get their opinion whether we like it or not. They may not like my politic; they may not like someone's comments; they may not like your hairdo. We better learn to suck it up and wear our big boy pants. (I'm still working on it but I'm getting there)


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Based on Nathan having bolded the 'which includes us authors' part, that's what I assumed he was referring to. . . .  in other words, he was sort of agreeing with the idea that the review should NOT be about authors but about books. . . even if it sometimes is. 

You're in violent agreement with each other!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Based on Nathan having bolded the 'which includes us authors' part, that's what I assumed he was referring to. . . . in other words, he was sort of agreeing with the idea that the review should NOT be about authors but about books. . . even if it sometimes is.
> 
> You're in violent agreement with each other!


We're writers. You didn't expect us to be sane, did you? 

Sure I WISH all that was judged is the book, but it's not. When we put our names out there in the public sphere, which we do as writers, that is life.

Edit: Back on topic, this is (hopefully) an unusual situation. I find myself sympathizing with the 1-star review reaction more than I usually would because the debacle upset me so much. It's not an ideal reaction by any means, but I kind of understand it.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Based on Nathan having bolded the 'which includes us authors' part, that's what I assumed he was referring to. . . . in other words, he was sort of agreeing with the idea that the review should NOT be about authors but about books.
> 
> You're in violent agreement with each other!


That's correct Ann.

A legitimate review can include, price, shipping, customer service etc, that's all (as JRTomlin said) part of the package. Author's actions, beliefs and affiliations are not part of the package (unless they are part of the content of the book) and therefore are not up for opinion in a book review and reviews that contain critiques of the author (not the author's work) should not be condoned. There is a place for that kind of criticism and it is not in a book review.

I stand by my original post in this thread that reviews should not be used as a means of voting up or voting down someone based on their behavior.

(Of course it's possible (and likely probable) that people leave bad reviews because they don't like the author but they keep the content of the review geared toward the book. Nothing you can do about that.)


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I'm always surprised by how surprised people get when human nature is at work. It is the most powerful thing on the planet. It was happening a thousand years ago and, if the race survives, it will be happening a thousand years from now.

It's not Indies' nature, it's human nature.

Joe


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> I'm always surprised by how surprised people get when human nature is at work.


It's not just human nature, it's human nature combined with technology and bad laws. If, a century ago, I set up a library in my house lending books to people, the odds of hundreds of writers turning up on the doorstep with pitchforks and burning torches was pretty slim, whereas today they can just send one DMCA email and you're assumed to be guilty.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> It's not just human nature, it's human nature combined with technology and bad laws. If, a century ago, I set up a library in my house lending books to people, the odds of hundreds of writers turning up on the doorstep with pitchforks and burning torches was pretty slim, whereas today they can just send one DMCA email and you're assumed to be guilty.


And then after the house and library are burned down with the owner limping away, someone comes along and says, "It was all a mistake so you shouldn't' be mad at them."


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Hey, it was their right to spaz out. Just human nature, right? People will do what people will do. Just got to put on big boy pants and deal.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

How the reader percieves the author does tend to color the perception of that author's books. Just like most endavors, a good reputation helps, a bad reputation hurts. Of course, what creates a good or bad perception can vary, something might cause a reader to have a less favorable perception of the author, while for another reader, the same thing might cause the reader to perceive the author more favorably.

If an author says or does something that makes me have an unfavorable perception, I'm not going to give them a one-star review, but I'm probably not going to read their books anyway, there are plenty of authors to choose from.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> And then after the house and library are burned down with the owner limping away, someone comes along and says, "It was all a mistake so you shouldn't' be mad at them."


Salem, Massachusetts 1692-1693?


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

I can't get away from thinking this would have worked out better for everyone if the web host hadn't caved.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> And then after the house and library are burned down with the owner limping away, someone comes along and says, "It was all a mistake so you shouldn't' be mad at them."


I thought this quote from Futurama was apt:

Hermes: "What do we do if we break somebody's window?" 
Dwight: "Pay for it?" 
Hermes: "O hohoho, heavens no. We apologize. With nice cheap words."


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Monique said:


> *Hey, it was their right to spaz out.* Just human nature, right? People will do what people will do. Just got to put on big boy pants and deal.


How ironic that you choose to interpret what I said in this way, on this particular thread.

I thought the key point of my post was that all indies should not be tarred with the same brush.

