Legitimate eBook Lending Community Closed After Copyright Complaints

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.'"

Comments

Easy....

[Immostlyharmless]

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....

[houstonbofh]

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

Re:Easy....

[Baloroth]

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....

[pepty]

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....

[dark12222000]

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....

[Baloroth]

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....

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

[HiThere]

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....

[cpu6502]

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

Re:Easy....

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Easy....

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it only applies to complainants who "knowingly materially misrepresent". In order for that to be the case, the complainant would need to properly understand that the lending system in question is legitimate. Based on the summary text, I'd say that this understanding is decidedly lacking. It's possible that some folks are issuing complaints cynically, with the understanding that the lending is legitimate, but it seems far more likely to me that most of the complaints are knee-jerk reactions of the form, "OMG MY COPYRIGHTS YOU EVIL PIRATING PARASITE SCUMBAGS," which arise in response to the mere concept of "eBook lending website".

Re:Easy....

[galaad2]

in this case it's simple to prove the "knowingly materially misrepresent". The contract that those authors SIGNED with Amazon explicitly says in very BOLD LETTERS:
https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=APILE934L348N

5.2 Marketing and Promotion; Kindle Book Lending Program.
[...]
5.2.2 Kindle Book Lending Program. The Kindle Book Lending program enables customers who purchase a Digital Book to lend it subject to limitations we establish from time to time. All Digital Books made available through the Program are automatically included in the Kindle Book Lending program. However, for Digital Books that are in the 35% Royalty Option (as described in the Pricing Page), you may choose to opt out of the Kindle Book Lending program. This will disable lending of the Digital Book by customers who purchase it after you have opted it out, but this will not affect the right of customers who purchased it when lending was enabled to continue to lend it. You may not choose to opt out a Digital Book if it is included in the lending program of another sales or distribution channel. If we become aware that a Digital Book you have opted out is included in the lending program of another sales or distribution channel, we may enable it for lending. Digital Books that are in the 70% Royalty Option (as described in the Pricing Page) cannot be opted out of the lending feature.
[.... and a bit below...]
KDP Select Option Terms and Conditions.
[...]
2.2 Inclusion in Kindle Owners’ Lending Library Program. Digital Books included in KDP Select will be automatically included in the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library Program described in more detail here. ( https://kdp.amazon.com/self-publishing/help?topicId=200798990#KOLL )

Q.E.D.

Re:Easy....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You confuse criminal and civil law. The standard for proving your case is MUCH lower in civil cases. All you need to do is convince a judge that the lawyer should have done his homework before sending off a takedown letter.

And it's REALLY easy to convince a judge that some lawyer didn't do his homework.

Re:Easy....

[Captain Hook]

The contract that those authors SIGNED with Amazon

Exactly, I think the standard response for all these complaints would be along the lines of we aren't lending the books we are just providing a list of books which people have available for lending. Amazon is lending the books, in accordance with a contract you signed with them, and provide some Amazon contact details.

That doesn't seem like a very hard job to respond to a lot messages with a template response message. You just need to accurately categorise the incoming message to start with.

Re:Easy....

[sumdumass]

I doubt they are just complaints and not take down notices. the ISP seems to be demanding a DMCA counterclaim to be filed to turn the service back on. It is likely some trade group filing then all at once on behalf of its members using its members names dirctly to survive a new havean failure.

As for the ELUA, it isn't necessary. If the law already allows for recovery of damages, then just go for the damages, The only thing that limits an ISP from damages is the reliance on the DMCA. There is no limits to liability for the accuser outside the infringement claim being accurate and the accused infringing party not having any legitimate right to the covered material. And if the ISP is not in compliance with the DMCA provisions, IE complaints but no take down notices, they can be liable for damages too if they don't follow the counterclaim process.. Remember, the DMCA protects the ISP against copyright violation only unless there is a take down notice and they comply with it and the counter claim rules.

Re:Easy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it doesn't even say "the" copyright. It says "a" copyright. So any copyright owner can send a take-down notice for anything, and there is no liability. I own the copyright on this post, therefore I can send a take-down notice to the Internet.

Re:Easy....

[ShakaUVM]

This fucked up situation was intentional, too, as I learned from watching CSPAN.

Basically, our congressmen want to protect frivolous DMCA takedown notices on the rare/slight/insignificant chance that one of them might lose money defending their actual rights.

Re:Easy....

[DickBreath]

> The problem is that it only applies to complainants who "knowingly materially misrepresent".

Let me introduce you to another legal phrase:

Knew or Should Have Known

If you don't Know that it is Your work being infringed, then you are guilty of "knowingly misrepresent". That is because you Know that you Don't Know. You Know that you have failed to identify that the work is yours, and that it is actually infringed.

These authors may get the first part right, they may recognize that the work is theirs, but they fail to know that it is being infringed. They are expected to know the terms of the agreement they signed that allows ebook lending. They should be at least expected to know that the lending site does not host any actual ebook content. That should be a minimal requirement in order to use a tool like the DMCA. The DMCA is a tool to stop infringement. Therefore it should be assumed that you KNOW that infringement is actually occurring before you use it. Failure to know that means you misrepresent, and you Know that you have not done your homework to insure you have gotten all of the "under penalty of perjury" assertions correct.

Re:Easy....

[jthill]

The perjury penalty is only for misrepresenting your authority to make the claim:

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Re:Easy....

[Uncle Warthog]

"boop"

Re:Easy....

[Catbeller]

So the victim has to hire several hundred lawyers to get his due. Easy. Anyone can do it.

Re:Easy....

[dark12222000]

You realize that's not a EULA, right? EULA stands for End User License Agreement. Those last two words there - License Agreement - actually have meaning. This isn't the fourth grade, learn how to use a dictionary.

Re:Easy....

[dark12222000]

Several authors did specifically file just "complaints", not DMCA takedowns. Whether or not there were DMCA takedowns in there, we don't know.

You are correct about not needing a EULA, it just helps.

Re:Easy....

[TheLink]

So if you ever "click through" or implicitly "accept" an EULA like that it will still apply because it's legal?

This isn't fourth grade, learn to think on a higher level.

Re:Easy....

[dark12222000]

"User License Agreement", ie, Contract. In order for a contract to be valid, a few things have to be true, in this case, the contract has to be legible/readable, and the other party must affirmatively agree to it. (This isn't an argument so much as just fact, which I'm sure you'll agree to).

I'm going to argue that most EULAs represent a "sticker contract", and would typically be considered non-binding because they fail to be readable by any average person and that no affirmative consent is given. Legally, EULAs may or may not be legally enforceable in different states. South Carolina considers EULAs not-enforceable while some states may consider otherwise. From my own reading of the law, I think any "Here's a long complicated 20 page essay on how you don't have rights, written in a foreign language, click 'I Accept' to install" type thing doesn't constitute an actual legal binding agreement - YMMV, it's usually up to the court in question.

Can't he sue?

[rebelwarlock]

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?

[cpu6502]

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

Re:Can't he sue?

[Tuoqui]

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?

[cpu6502]

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.)

Re:Can't he sue?

[silas_moeckel]

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?

[Seumas]

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?

[Br00se]

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?

[Voyager529]

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.

Re:Can't he sue?

[datavirtue]

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?

[cpu6502]

>>> I have yet to meet ONE Christian who agrees with abortion clinic bombings or the Westboro Baptist protests.

Neither have I actually.
The problem is that they keep their trap shut. They need to open their mouths and say, "This is wrong," the way that I do. Otherwise their silence is viewed as approval of the hatefilled Chritians' actions. (Just the same as the silence by Muslims is viewed as approval of the terrorists.)