Joe


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Steeplechasing said:


> How ironic that you choose to interpret what I said in this way, on this particular thread.
> 
> I thought the key point of my post was that all indies should not be tarred with the same brush.
> 
> Joe


That part wasn't actually directed at you, Joe.  That said, if your last post meant to imply we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush, I agree, although I didn't get that at all from your post.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> How ironic that you choose to interpret what I said in this way, on this particular thread.
> 
> I thought the key point of my post was that all indies should not be tarred with the same brush.
> 
> Joe


Actually, I believe that was a dig at me. It seems in Monique's mind there is no difference in a twitmob against someone who didn't do anything wrong and readers letting other readers know which authors took part. That's her opinion and I can live with her digs.

I already said I don't agree that we can just forget the whole affair. I don't think 1-star reviews are the right way to handle it, but I also very much understand the feeling that the authors who took part can't just be let off the hook. I think a lot of people don't see any other way for them to be held to account for their actions.

Edit: If that is so terrible, the authors, or for that matter Monique, can appeal the reviews to Amazon. I think there's a good chance Amazon would remove them. Maybe. In the meantime, I don't want all indie authors tarred with the same brush. That is certainly a concern.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Monique said:


> That part wasn't actually directed at you, Joe.  That said, if your last post meant to imply we shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush, I agree, although I didn't get that at all from your post.


In that case, I apologize to you, unequivocally and unreservedly 

Joe


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Steeplechasing said:


> In that case, I apologize to you, unequivocally and unreservedly
> 
> Joe


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Monique said:


>


And yes, Monique, if I am attacked in reviews for something I have said or done, I had better put on my big boy pants and suck it up.

If I am attacked on Twitter by a Twitmob who agitate to get me served with _unjustified_ cease and desist orders for something I neither did nor said, I assure you that is quite a different matter. In that case, my lawyer will be doing the wearing of big boy pants.

Edit: Most of the people _on other sites_ whining about the 1-star reviews are simply whining because they got caught in the wrong. Boo hoo.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

The entire mess is embarrassing and shameful. I was ill during the fray so missed the initial posts on my writer's loops as I'd gone digest and stopped reading. But I went back and looked and clearly an IP attorney tried to tell everyone that it wasn't a pirate site. If an IP attorney does not understand the laws surrounding our rights, I got nothin'.

But it did nothing to stop the stupidity. 

After the fray, once I'd caught up, I was happy to point out that this sort of thing is exactly why people like Sue Grafton think self-published authors are lazy. Look what makes headlines - the worst among us. Yea. And would you believe that even after being proven to be fools and utterly and completely wrong, there were still those arguing their position?

I have X-Files playing on Netflix and I just heard that sheriff saying that quote about "99 percent of the world is fools and the rest of us are in danger of contagion." You have to wonder.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

It seems that, as a writer, I should also apologize for my obvious lack of ability as a communicator:

My original post was meant to convey the message that no one should be ashamed of being an indie because of the behaviour of other indies any more than a priest should be ashamed of his vocation because of the offences committed by other priests. Human nature will prevail above all else in all situations across all societies, jobs, sexes, hobbies etc.

FWIW, I think the lynch-mob behaviour was stupid, careless, lazy and irresponsible. I suspect many who indulged in it are not 'bad people' and, like JRT, I think they should apologize. But most won't - HN will again ensure that.  But, I don't believe anyone should be vengeful in leaving reviews.

Joe


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Steeplechasing said:


> It seems that, as a writer, I should also apologize for my obvious lack of ability as a communicator:
> 
> My original post was meant to convey the message that no one should be ashamed of being an indie because of the behaviour of other indies any more than a priest should be ashamed of his vocation because of the offences committed by other priests. Human nature will prevail above all else in all situations across all societies, jobs, sexes, hobbies etc.
> 
> ...


Well, theoretically, I agree with you about the reviews. However, I think Human Nature comes into play there as well, especially when people feel that is the only way to hold the people to account for their misbehavior. The people who did, or many of them, will get 1-star reviews. Amazon may remove them if they appeal. That's always iffy.

As I said, I have more sympathy in this case than I normally do.

I also agree that we shouldn't be held accountable for things we didn't do because of our vocation. Human nature being what it is, we will be at least to some extent.