Re:Can't he sue?

[ilsaloving]

I have no mod point so I'll just comment and say I agree wholeheartedly.

Re:Can't he sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

As with most things Jesus says - he Goes on to say the SAME thing in another way

    3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

The bible ALSO says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (and Jesus also said this in anothe way - he who is without sin - cast the first stone)

    In other words Jesus DID say - very clearly and in multiple ways DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS for if you do you are hypocritical.
    I like the point of your post actualy but you also play the fun game of semantics - and if you truly believe in the bible then you are interested in what the bible says .... and reading verses in isolation and out of context is NOT helpful
    (which is what most hate mongers and right wingers do of course because otherwise how do they ignore this ....

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment"

Re:Can't he sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FUCK are you talking about? I have tons of christian friends on facebook, and I can assure you that they do not keep their mouths shut about these things. Do you expect every christian to take a full page ad out in the NYT every time another christian does something they disagree with?

Well, you're good with computers, and you didn't loudly denounce those "Anonymous" guys, so clearly you have endorsed every despicable thing they have ever done.

This is a ridiculous standard.

Re:Can't he sue?

[gnasher719]

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."

Let us clarify this: The hosting company doesn't have to do anything. However, they want to behave in such a way that they are not involved in any copyright disagreement. If they behave according to the DMCA process, then they are safe and neither side can sue them. If they don't behave according to the DMCA process, then they cannot be sued for not following the DMCA process, but they can be sued for copyright infringement - of course only if there was copyright infringement.

Re:Can't he sue?

[cornjones]

Then go vote. As a block, the christian stance seems to be against equal rights for gays and against teaching and doing science. To say that you disagree with that is fine but that is what your group is representing as a block. as the GP says, the moderates of the religion seem agree silently with these things because they are not voting these issues down and marginalizing the loonies in the wings...

Re:Can't he sue?

[supercrisp]

I've met "those" Christians. I've heard them scream and rant in their churches on Sunday in Knoxville, Tennessee as I walked past with my wife and kids on our way to the park. I've listened to them calling female college students witches and whores in Iowa City (IA) and Knoxville. I sat in the little church I attended as a kid and watched the congregation nod and "amen" as our polyester-clad minister called down damnation on the librulls. So where are all you "not like us" Christians when I've seen these people? Walking by doing nothing, that's where. You only have the courage to talk to sane people who are justifiably scared of your more extreme coreligionists. You, too, are afraid of these nutbars who actually want to follow the Bible's Old Testament advice about stoning people who wear their socks on the wrong foot or what-have-you. So afraid that you won't even admit that you've seen them.

Re:Can't he sue?

[Orestesx]

If you're going to make a snarky comment involving logic, you should at least make sure your logic is sound...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Re:Can't he sue?

[cpu6502]

>>>More than likely the 'Authors' arent involved but the 'Publishers' are the ones with complaints.

No. Here's the person who organized the protest and resulting letter-spam. She's a Christian author. There are also several other authors who proudly proclaimed they filed C&D requests (they have no legal weight & the ISP should have ignored them). Unfortunately the topic was erased by the Forum which is trying to CYA. http://www.allonbooks.com/author.htm

Re:Can't he sue?

[Shagg]

It's basically a DDOS attack, in this case "DMCA Denial Of Service".

Re:Can't he sue?

[mcgrew]

I take it you've never met anyone from my church. Yes, there are holier-than thou, judgemental, total assholes in churches, but there are as many or more non-Christians and even anti-christians with the same attitude.

When you paint all blacks as lazy, you are a bigot. When you paint all Muslims as violent, you are a bigot. When you judge all homosexuals as evil and insane, you are a bigot. When you paint all Christians as judgemental and holier-than-thou, YOU ARE A BIGOT.

Yes, we are eternally saved, but we don't take joy in the fact that you aren't, in fact quite the opposite.

Re:Can't he sue?

[Rolgar]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/prolife_movement_decries_murder_of_kansas_lateterm_abortion_provider/
http://deaconchick.blogspot.com/2009/06/wichita-bishop-statement-on-george.html

Nothing but condemnations all around for several days after the fact. If we were out there constantly saying "Don't kill abortion doctors," We'd probably be accused of (*wink**wink**nudge**nudge*) encouraging it, or insincerity for constantly bringing it up.

On the other hand, when pro-choice individuals attack protesters (even protests not happening at a clinic), there is nothing but silence from the pro-abortionists concerning the violent attacks by their supporters. It seems to me that we are not being given the same consideration. Google "prolife protester killed/attacked", and look for statements from pro-choice organizations.

As for Westboro Baptist, I live in Topeka, they are constantly protesting other churches. I personally have been verbally attacked with vulgar language to the point I nearly rushed a large group of them (something they hope for since they are lawyers and are hoping to take you to court) protesting a friend of mine who was about to celebrate his first mass as a priest, and cringe every time my kids see the pornographic stick figures those people carry around. Nobody I know considers them a Christian organization. Why should we have to release a statement condemning an organization that stands across the street from our church to yell obscenities at us on a weekly basis? I'm pretty sure it's obvious we don't support them.

Re:Can't he sue?

[cornjones]

except that isn't the message coming out so you are obviously not speaking loud enough. I know several christians who i like and respect but as a block, you have let the loonies take over the conversation and the power of your group seems to be devoted to sticking your head in the ground and denying progress.

the point of this conversation was that the extremists are being heard and the 'silent majority' doesn't seem to be showing up anywhere to counteract that voice. Most especially at the ballot box to vote out politicians who pander to this demographic by denying evolution and global warming in the face of overwhelming evidence and continually work to deny people rights (both gays and women) .

presumably you are speaking as anon coward so your fellow christians won't find out you hinted and not following the party line?

Re:Can't he sue?

[bhiestand]

Just a tiny sidebar, you actually come off as a bit holier-than-thou to me. The whole "yes, we're eternally saved, but we don't take joy" thing... What if I said "yes, atheists are universally smarter, but we don't take any joy in it"? I don't blame you, I think it's a fairly natural byproduct of having a black-and-white worldview while being certain of your own beliefs.

In addition, why do you have to throw in the "and more"? I don't know how you define "anti-Christian", but if somebody wants to be holier-than-thou AND have the strength of a majority behind them, they need to pick a religion. Not a lot of room for atheists to be holy. In my experience, the bigger an asshole someone is, the more they need to cloak themselves in religion. Not at all saying "more religious = more asshole", just that assholes may benefit far more from pretending to be religious than from being openly non-religious. See: prison populations.

I have met many "true" Christians. However, the best "Christians" I have met have been atheist, non-religious, or quietly religious.

Re:Can't he sue?

[mcgrew]

Just a tiny sidebar, you actually come off as a bit holier-than-thou to me.

I'm no better than anyone else. Everyone is holy whether they realize it or not.

What if I said "yes, atheists are universally smarter, but we don't take any joy in it"?

Universally smarter? You believe that no atheists are learning-disabled? It's possible that average or median intelligence of atheists is higher, but equally possible the other way. If it were a true statement I would have no problem with it.

I don't know how you define "anti-Christian"

One who teaches the opposite of what Jesus taught. The "greed is good" crowd comes to mind, and unfortunately many of those folks consider themselves Christians. Anti-theists want all religions abolished.

assholes may benefit far more from pretending to be religious than from being openly non-religious. See: prison populations.

Yes, that's true, but I think politicians and Wall Streeters are better examples.

Re:Can't he sue?