----------



## Strayer (Jul 30, 2011)

How many ebook readers know anything about this. Is it a large number?
I don't feel tarred with this brush.
My permanent excuse for everything is that I am only four years old.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Strayer said:


> How many ebook readers know anything about this. Is it a large number?
> I don't feel tarred with this brush.
> My permanent excuse for everything is that I am only four years old.


Some who are active in Twitter and reading blogs but as a proportion of readers, not that many, I suspect which is why some people are resorting to reviews. That spreads the word beyond the writers' community.

The thing is that some of the ebook readers who do know are both knowledgeable and to some degree influential, book bloggers and blog reviewers, for example. This affair does seem to have legs.


----------



## NickThacker (Aug 7, 2012)

Wow, this is all new to me! Where was I this weekend?!?

Anyway, it really speaks to one aspect of the "self-publishing world" quite well:

Since everyone now has quick access to the tools, resources, and websites that allow us to publish and promote our work faster than ever, it's now that much more important to take the effort to separate ourselves from the pack: write better, write more, and work harder to connect with readers.

In addition, as this whole mess proves, we, as authors, need to make sure we understand the publishing landscape better. I feel better as an author because I _didn't_ join any lynch mobs and I (like to think, at least) that I know what I'm talking about. When I don't know what I'm talking about, I keep my mouth shut.

These authors messed up, and they did it in a very public way. It's going to hurt their careers at least a little, and I hope that means they will focus now on educating themselves about this sort of stuff in the future.

I posted about this over on my site as well: http://www.livehacked.com/writing-2/the-lendink-disaster-piracy-and-the-successful-author/


----------



## Strayer (Jul 30, 2011)

Perhaps this is harsh, but there's no excuse for a writer not to read contracts and all information about something that involves ebooks. I don't mean all contracts but ones that affect us.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Well, theoretically, I agree with you about the reviews. However, I think Human Nature comes into play there as well, especially when people feel that is the only way to hold the people to account for their misbehavior. The people who did, or many of them, will get 1-star reviews. Amazon may remove them if they appeal. That's always iffy.
> 
> As I said, I have more sympathy in this case than I normally do.
> 
> I also agree that we shouldn't be held accountable for things we didn't do because of our vocation. Human nature being what it is, we will be at least to some extent.


You are spot on. I will be trying to avoid responding on HN based threads 

Joe


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Strayer said:


> How many ebook readers know anything about this.


In the grand scheme of things. . . .almost none. Oh, sure, there are probably a handful of readers at the various sites where this became a topic of discussion. . . .including here. . . .but I can guarantee you that if I ask ANY of the folks I know who own Kindles but are NOT on Kindleboards -- which is probably at least a dozen people I can name without thinking too hard -- not only will they possibly not realize they can lend/borrow books, they'll have no clue that sites such as LendInk exist, and even less of a clue that there was ever a dust up about the illegality.

My observation: people are getting in high dudgeon on both sides of the issue. . . .and it's a waste of energy. Those who acted wrongly should be ashamed, but there's not much any of the rest of us can do about them at this point. People tried to tell them but they weren't willing to listen. And I do think those who are now on a revenge vendetta on Dale's behalf -- which he has NOT asked for -- are nearly as bad. The best thing is for everyone to learn the lesson and go on from there. But, human nature being what it is, I am under no illusion that it'll happen that way.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

I've been gone since last Thursday and missed out on this absolutely ridiculous mob attack that has tarred self-publishers with yet another PR disaster. The damage is done from this, and the best we can hope to do is donate to Dale's fund.

Forming a similar mob to go after authors who thought they were doing the right thing, no matter how misguided they were, is NOT going to correct this issue. Please do not go after anyone involved in this. Get Dale the help he needs. Anything else is pointless--other than being counterproductive and making us look even more vindictive, petty, and mob-like.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

I just want to say, for the record, that I'm totally okay with the unrepentant authors getting one-star reviews for this because I don't know of any other way for the community to effectively police them.

There really isn't anything more we can do. And if it's this much of a concern, this image we have of indie authors as a whole, then there must be some consequences for their behavior to stop it happening again. Reasoned discussion is not having an effect, apparently.

Plenty of people here are worried about it. So which will it be - do they reflect badly on us all and need some kind of punishment simply to show that we are willing to police our own, or do they not reflect on us at all and no punishment is warranted or deserved?

This is where we're stuck right now, but if you're worried about the indie image, then you need to figure this out.

(I don't think they reflect on us all for the aforementioned reasons. I just want them to face some kind of consequences because they did something pretty terrible, and my sense of fairness demands it. But I do think this is a question worth asking too.)


----------



## Jeroen Steenbeeke (Feb 3, 2012)

Rex Jameson said:


> I've been gone since last Thursday and missed out on this absolutely ridiculous mob attack that has tarred self-publishers with yet another PR disaster. The damage is done from this, and the best we can hope to do is donate to Dale's fund.
> 
> Forming a similar mob to go after authors who thought they were doing the right thing, no matter how misguided they were, is NOT going to correct this issue. Please do not go after anyone involved in this. Get Dale the help he needs. Anything else is pointless--other than being counterproductive and making us look even more vindictive, petty, and mob-like.


Actually, I believe at least some of the authors involved were trad-published, and were asked to respond by their publishers. Think I read it on Lendink's facebook page.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> I just want to say, for the record, that I'm totally okay with the unrepentant authors getting one-star reviews for this because I don't know of any other way for the community to effectively police them.


Reviews are absolutely not the correct venue for "punishing" unrepentant authors even if you can't think of any other way for the community to police them. You don't corrupt the review system simply because you don't like the way an author behaves.


----------



## Claire Ryan (Jun 7, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> Reviews are absolutely not the correct venue for "punishing" unrepentant authors even if you can't think of any other way for the community to police them. You don't corrupt the review system simply because you don't like the way an author behaves.


The review system isn't some sacrosanct system that must never be treated with anything less than perfect respect or the world will end. It's just a tool, and a pretty imprecise one at that, controlled by Amazon or Goodreads or your site of choice.

The reality is that there is no other method of policing their behavior. Is it a perfect method? No. But it's all we've got. The alternative is doing nothing and letting these authors act with impunity - so what happens when the next site like LendInk is targeted because they're not willing to learn the difference between piracy and a legitimate business? And the next site after that?


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

Do I like the idea of people leaving 1-star reviews for something that has nothing to do with the book? No. Is it an abuse of the review system? I would say so.
But here's the thing. . .the authors who have been hit with negative reviews and are now screaming "Abuse of the review system!!!" are the same people who abused DMCA notices and the other assorted means used to shut down Dale Porter's site. In short, when you're stupid enough to try to destroy someone's livelihood. . .don't act surprised when someone does it to you.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> Reviews are absolutely not the correct venue for "punishing" unrepentant authors even if you can't think of any other way for the community to police them. You don't corrupt the review system simply because you don't like the way an author behaves.


Although I am not personally going to leave 1-star reviews over this, I am not so sure that would be a misuse of the review system. What do you do when an author attacks legitimate purchasers who try to exercise the lending rights that they *paid for* as part of the deal? I consider the lendability when I decide what I am willing to pay for an ebook. I assume others do as well, and an author has no right to try to stifle the exercise of those rights after the sale. That kind of interference is worth a word of warning to prospective buyers, isn't it? If an author just writes a blog post critical of the concept of lending, well, okay--the author opining does not interfere with the buyer using the product. But to issue DMCA notices against Lendink or to hassle Dale's ISP? That might negatively impact the buyer's experience with the product, and that is fair game for reviews, IMHO. I don't think a book needs 500 1-star reviews that totally bury the reviews based on the actual book content. But one or two to alert readers to the fact that the author interferes with buyers actually using the book might not be unreasonable. Am I overlooking something? What do you (generic you) think reviews should be used for? If you bought a computer on Amazon only to have the manufacturer try to stop you from using it the (legal) way you want to, would you not mention that in a review?

ETA: I should have added that I was talking about readers leaving these reviews, not other authors from the other side of the issue.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

StephenEngland said:


> Do I like the idea of people leaving 1-star reviews for something that has nothing to do with the book? No. Is it an abuse of the review system? I would say so.
> But here's the thing. . .the authors who have been hit with negative reviews and are now screaming "Abuse of the review system!!!" are the same people who abused DMCA notices and the other assorted means used to shut down Dale Porter's site. In short, when you're stupid enough to try to destroy someone's livelihood. . .don't act surprised when someone does it to you.


The old concept of 'what goes around comes around' does seem to be in play here.