[Voyager529]

Nonsense, Voyager. There is a tenet of law that silence equals consent, and the deafening silence of "good" Christians as concerns those who bomb abortion clinics and wants to round up gays and put them into concentration camps or take away their children in some christian-commie scheme to "protect" the little tykes from mommy and mommy's horrible lifestyle puts the lie to everything you're claiming. Want further proof? The fact that you're claiming Jesus qualified Matthew 7:1, making it more of a "Now don't do that or you'll be punished" kind of thing instead of a direct edict.

So far as I'm concerned, while the screeching of right-wing commie-christians is vile and spits in the face of God, you are the true face of "christian" hypocrisy.

Your last sentence indicates that no matter what I say I'll be wrong simply because I don't share the same beliefs as you, but I'll do my best anyway...

First head-scratch: The foundation of your argument is based on a tenet of the judicial system. So you're depending on the legal system to defend your argument. Does that mean that your argument isn't valid where that tenet does not apply? Alas, I don't live in Somalia or some banana republic so we'll roll with it.

Second head-scratch: You're saying that because I don't spend my time standing on street corners condemning a group of people for their bad things and spending all my time and money begging the press to give me a modicum of airtime to state that I, and many other Christians, disagree with abortion clinic bombings that I'm therefore guilty of ACTUALLY BOMBING AN ABORTION CLINIC? I am a hypocrite for not spending all my waking hours preventing homosexuals from getting put into some sort of concentration camp and thus am guilty for rounding them up? (Citation needed for that, BTW) That's patently absurd.

Third head-scratch: What constitutes "enough noise" to not be silent? Do we beg NBC for airtime? Do we start our own TV station? Do we write a metric ton of blogs on Blogspot? Do we SEO ourselves to the top ten search results for "abortion clinics"? Do we set up funds to help the victims and surviving families of these atrocities? At what point is enough noise made that we make it known that we disagree with these things short of actually committing crimes toward the initial perpetrators?

Fourth head-scratch: Jesus' statement that you'll be judged by the same measuring rod that you judge others with is a "don't do this or you'll be punished"? To me, that's about as fair an edict as you can get. Does that mean that we should alter our legal system to provide no punitive measures for assault, rape, theft, murder, or fraud? If saying "you'll be subjected to your own system" is worse than "you really shouldn't do that because it's not nice", then why punish anything ever? Does justice not fall apart at that point?

Final question: If I'm the true face of Christian hypocrisy, then even if you're right, what does the face of a "genuine Christian" look like? Based on what you've written here, it doesn't seem like there can ever be such a thing.

Crowdsource

[ktappe]

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

[EdIII]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Crowdsource

[b4dc0d3r]

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

[oakgrove]

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

[mark_elf]

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

[oakgrove]

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

[number11]

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

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Crowdsource

[mwvdlee]

I suggest hosting the site at Amazon Web Services.
Surely the irony of them shutting down this website would have imploded the universe.

Re:Crowdsource

[mwvdlee]

Are you legally required to respond to C&D requests?

Re:Crowdsource

[Trilkin]

Not at all. Jason Scott gets C&D requests all the time as does Max Goldberg (YTMND.) Neither of them answer most of them until they become court orders (never happens.)

Re:Crowdsource

[qubezz]

No, you throw that shit in the garbage and ignore it. Threats and coercion should instead be reported to local law enforcement.

Re:Crowdsource

[sumdumass]

besides, you can recover legal fees to defend against this. The DMCA specificly allows this and the ISP is treating the C&Ds as take down notices regardless of the sender's intent to distance themselves from it.

Re:Crowdsource

[thaylin]

This guy is an affiliate or some guy just trying to make a buck off a legal service? They dont have to be intertwined.

Re:Crowdsource

[cpu6502]

He used to be an Amazon affiliate. He hoped that people using his site would do more than just borrow books, but also buy books. And then he would get a cut of the sale (something like 2%). Unfortunately his timing was bad because Amazon terminated all California affiliates.

I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[JoelKatz]

He doesn't sue the hosting company because the hosting company is just following the law. The DMCA makes it the site owner's responsibility to respond to these complaints, not the hosting company. The hosting company is specifically allowed to honor them if the site owner doesn't counter-notice.

Some people think the host is required to honor the takedown notices. They are not. They just run the risk of being sued themselves if they don't honor the takedown notice. So it is fair to blame the hosting company for not refusing to honor the notices at their own legal risk. But he can't sue them -- they are permitted to honor the takedowns.

Re:I don't get it.

[sumdumass]

the counter claim goes to the ISP/hosting company too. it doesn't require any justification to how you are legally entitled or not otherwise infringing, just a statement that your activities aren't infringing or something like that.

Re:I don't get it.

[thaylin]

Except these were C&Ds not take down notices.

Re:I don't get it.

[91degrees]

Sounds like he wasn't making any money from this, and offering it as a service. I think his response has been to throw his arms in the air and say "Screw it. I can't be bothered dealing with this"

Can't say I blame him.

Paradigm Shift Backlash

[Elgonn]

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

[msauve]

"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

[Baloroth]

"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

[bky1701]

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."

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash

[TubeSteak]

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

Re:Paradigm Shift Backlash

[Hognoxious]

I can't help but wonder if some of those authors were victims of having their e-books loaned out without their permission on Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

Unless there was some kind of glitch, I doubt it. It's in the contract.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Here's my response:

[cpu6502]

(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

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

Re:Fully Automated Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a better solution

import railgun
r = railgun.Railgun()
for complainer in Complainers:
        r.aim(complainer)
        r.fire()

and if I hear one word about whitespace vs. brackets....

Re:Fully Automated Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Whitespace is better than brackets! .... okay I have NO idea what I'm talking about, I just like poking people who claim to be on the brink of exploding. Turns out they usually whimper and go hide.

So much false bravado on the internet.

Alternative?

[Githaron]

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

Re:Alternative?

[bmo]

>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?

[Githaron]

I haven't used it yet but I just found Lendle for Kindle users.

Re:Alternative?

[canajin56]

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?

[Githaron]

I have found my library's ebook selection to be lacking.

Re:Alternative?

[johanw]

The Pirate Bay's ebook section is much better. And much cheaper too.

If you are done with it, open source the code.

[beernutz]

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.

Re:If you are done with it, open source the code.

[scsirob]

I have mod points and I could have modded you down. Having 100+ similar sites isn't going to work. The strength of the concept is to have all owners join one, or perhaps a few, of these sites. 100 sites with 1.000 members is a lot less effective than 1 site with 100.000 members.

Re:If you are done with it, open source the code.

[JesseMcDonald]

The strength of the concept is to have all owners join one, or perhaps a few, of these sites. 100 sites with 1.000 members is a lot less effective than 1 site with 100.000 members.

There is something to be said for a more federated approach. Sure, you don't want 100 completely isolated sites with their own distinct libraries, so that you have to join all of them to get a decent selection, but those 100 sites could get together and develop an inter-site loan system to pool their resources. Different sites could have different terms (though you would probably want the inter-site loan terms to be standardized), and a variety of sites in different jurisdictions and hosting environments would be much harder to shut down.

Publish and they'll perish

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Tuoqui]

This would be awesome.

Put it all for the public to see.

Re:Publish and they'll perish

[number11]

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.

Re:Publish and they'll perish

[canajin56]

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

[icebraining]

Related: https://thepiratebay.se/legal

Re:Publish and they'll perish

[91degrees]

Seems that misinformation got out of control and a mob mentality amongst authors formed on 1st August.