I do suggest that another way to attempt to right the wrong that was done is to support Dale Porter's efforts to safely restore the site with a donation.


----------



## Rex Jameson (Mar 8, 2011)

Claire Ryan said:


> The review system isn't some sacrosanct system that must never be treated with anything less than perfect respect or the world will end. It's just a tool, and a pretty imprecise one at that, controlled by Amazon or Goodreads or your site of choice.
> 
> The reality is that there is no other method of policing their behavior. Is it a perfect method? No. But it's all we've got. The alternative is doing nothing and letting these authors act with impunity - so what happens when the next site like LendInk is targeted because they're not willing to learn the difference between piracy and a legitimate business? And the next site after that?


There are MANY ways of dealing with this situation, and none of them require leaving 1-stars on random author books to satisfy your own sense of frontier justice. It does not deter new authors from following the same path--it only punishes many of those who have already apologized profusely for being involved in this or who are unsavable, regardless. The very first thing that we should do is create blog entries that describe the lending practices better (there still seems to be confusion on blogs between Amazon lending and the KLL for borrowing). The second thing we need to do is continue to voice concern about these mob mentalities and knee jerk reactions to new authors joining the system. LendInk is NOT the first lending service to start up, and this has been a recurring issue--and some of the previous ones have been piracy sites so that didn't help LindInk's cause here--along with Dale's unavailability during this fiasco, which is something that Mark Coker of Smashwords pointed out.

Even a company with as clear a description as Smashwords gets frequent complaints and even DMCA takedown notices sent to companies they distribute to because self-publishers have no idea what they are doing. New people rarely read the FAQs or don't understand the legal and technical speak (or assume that they won't and never read them). And self-publishers are the worst of the lot because we are supposed to handle all of this ourselves, but most people focus on writing and not everything else that goes along with it--and this includes making sure everything is researched (including contracts), edited, professionally presented, marketed, etc.

The best thing we can do is isolate the behaviors, encourage everyone involved to apologize profusely for this to readers and businesses that were affected, help Dale raise money for his legal defense and other expenses that he noted to get the site reinstated, and try to educate new authors on the dangers of overreaction, the unlikelihood that piracy is really causing them any measurable harm, and the importance of establishing positive relationships with readers, bloggers, and author service providers.

Engaging in 1-star review wars will not solve any problems, will only lead to new mob groups similar to Stop the Goodreads Bullies, and will only make self-publishers look even more foolish.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> In the grand scheme of things. . . .almost none. Oh, sure, there are probably a handful of readers at the various sites where this became a topic of discussion. . . .including here. . . .but I can guarantee you that if I ask ANY of the folks I know who own Kindles but are NOT on Kindleboards -- which is probably at least a dozen people I can name without thinking too hard -- not only will they possibly not realize they can lend/borrow books, they'll have no clue that sites such as LendInk exist, and even less of a clue that there was ever a dust up about the illegality.
> 
> My observation: people are getting in high dudgeon on both sides of the issue. . . .and it's a waste of energy. Those who acted wrongly should be ashamed, but there's not much any of the rest of us can do about them at this point. People tried to tell them but they weren't willing to listen. And I do think those who are now on a revenge vendetta on Dale's behalf -- which he has NOT asked for -- are nearly as bad. The best thing is for everyone to learn the lesson and go on from there. But, human nature being what it is, I am under no illusion that it'll happen that way.


Tell me, Ann, where do you draw a line between "a revenge vendetta" and "people should be held accountable for their actions"?

I do not feel I am on any "vendetta" at all, a very pejorative word that pretty much begs any discussion. I absolutelyl do *not* think we should just ignore the horrid behavior of these people just because it was on the internet, give them a pat on the head and a "there, there now you won't be held accountable and no meanies will say bad things about you and your horrible behavior".

Edit: The fact that Dale Porter may not have asked that they be held accountable is irrelevant. I am not angry because he SAID to be angry. I am angry because what they did was wrong and what's more reflects on us.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Condoning the corruption and abuse of the review system isn't just about this one incident. It's about the overall impact that it has down the road. The fact that once those flood gates are open that negative reviews could be used as "punishment" for _any_ social or political disagreement. What's to stop 1-star reviews from flooding authors that shut down actual piracy sites? What about a 1-star review because an author has DRM on their book? What about a 1-star review because an author's personal relationship broke down due to infidelity and their former significant other wants to "ruin the author's career" because they ruined the sig others life? If you condone this abuse of the review system as a way of airing criticisms of an author's conduct how do you not condone that abuse of the review system?