There were some calmer heads. Keri Ford deserves an honourable mention for actually looking into it, and it's a shame that it's really not a genre I'm interested in.

Re:Publish and they'll perish

[91degrees]

If you have a facebook account - Lendinks's page. Click on the recent posts by others to see author complaints.

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[houstonbofh]

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.

DMCA irrelevant

[b4dc0d3r]

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

[cpu6502]

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

[nedlohs]

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

[b4dc0d3r]

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

[TubeSteak]

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:DMCA irrelevant

[cpu6502]

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

[Plekto]

Correct. They are basically spamming because they are pissed at the way things work and likely didn't read the contract they signed. And because it's Amazon and other huge companies that the ebooks are managed under, they are boned when it comes to re-working their contracts with them. If the Kindle allows sharing, until it doesn't any more, you have a legitimate right to use the function if they allowed it when they signed up.

The person in question needs to get his own server and net connection set up (actual leased line - bypass the ISP entirely). Then he can simply roundfile everything and they'll be forced to take actual legal action to get him to stop. Which they won't. His response should always be "Contact Kindle/Amazon/etc and complain to them to disable the feature - you said it was OK when you signed up." C&D *notices* are as worthless as those notices to pay 20 year old credit card debts. You'll still get them from time to time, but you can toss them and ignore them.

The only way to deal with asshats like this is to always fight it out and win. No, I'm not a lawyer, but this is truly a no-brainer. Don't let the bullies ruin your dream.

Re:DMCA irrelevant

[LiENUS]

presumably you own your home and the land it's on (if you don't then that clause was not nullified check with the fcc they make it pretty clear that homeowners associations can restrict installations in certain instances). I doubt this guy owned the datacenter, the network and any other random hardware in the way. Those people have the right to terminate someone leasing their equipment for the reasons outlined in their contract.

Re:DMCA irrelevant

[pantaril]

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.

This is quite sad. What fucked-up state is the legal system in, when you rather fold and shutdown you customer then fight the accussations, even when you believe you are right?

Re:DMCA irrelevant

[sumdumass]

A cease and desist is completely meaningless because an ISP is immune from copyright violations if it follows the DMCA. There is no fighting at all and the ISP including the claimed infringer can recover damages including costs and lawyer fees.

The DMCA does state that the ISP has to remove content if it becomes aware of infringing activity that are not allowed by the copyright holder or law. But a take down notice as prescribed by law is the only valid form of a copyright owner or their agent to notify the ISP of the infringing activity and the law states that notices that do not comply with the section 3 requirements do not count as actual knowledge of infringement activities.

No ISP has anything to fear over a cease and desist notice for copyright unless it complies with the take down notice requirements or substantially complies and the ISP will have to notify them of a proper take down format..

Re:DMCA irrelevant

[bitingduck]

Don't bother suing, just switch. I wrote him a post suggesting hosting outside the US. I'm a small electronic book publisher and don't have any problem at all with what they're doing. Word of mouth is more effective than advertising for little publishers. I use a canadian hosting company in part because they had a TOS that was about a page and didn't say "We offer unlimited storage and bandwidth unless you actually use it". I've had reasonably sized and priced and ever increasing limits since I signed up with them.

Re:DMCA irrelevant

[nedlohs]

No, they must follow the DMCA process when the receive a DMCA notice (and before that by providing contact information, etc) if they want to be covered under the safe harbor provisions.

That doesn't mean they can't also suspend an account because the user went over their bandwidth allowance, because the sysadmin was having a bad day, because someone asked them to nicely, or whatever. That part is covered by the agreement between them and the hostee. And it most likely includes a "we can suspend your account for any reason we feel like" clause if it's cheap.

Such action could make them liable for copyyright infriging activity of their clients (i.e. they could lose the safe harbor protections), but it does not change anything with respect the the hostee

Re:DMCA irrelevant

[Shagg]

My understanding is that the DMCA requires them to remove the material upon a takedown request, however, it doesn't say that they can't remove the material if there isn't a takedown request. The hosting company can still remove the material for lots of other reasons that have nothing to do with the DMCA.

Sqeaky Wheel gets the grease

[Lieutenant_Dan]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[genocism]

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...

[Synchis]

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.

Re:As an Indie Author Myself...

[Pembers]

Another indie author here. I saw the hysteria in one of my Facebook groups last week and decided to see for myself. I searched lendink for my name and saw my three books listed. One of my titles is available only for the Kindle at the moment, so I thought I'd ask to borrow it for the Nook. That should determine whether they really were just matching up people to borrow books, or were pirating them.

Before they'd let me borrow a book, they wanted me to offer one for someone else to borrow. I pretended to have one of my own titles to offer. They asked me for the author and title so they could do a search on Amazon or Barnes & Noble, but then seemed to ignore the author and just bring up the first match for a search on the title. One of my books has the same title as about ten other books. The others have "and" in the title, which most search functions ignore. So the site wouldn't let me offer my own books to be borrowed. Meaning that regardless of whether they were pirating or lending, they weren't very good at it.

I suppose for some indie authors, it's easy to believe that the reason they're not making megabucks is because everyone's pirating their book. Easier than believing it's because of Sturgeon's Law...

Re:As an Indie Author Myself...

[sumdumass]

What was the site really doing. Was it simply a service to say, I've got BookX and am looking for BookY? Were people simply asking for requested books to read or listing their inventory and trading or something? It seems to me that amazon and Kindle both have their readers locked down so you can't move the stuff around without their permission.

I don't do the Ebook thing. I demand a copy I can take from computer to computer, put on a thumb drive, or a hard copy of some sorts that I don't mind leaving in the crapper (printed pages don't work)..

Re:As an Indie Author Myself...

[colesw]

So did they let you borrow the book, or pirate it? You never actually answered the reason you decided to try the site, just that he had a shitty search engine.

Re:As an Indie Author Myself...

[Travelsonic]

Sounds less an issue of being good or bad and more a matter of crappy search algorithms.

Re:As an Indie Author Myself...

[Pembers]

So did they let you borrow the book, or pirate it? You never actually answered the reason you decided to try the site, just that he had a shitty search engine.

I gave up before I got that far. My point was that if their search was no good, it didn't matter whether they were a pirate site or a legitimate one - either way, I didn't see them posing any danger to my earnings.

This is why I still buy paper books

[SilverJets]

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

[flyingfsck]

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

Re:This is why I still buy paper books

[mwvdlee]

On the other hand, nobody can ever retract a book from an e-reader, shut down an e-book DRM server or destroy an e-reader physically.

Re:This is why I still buy paper books

[oneandoneis2]

It's why the only books on my reader are from either Project Gutenburg or O'Reilly - all are DRM-free.

Re:This is why I still buy paper books

[nitio]

Now here is the interesting part: I buy all my books through the Big A but the first thing I do is copy to my computer, remove DRM and have it being backed up in a format I can read anytime I want.

Do I send this out? No. Do I lend these DRM-free? No. Do I copy this DRM-free to all my other devices? No- I really use their reader for all devices.

I just want to make sure that in the event that they go down, my books don't go with them.

If you don't want to have similar problems...

[milonssecretsn]

You might want to avoid the following webhost:

$ whois lendink.com | grep -a1 servers

      Domain servers in listed order:
            NS3.MEDIALAYER.NET

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[SilverJets]

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.

Must not have been a good business...

[Memroid]

"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...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Must not have been a good business...

[mwvdlee]

reading is hard.

He must be an author ;)

Re:I want the names of the authors

[Githaron]

Sounds good to me.

Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[Anonymous Coward]

Right here:

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

Interesting discussion there.

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[Ian Lamont]

Go to the "see all" discussions on this page 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

[wierd_w]

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.

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[Anonymous Coward]

To save all of you the trouble, here's the moblist so far on the facebook link:

Robin Helm, OG Tomes, Buck Stienke, Ken Farmer, Dawn Sinclair, Joyce Godwin Grubbs, Tony Riches, Rebecca Treadway, Lisa Kz, Mari Passananti, Melody Peugh, Stephen Dafoe, Karen Kennedy Samoranos, Gerry Huntman, Rhea Rhodan, Kai Starr (Kaichi Satake), Anne Barnhill, Vicki Batman, James F. Ross, Scarlet Hunter, Alisha Paige, Merris Hawk, Cathie Dunn, Roscoe James, Trish Marie Dawson, Mark Patton, Sandra Peddle, Bill Wilbur, Rachel Lyndhurst, Melinda Hammond, Chrystalla Thoma, David Naughton-Shires, Electa Scott Graham, Kate McCormick, Seumas Gallacher, Juliet Cardin, Benita Brown, Julie Parker, Jenny Woodall, Pam Mangol Bitner, Liz Ringrose, Anne Polhill Walton, Lesley Cookman, M.m. Bennetts, Gerry Huntman, Prue Batten, Chrystalla Thoma, Karl Jones, Anna Jacobs, Deborah Gafford, Nely Cab, Tessa Berkley, Nan O'Berry, Sharon Cathcart, Lauren Gilbert, Naty Matos, Tory Michaels, Cerian Williams Hebert, Karen Cino, LaVerne Clark, Erin Dameron-Hill, Kissa Starling, Emily Harvale, Rosalind Smith-Nazilli, Seumas Gallacher, Paula Martin, Melanie Pearce, Jeanette Baird Vaughan, Trace Rybarczyk Broyles, Trevor Belshaw, Pam Howes, Deb Harris, Gayl Taylor, Nanette Del Valle Bradford, Ella James, Raven McAllan, Linda Gillard, Jenny Woodall, Virginia McKevitt, Morticia Knight, Judith Arnopp Novelist, Heather Nelson, Ruth Watson-Morris, Rebecca Rynecki, Victoria Pearson Writer, Maxi Shelton, David J Howe .... and a whole lot more I'm sure but Facebook refused to load the messages any further.

Special mentions go to :

Aimée Reinhart Avery (belittling posters), Renaissance Romance Publishing (yes, a publishing house that cannot be bothered to investigate), Shawn Lamb (unremorseful), Danielle Yockman (abusing/belittling posters esp. with comments like "Doubt you would've bought a copy anyway. *shrugs*")

Authors who apologised:

Jennifer Hanning

Authors who actually took the time to investigate and found no wrongdoing:

Michele Poet, Philip Catshill, Shanon Nowell

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[jaymemaurice]

The facebook page is quite entertaining, here are some of the comment threads

Some are not only stupid and ignorant, but incomprehsibly so:
Linda Gillard - TAKE MY 6 E-BOOKS OFF YOUR SITE IMMEDIATELY. THIS IS BOOK PIRACY AND THEFT! I receive nothing for these loans & you haven't even asked for my permission to give away my books. (And you wouldn't get it.) I have informed Amazon, my agent and The Society of Authors of your illegal activities.
Linda Gillard - It looks as if the whole thing is a scam. You can't download the books. Borrowers are referred to Amazon to buy them. Whoever runs the site is probably just collecting referral fees from Amazon. Neat racket.
Jenny Woodall - Linda, have you tried registering and 'borrowing' a book?
Linda Gillard - No, but someone else has. I think their post is on this page if you look back.
(previous referenced comment: Philip Catshill Hang on hang on.... I have just registered and tried to download my own book, But the site tells me the Book CANNOT BE BORROWED - ONLY BOUGHT : Click on BUY and you go to the Amazon sell page. Its just a referal site - I have similar links for "friends" novels on my Website so I reckon this guy is just out to collect referal fees from Amazon.)
Jenny Woodall - Thanks, will do.
Jenny Woodall - Did a 'Who is" search and have now contacted the Domain host with a cease and desist letter as well.
Linda Gillard - I've just heard back from the SoA who think what they are doing is not illegal but is probably misleading to both borrowers & authors.
TLDR; Even after understanding site is reffering customers to buy her books through legit channels, Jenny Woodall decides to bother the hosting company.

And then there are some clearly out for blood money:
Jeanette Baird Vaughan - EVERYONE ON THIS SITE!!! EMAIL ME YOUR ADDYS AND WE WILL FILE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT!
Rosalind Smith-Nazilli - I have mailed them also and commented here..
Philip Catshill - ?"Hang on hang on.... I have just registered and tried to download my own book, But the site tells me the Book CANNOT BE BORROWED - ONLY BOUGHT : Click on BUY and you go to the Amazon sell page. Its just a referal site - I have similar links for "friends" novels on my Website so I reckon this guy is just out to collect referal fees from Amazon."
Miranda Stork - This 'guy' is not a member of the Amazon Associate Program, and so is not collecting referrals. We currently have a lawyer looking into all of this for us, as even if the site WAS legit, he has books there that are DRM protected. These should not even be SHOWING up. On top of that, if he is legit, why has he answered no emails, or removed any books?
Jeanette Baird Vaughan - Please keep me in contact with you about the lawyer. My book is on Kindle Select and he should not have access to it a all!
Miranda Stork - We will do, as I mentioned in the message to you, we are just sorting out things before we make a lot of statements, as we don't want too much information floating around panicking people until we have compiled everything, but this guy will NOT get away with this.
Dawn Sinclair - If this action goes ahead, could you inform me as I have 2 books on Amazon Kindle and they are both on Lendink's lists illegally...Theresa Dawn Sinclair...my email address is dawnspen@gmail.com...thank?s very much
Jeanette Baird Vaughan - He has taken down the site for now. Wish we could still get him financially!
Miranda Stork - That's what we are still looking into, we're still talking to our legal counsel.
Miranda Stork - Also, he didn't take the site down, it was taken down by the server after several lawyers got in touch :)
Jeanette Baird Vaughan - Awesome! Who are these lawyers...let's join forces!!
Miranda Stork - I heard about it from a friend, Maxi Shelton, so if you ask her, she can tell you the full details.

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell a torrent of 1-star reviews coming to Amazon...

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[hey!]

Going down the list, the majority of them appear to be either self-published or published by "vanity" press operations. The notion of economic damage is, for most of these writers, a fantasy.

Re:Authors still attacking their Facebook page

[kyrio]

Philip Catshill - ?"Hang on hang on.... I have just registered and tried to download my own book, But the site tells me the Book CANNOT BE BORROWED - ONLY BOUGHT :

I don't think this moron realizes that his book isn't available for borrowing because it's a piece of shit and nobody bought it to lend it out. Well, considering his inability to write proper English, I'm not surprised.

The Great American Dream!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[Firethorn]

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.

Publicly Post Each and Every Complaint

[medv4380]

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

And piracy stll goes on

[SealBeater]

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

Re:And piracy stll goes on

[Synchis]

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

[LordLucless]

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.

Re:And piracy stll goes on

[Synchis]

Amazon already has a system in place to allow customers to redownload my book if I make a future revision. I've used it once to send out an update after a few minor mistakes made it through to the final release. I did a new revision and had Amazon notify all of my customers of the new version. Worked wonderfully.

And no DRM.

DRM is defective by design. It doesn't stop piracy. It only causes problems. As a rule, I don't enable DRM, ever.

Yet again

[Trogre]

Once again, thank you copyright.

With a capital F.

Re:The very idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 )

Re:This is why you don't host with GoDaddy

[Shikaku]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3035829&cid=40926559

Not GoDaddy, as evidenced by anyone who knows what whois is.

Any company would comply to multiple cease and desists.

Re:Cry me a river

[dark12222000]

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

Yet again, Stallman was right

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hiding her actions now....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hiding her actions now....

[atomicxblue]

How can you hate Neil Gaiman? I love him even more now that he wrote what has become one of my top 5 favorite Doctor Who episodes of all time. I say we burn her at the stake!

Now for my bitchy side -- we should correct her horrible grammar and awkward phrasing, and send the corrected post back to her.

"Can our e-book be lended?" The correct past-tense form of lend is lent, not lended.

She even knows she's in the wrong: "It was all a fishing expedition using underhanded tactics."

Oh, come on!

[Stiletto]

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?

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[mdenham]

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.

All women authors complaining?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looked at the Facebook page. It all seems to be women authors complaining, and they all seem to be wrong.

What is an eBook?

[TemplePilot]

I guess that settles it. I'll consign myself to buying up whatever dead tree editions I can; and completely forget about buying any eReader or eBooks if these "Authors Guild" idiots are going to be a rabid crowd of money mongers. Unionized writers and publishing houses, like these belong on a do not buy list. And so the world grows smaller once again. Thanks to Greed.

The deleted your message as well

[Taco Cowboy]

They not only banned you

The message you posted also got deleted !

I have just lost all respect to those so-called "authors"

Re:The deleted your message as well

[RivenAleem]

Somebody call Barbara, we have a job for her unique talents.

Re:The deleted your message as well

[Trogre]

Likewise. Project Gutenberg is looking better every day.

Judge not ...

[Taco Cowboy]

The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not judge". In Matthew 7:1-2, Jesus says, "âoeDo 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."

 
There is one sentence that summarize all the above ...
 
 

Judge Not, Lest Thou Be Judged

 

What got to me...

[Havenwar]

What got to me was that on the complaining authors blog - which someone linked to - there was a part of a post saying that the reason they complained was because lendlnk was not an authorized lender, and only loans through authorized lenders cause the author to get their commission from the loan. Now, from what I've gathered lendlnk didn't loan the books themselves, they sent people to amazon - an authorized lender. However that's really not the big news here.

The big news is that authors are getting paid when we loan an e-book to someone else. If this is true it's horrendous.

Seriously, what's next, will they want to get paid if we read it in a new room? If we remove it from the kindle and then re-download it? If we read it in the dark? I mean, clearly it's amazon that pays out, but of course the cost ends up with the end consumer eventually... and even if it didn't, we really don't want to create another class of content producers that are fully expecting to write a book or three and then sit on their fat asses and ride the royalty checks for the rest of their lives. That's how the music and film industry got to be the giant douche-nozzles they are today - keep getting paid over and over again for the same work they already did and moved on from.

Man, I wish I could go to work at say a supermarket, work for a day, or hell work for a year... and then get paid a .01% royalty every time someone goes through the checkout for the rest of my life.

Now I'm not one of those people who devalue abstract goods... Ideas, books, poetry, whatever... these are valuable things. People should get paid to bring these to the world... However they should get paid for the work they do. Paid per book, per work, or per hour - whatever business model the REAL WORLD can handle... but they shouldn't be paid for future use of work they've already done. If they write a book in three months, they should write another one six months later, or a year, if they want to keep making a living as an author. Or if they do it for fun, because they WANT to write... well then they can just as well do it while working in wallmart to put food on the table. A lot of us - me included - could probably live off things we do for fun... But only if we made it our fulltime job. Of course eventually the market for professional gameplayers and buckyball artists would be saturated, but you get the idea. If it's a fulltime job, you should get paid while you work it.

So stop going the other way by bending to give these lazy fucks more money for things they shouldn't be able to even know. If I lend my hardcopy to someone, the author doesn't get paid again. Nothing has changed in what happens, so nothing should change in the payscheme.

Re:What got to me...

[Plekto]

Given how amazingly little Amazon pays the authors, and if it's *Amazon* paying them this tiny amount extra, I see no problem. None at all.

I think Amazon is stupid to pay them money for anything past the first sale, but whatever - they can waste money all they want to generate business if they wish to do so.

The real deal here is how the person in question here can monetize his (future) site. Perhaps work out some deal with Amazon, maybe, to run their ads or links to them, since he's doing it already? If he can become the site associated with this feature, he's got a real possible business. Or at least make enough money to pay for the server and connection.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

If someone - Amazon - starts paying people off so that you can use property you have legally bought in a legal fashion, then that's a horrible precedent no matter how you bend it. I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable about money trading hands so that I can do things that are my legal right to property that is legally mine. Why?

Well because if Amazon pays for it, you can bet your sweet ass it's included in the price when you buy it from them. Which means you are paying extra to actually use your legal rights with your legal property. Charging people for property is okay, like a book. Charging people for a service, say renting a book to them, is okay. Charging people for property, and then charging them some extra for the permission to use it legally... that's getting paid for a bridge that wasn't yours to sell.

I'm glad I found out about this, I'll make sure never to use the lending feature on my kindle. I'll just either lend them my actual kindle so they can read it, or I'll direct them to a pirated version of the book. Both are the exact moral equivalent of lending them the file, they get to read it, decide if they want to own it... neither way gets the author paid extra for this new reader, unless they catch them as a new reader of their own.

Re:What got to me...

[Plekto]

I still think that you are taking this wrong. Amazon pays the author a (very) small percentage if you buy the book the first time. Check.
If you lend the book, a much smaller percentage goes to the author, effectively raising the payout to the author, since it's 100% Amazon's contract from start to finish. In other words, in order to get your full payout as an author, you need to allow lending. Otherwise you're getting less. This is just between Amazon and the author.

"We'll pay you more if you allow lending, but IFF actual lending is happening." That's perfectly fair, IMO.

If the Author thinks it's wrong, they can opt out. As the end user, we get the same price anyways.

Re:What got to me...

[Wordplay]

Can you cite sources on the small percentage? Or define small? Looks like self-published authors can either choose a 35% or a 70% royalty. If they choose the former, they can exclude the book from the lending program. If they choose the latter, they cannot.

Is 35% small? Because this document (http://www.brandewyne.com/writingtips/authorspaid.html) implies that standard rates from publishers top out around 15% and average significantly less. Plus, of course, many of these authors would never land a mainstream publisher and would be limited to vanity press, which is pretty much a loss.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

No we don't get the same price anyways. As the end user we pay a price based on amazon's cost + profit margin. If you for a moment assume that they pay any author a single millionth of a cent without that going into their calculations when setting the price to consumer, then you need to go back to pre-school and learn some more about 1+1=2.

Paying a little extra for a right the user already has is simply eroding those rights - because eventually it means they'll have to pay extra for every and any right they wish to give us... which will mean we either get less rights, or higher prices. This is not acceptable, because Amazon is paying the author off twice for something the author has already sold - the book, and with it the rights to read it, lend it, or draw funny pictures on it and call it a swan.

I agree amazon should pay authors more, but that's not the case here. The case here is paying the author for something the author doesn't own: the rights to what I do with their book once I've already legally purchased it.

I'd love to be paid for things I don't own. Sounds great to me. In fact, if you start paying me for shit I don't own, I'll probably come up with a pretty long list of shit I don't own that you could pay me more for. Since you've started, you'd be hard pressed to say no... You've established precedent, and I quite like money, especially for things I don't own... But that doesn't make it right.