I ABSOLUTELY THINK THERE SHOULD BE A PRICE TO PAY FOR A WAY TO HOLD THE AUTHORS ACCOUNTABLE THAT CAUSED DAMAGE TO LENDINK. And I fully supported Lendink before and will continue to do so. But I am completely against the (distribution portal) review systems being used as the venue to do so. I also don't believe that it is the ONLY way to "punish" authors. I also don't think its very effective. Most reviewS will be removed anyway and in a few months those 1 star reviews that are left will be confusing to an average reader ("what's a DMCA takedown?") or meaningless.

There is a story about an author going crazy in the comments of a review site (the book's initials are TGS). That author is now infamous for that meltdown and its likely that her future books will have trouble finding reviewers and an audience, not because of a backlash of reviews, but because her actions went viral. There are blogs and blogs about that issue and there are/should be blogs and blogs about this one (preferably ones that don't lay all of the "blame" on "indie authors") exposing the authors.

And what happens if Lendink rises from the ashes, bigger and better than before? Do we still consider his livelihood ruined?



Nathan Elliott said:


> Although I am not personally going to leave 1-star reviews over this, I am not so sure that would be a misuse of the review system. What do you do when an author attacks legitimate purchasers who try to exercise the lending rights that they *paid for* as part of the deal?...


I'm not defending the actions of the mob that took down LendInk but they did not attempt to prevent purchasers from exercising the lending rights that they paid for. What they did was closed one particular service that was created to enhance the lending experience. The equivalent would be if I owned a gun and the local shooting range was shut down by protest. The protestors haven't harmed the usefulness of the gun or the bullets I've purchased they've only shut down a third party service that I could have used. I can still use the gun, I just have to go elsewhere. People can still lend books they just have to go elsewhere.

I do have to say that I find it ludicrous that authors (or anyone) would believe a piracy site to exist in such blatant public view of every copyright holder on Amazon. And I also wonder if those same authors troll the torrent sites with the same fervor.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> I do have to say that I find it ludicrous that authors (or anyone) would believe a piracy site to exist in such blatant public view of every copyright holder on Amazon. And I also wonder if those same authors troll the torrent sites with the same fervor.


Those floodgates are open and have always been open. For heaven's sake, people have left bad reviews for Norman Mailer because he stabbed his wife and his generally misogynistic behavior and similar reviews going back to the beginning of the review system. I am absolutely certain there are bad reviews of Woody Allen and Mel Gibson because of their behavior that has absolutely nothing to do with the work the review was left on. _If you make your readers mad, they may say bad things about you._ I'm afraid to some extent the two of us--although there are obviously others in the discussion--may just have to "violently agree" as Betsy put it. I suspect this isn't something people are going to convince each other on.

On your last point, the whole thing is ludicrous, isn't it? Torrent sites are pretty darn easy to find and I would bet a fair amount of money that within 15 minutes tops (and that's way longer than it would actually take) I could find torrent sites violating some copyright. So they get hysteral LendInk? Say what?


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Those floodgates are open and have always been open. For heaven's sake, people have left bad reviews for Norman Mailer because he stabbed his wife and his generally misogynistic behavior. I'm afraid to some extent the two of us--although there are obviously others in the discussion--may just have to "violently agree" as Betsy put it. I suspect this isn't something people are going to convince each other on.


I acknowledge that reviews are/have been used for that purpose, I just don't condone it and wouldn't promote its use as a means of retribution and would caution (as I have) others not to as well.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

NathanWrann said:


> I acknowledge that reviews are/have been used for that purpose, I just don't condone it and wouldn't promote its use as a means of retribution and would caution (as I have) others not to as well.


Well, I don't know that it's a good thing. It just is what it is.

I have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to get that excited about it. I'm not promoting it, but I understand the frustration of people who feel that potential buyers should be told about the author's behavior and then it is up to the buyer to decide. Like I said, I won't leave 1-star reviews for that purpose, but I understand why people do.

And sorry for expanding on my comments.


----------



## EmilyG (Jan 31, 2010)

From the first page:


> site didn't even host their books, just their covers and links to Amazon


Just to be clear, LendInk did not host any book covers on their site.