You can paint it in any light you want, it's still a pile of crap.

Re:What got to me...

[Hognoxious]

Paid per book, per work, or per hour - whatever business model the REAL WORLD can handle...

None of those three, because they don't take into account how good or popular the product is.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

That's actually quite correct - none of those take into account how good or popular the product is. Of course I'm not a capitalist, so I don't expect people to get paid differently based on such things. I believe a worker who makes an ipad should be paid as much as a worker who makes an android tablet... a worker who makes a rolls should be paid as much as a worker who makes a mini cooper. Of course in those cases, and in most other cases, salaries are indeed comparable if you look within the same working environment and financial zone... it's only within abstract goods that this strange notion of being paid for popularity arrives.

But all the same, I'm quite happy to entirely sidestep that argument... if you believe they should be paid as per popularity, go right ahead and add a fourth, fifth, sixth option. Like I said - whatever business model the real world can handle. Pay them a percentage of income during the first year, or a set amount per sold unit during a limited time. Now I prefer if this time is truly limited, say legally no more than five years or so - which is also how long copyright should last. But my argument holds true even if you pay them a percentage for every booksale for as long as they have the copyright to the material... They still shouldn't be paid again just because their customers utilizes their legal right to do what they wish with their legal property. They still shouldn't be paid past the point where the product has changed hands.

Re:What got to me...

[Plekto]

35% vs 70% is a huge difference and 35% is indeed very small when you consider that Amazon is admitting that they can still make a good profit at 70% payout. Digital distribution costs are negligible, after all, compared to traditional printed books.

Re:What got to me...

[Plekto]

I ran over the actual numbers and it's not a small difference any more.

35% to the author if they want full control. 70% if they enable sharing. Cost to the purchaser is identical either way, as it's set by the author as a flat fee regardless of their cut. So the actual problem is with Amazon trying to force authors to give up many of their rights in order to be paid a fair amount versus the competition. Amazon has essentially admitted that they are fine with a 30% take for themselves to run the service. So it's not like enabling sharing is increasing the price to you or I.

As an end user, I don't personally care. This is between the authors and Amazon to work out. A $1 book will still BE a $1 book as long as the author decides to price it that low.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

Except amazon still takes the difference into account when setting the price to consumer in the first place. They calculate how many authors will opt for the extra 35%. and they take that cost and divide it on the amount of sales they'll make totally... every purchaser pays a fraction of those extra 35%. that likely most authors accept.

Like I said, 1+1=2, basic business - these people aren't operating a charity. They give more to some authors, they charge more to all customers. They give a lot extra to a few, they charge a little extra from a lot of customers. It evens out.

Re:What got to me...

[bitingduck]

Can you cite sources on the small percentage? Or define small? Looks like self-published authors can either choose a 35% or a 70% royalty. If they choose the former, they can exclude the book from the lending program. If they choose the latter, they cannot.

Is 35% small? Because this document (http://www.brandewyne.com/writingtips/authorspaid.html) implies that standard rates from publishers top out around 15% and average significantly less. Plus, of course, many of these authors would never land a mainstream publisher and would be limited to vanity press, which is pretty much a loss.

As far as I can tell from looking through KDP royalty statements, there's no royalty if the original purchaser uses the lending feature to let someone borrow an ebook.

If you choose the 70% royalty, the book is lending enabled, meaning that a person can lend it out once for two weeks. If you choose 35% you can opt out of that. People may see the "Units Borrowed" column and not read the footnote carefully and think that they get a royalty from units lent p2p.

The amazon lending policy is still much more restrictive than that of a dead-tree book, and is designed mainly to give people a sample of a book to encourage them to buy their own copy. For a reasonably long book and a busy person, you might not get around to sitting down and reading it all at once, and the two weeks could easily expire before you finish. And even if you finish it and like it, it provides another person to recommend it by word of mouth (and who can't lend it).

Amazon sales reports do have a "units borrowed" column, but that's for books that are enrolled in KDP Select, which gives Amazon exclusive sales rights to your book for 3 months, and includes it in their lending library (available to Amazon Prime subscribers). The royalty for that comes from a combined pool of money from amazon prime fees that is divided among all the KDP library loan instances. We don't have much in KDP select, so I haven't looked close, but it looks like if there are a lot of books borrowed you get less (smaller cut of the same pool).

Standard rates from publishers end up being around 15-20% of cover price, and if you got an advance you generally have to recoup like in the record industry.

Re:What got to me...

[bitingduck]

The big news is that authors are getting paid when we loan an e-book to someone else. If this is true it's horrendous.

It's not true. At least not with Amazon. People are getting KDP Select "Units Borrowed" confused with units lent p2p. Authors and publishers don't even see that a book has been lent P2P, and it only happens once. Apparently a lot of people sign up for KDP select and don't know that there's a difference between p2p and KDP Library lending. They see a small royalty from the "units borrowed" column because everyone in KDP select splits a pot based on the total number of borrows for the month. KDP Select is a 3-month at a time exclusive deal with amazon where they can lend the books and they also have exclusive right to sell it for 3 months. The author/publisher gets some very small marketing perks.

Paid per book, per work, or per hour - whatever business model the REAL WORLD can handle... but they shouldn't be paid for future use of work they've already done. If they write a book in three months, they should write another one six months later, or a year, if they want to keep making a living as an author. Or if they do it for fun, because they WANT to write... well then they can just as well do it while working in wallmart to put food on the table.

Very few authors can turn out a good novel in 3-6 months. A lot of authors work for a decade or longer on their first novel, which is why second and third novels often are nowhere near as good. Plus nearly every author needs significant editing, even really good ones. It's no different than having engineering design reviews or code reviews. Harry Potter is a great example-- the first few books were pretty good, and enough to make it a best seller. The later books show fewer and fewer signs of editing, and got longer and longer, and were filled with more and more characters who were pulled out of nowhere to patch a plot hole and then left dangling. It's reasonable that authors should get paid more or less per reader, with some generous allowance for lending by individuals and libraries.

If you want authors to get paid per book up front, expect to see nothing but lowest common denominator stuff-- people are fickle about tastes and publishers have to take a lot of risks on stuff that isn't going to go anywhere, even without paying big advances.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

I believe you are incorrect in your last assertion. After all, first time authors are not paid based on anything but assumed sale-ability today, so nothing would actually change - just the size of the long term return. And the very fact that most authors take a decade to write their first book without getting paid a cent for it or having any book-related income to live off, proves that most of them are motivated by other things than money... while the fact that they are paid more for later books that are not as good and get less editing proves the capitalistic bent to the business.

I'm fine with that. I don't agree with rampant capitalism, but I'm fine with people wanting to make money. Sell your property, sell your ideas... but don't expect to be paid again when I use what is now MY property in a legal fashion.

Lastly thank you for the information about p2p lending versus KDP, I'll have to look into that. If it's true then it seems at face value like it could address my concerns, but I really don't know what KDP is yet.

Re:What got to me...

[geoffaus]

Someone should setup a site where an author can sell their book and say it took me W many hours - so I value this book at X if I sell Y many copies @ Z then YxZ=X When X is reached the book becomes free to download/distribute because I have earned what I determined a fair amount for the amount of time it cost me Im guessing not too many authors would want to be paid like the rest of us though.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

Actually I think most authors are happy to be paid at all. A few write for fame or money, this is true, but writing is not the typical careerchoice for anyone looking to get rich or famous. Most people write because they love telling stories, because they get a kick when people read their stories and tell them how good they are, or just because they can't stop writing.