Amazon has a program where you can get information for any product on their site using an API (application programming interface). The images of the covers were hosted on Amazon and displayed on LendInk.

I do the same sort of thing to display book covers on my website but I am using the Google Books API. If you right click on the Sendero image, you will see a menu. If you are using IE, select properties. If you are using Firefox, select View Images. If you are using Chrome, select Open Image in New Tab. You will see the image is on bks3.books.google.com and not indiebooksforbookclubs.com.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Just in case someone missed it, if you want to do something more positive than posting 1-star reviews, contributing to the fund to restore and improve LendInk AND establish a legal fund, Dale Porter is taking contributions here:

https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/9LiId?psid=d12f4021fc0a4da39359aedbd1576f26

You might consider contributing or, if you can't or don't want to do that, just tweeting about it would be nice.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

NathanWrann said:


> The equivalent would be if I owned a gun and the local shooting range was shut down by protest. The protestors haven't harmed the usefulness of the gun or the bullets I've purchased they've only shut down a third party service that I could have used. I can still use the gun, I just have to go elsewhere. People can still lend books they just have to go elsewhere.


I see what you mean, sort of. But to me this seems a little more complicated because in this case, it is like Smith and Wesson themselves advertising their wares as "shooting range compatible" and then committing illegal acts (those DMCA takedowns were illegal, not just an act of protest) to close the range to their own customers. S&W would definitely take some well-deserved PR beatings over that.

I thikn that many authors view reviews as their own report cards for that book's content. That is understandable, but I think they should mainly exist for the benefit of the reader / shopper deciding what to buy. The shopper does not care about the author's fight with an ex or any reviews stemming from that kind of nonsense. Of course. But if the author attacks readers who have purchased the very item that the shopper is considering, then to me that is very relevant and worth noting in a review. (Similarly I think DRM is a valid reason to criticize a book if it impairs the purchaser's ability to actually use the product.)

Oh well. I guess it is academic. I notice it has been a really long time since Jeff Bezos last called to ask for my opinion.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Just in case someone missed it, if you want to do something more positive than posting 1-star reviews, contributing to the fund to restore and improve LendInk AND establish a legal fund, Dale Porter is taking contributions here:
> 
> https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/9LiId?psid=d12f4021fc0a4da39359aedbd1576f26
> 
> You might consider contributing or, if you can't or don't want to do that, just tweeting about it would be nice.


I donated and Tweeted. I really hope Dale makes his goal. What happened to him was just horrible.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Nathan Elliott said:


> I see what you mean, sort of. But to me this seems a little more complicated because in this case, it is like Smith and Wesson themselves advertising their wares as "shooting range compatible" and then committing illegal acts (those DMCA takedowns were illegal, not just an act of protest) to close the range to their own customers. S&W would definitely take some well-deserved PR beatings over that.
> 
> I thikn that many authors view reviews as their own report cards for that book's content. That is understandable, but I think they should mainly exist for the benefit of the reader / shopper deciding what to buy. The shopper does not care about the author's fight with an ex or any reviews stemming from that kind of nonsense. Of course. But if the author attacks readers who have purchased the very item that the shopper is considering, then to me that is very relevant and worth noting in a review. (Similarly I think DRM is a valid reason to criticize a book if it impairs the purchaser's ability to actually use the product.)
> 
> Oh well. I guess it is academic. I notice it has been a really long time since Jeff Bezos last called to ask for my opinion.


The comparison would only be valid if gun ranges were _illegal_ but what they were protesting was _not_ a gun range at all but something else entirely legal and legitimate AND was put out of business by the uninformed protesters. That is a valid comparison.

As far as reviews, I agree that they are entirely for the benefit of the buyer and not of the author. We often act as though it is otherwise and I am as guilty of that as the next author.

Edit: To answer NathanWrann's question about whether they are exonerated if he brings his site back: No. That doesn't do away with the week of harassment he, his family and his web host endured or the general black eye to the indie community. I do respect the authors who were part of it and are contributing to the fund and there are several who have also been honest enough to admit they were in the wrong. It will make a lot of us feel better about the whole affair if it has a positive outcome. But does that change the nature of what happened in the first place? Nope. Not in my opinion.

By the way, I thought we all got morning wake up calls from Uncle Jeff asking our opinions.  *sherk*


----------