Some of these people go on to be rich and famous... and some of those people who do, end up writing a bunch of crap evermore because they have now gotten used to the money and fame and are more interested in producing income than content... But these people are the exceptions. The vast majority of what you find written was written because someone wanted to write it, or because they wanted you to read it.

Even if they made charging more than the physical production cost of a book illegal, books would still exist - granted there would be a lot less twilight and 50 shades of grey out there, but... I can't say that worries me too much. Most of what I read these days are from non-famous authors anyway.

Re:What got to me...

[volmtech]

Most writers and singers are one hit wonders. You're saying three months copy write is enough, it's mine now, create something else. If I create something it's mine for four years, if you want to use it pay me, other wise, create something your self or do without.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

I'll do without, thanks! The way you handle the language it's quite obvious to me that you wouldn't produce anything I'd want to read or listen to, free or not. Of course you are also trolling, since I at no point in the post you replied to said anything about the length of copyright. If you read further down in the discussion you'll see I mention my opinion that it shouldn't be longer than a handful of years or so, but that's not exactly relevant to the topic so I'm not going to discuss it. Not even if you learned to read and write.

Re:What got to me...

[volmtech]

Of course you can do without. Most literary works are produced for profit, not random peoples need to be entertained. Me, I'am writing to entertain myself, and you got to read my work for free. Now patents on things that improve my life or health, those need a much shorter term..

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

Actually most literary works are produced for entertainment. Most of the budding authors who are in it to make a profit you'll find are self-publishing, thinks editing is a dirty word, and generally won't get much of an audience outside of what they can aggressively market themselves to. They might be local phenomenons for a few years, seen in the few local bookshops, constantly waiting for the big breakthrough... that won't come unless they learn to actually write properly, use the services of an editor, and realize they are fallible. And so on.

As for things that improve your life and health, well, under that definition I believe any literary works you produced should lean more towards being restricted as weapons of mass destruction, so copyright really isn't an issue here. Look into a career in psychological warfare or some such.

Re:What got to me...

[volmtech]

You know, I might just do that. I will send my next novel to my daughter who has a PhD in creative writing and have her tighten up my prose. Then have her send it to her brother who is a contract lawyer so he can make sure Simon and Schuster don't shaft me on my best seller. Thanks for your advise.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

You're welcome. Just don't forget to run it through a spell-checker and get it to a good editor, wouldn't want to accidentally give your children a heart-attack from having to read it in its unedited form.

Re:What got to me...

[volmtech]

OK, I'am disabled, unemployed, and have insomnia. I stay up most nights trolling forums. My expertise is agricultural and mechanical. Plant biology, pesticides and soil fertility. Plus diesel mechanics, plc controlled weighing and packaging equipment, hydraulic systems, hazardous waste collection and shipping. Plus industrial three phase electrical systems and air conditioning. With a semester of C++ programming. And six years in the Navy as a machinist mate running 600 pound steam propulsion systems. I know a little about a whole lot and have an opinion about everything. I put four children through collage, so I think I've done all right. Being awake for thirty hours does cloud my thinking somewhat and yes, I can't spell. Spell check tries to help but sometimes I use a correctly spelled word incorrectly. Thanks for playing.

Re:What got to me...

[Hognoxious]

I believe a worker who makes an ipad should be paid as much as a worker who makes an android tablet... a worker who makes a rolls should be paid as much as a worker who makes a mini cooper.

Fallacious argument. Writers aren't production line workers. Or at least, good ones aren't.

But all the same, I'm quite happy to entirely sidestep that argument... if you believe they should be paid as per popularity, go right ahead and add a fourth, fifth, sixth option. Like I said - whatever business model the real world can handle.

It's already got one. You apparently don't like it, so it's up to you to come up with a better one.

You appear to be proposing something akin to state patronage. That's different. I doubt many would agree that it's better.

If someone writes a book that gives pleasure to fifty million people to the extent that they're all prepared to give up some share of their claim on the economy's production, why shouldn't that person be paid more than someone who writes dull crap that nobody wants? The latter would do more good for themselves and everyone else washing dishes or shoveling shite.

Re:What got to me...

[Havenwar]

I knew this old lady who worked as a cleaner at the local hospice. Every person there knew her name, because that was just the kind of person she was. At some times of stress the elderly would even ask for her to be there with them, just so they'd have a familiar face in the blur of doctors and nurses that came and went. Arguably this woman gave pleasure to a lot of people. But she was paid the same as any other janitor, the rest of what she did... well that was her choice, that was her enjoying pleasing others. If she wanted to do that as a career and get paid to do it then she would have had to go get certified as a nurse or something, and enter that rat-race.

I'm not saying that giving people pleasure and satisfaction isn't a good thing, or that it should go unrewarded... I'm saying these people are producing a product. They can sell it for a hundred years if they wish. Under current laws their ancestors can keep selling it exclusively until the copyright goes out, probably long after the author's own demise.

What I am saying is that once they've sold me my product, the book, they are not to expect me to pay again for it. They are not renting me a story, they are not offering me a continual service, they are selling a product. If they do this through a publisher or directly is another argument, if they have the copyright for a day or a million years is another argument. The fact that they don't have any rights to get paid when I use my lawfully purchased product in a legal manner that doesn't infringe their copyright does matter.

It matters quite a lot.

Re:What got to me...

[Wordplay]

Well, my point was that it's an better deal than what they were getting with traditional publishers, especially since it guarantees acceptance and store placement (with Amazon, at any rate) that they wouldn't be guaranteed otherwise.

There is a bit of "market will bear" going on with the royalties, sure, and Amazon is making more money than the author on the 35% option. However, it's hard to see it as the authors being taken advantage of at least compared to the status quo.

Re:What got to me...

[Wordplay]

Re: lending, there's also Amazon's Prime Lending Library feature, where a Prime subscriber can "borrow" books once a month. I think the 70/35 ties into that as well, though I'm unsure how that plays with the "lend to each other" option with KDP (I'm not an author).

At any rate, it seems like while it may not be a perfect deal for the author, it's a significant step forward.

I dont think its even that...

[Cyno01]

I think many of them DO actually at least partly approve of these things, but feel guilty enough to lie about it. If there are so many of these purported "moderate christians" who dont want to burn gays at the stake and dont want to tell women what to do with their bodies and dont want to teach creationism in science class and just want to be good people and love their neighbors and follow the teachings of christ... do they not vote?

Because various referendums around the country definitely indicate that these mythical voiceless moderates dont really represent a significant percentage of christians, much less the general population.

Re:I dont think its even that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, project on to other people much? You sound like the hateful bigot you claim your targets are. What right-minded person would want what you claim the majority of US citizens want? Do you believe the ethical foundation on which the entire western civilization is based is merely a facade presented by savages who want to kill those who disagree with them?

You, sir (or ma'am), are a bigot and need to learn tolerance.

Re:I dont think its even that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think that these people "partially" support bombings just because they vote contrary to your beliefs on some issues? There is a massive gap between advocating/supporting violence and expressing ones beliefs through more peaceful means like voting. That is as it should be. I would hope you don't "partially approve" when hearing about violence used against a group with a beliefs different than yours. Why would you assume they would act any differently? They have reasons for their beliefs, which to them are perfectly logical, rational, and likely sprinked with a heavy dose of self-interest. Just like yours probably are, and mine too. I find it depressing that being "against" something these days seems to automatically imply hate and violence.

Being against gay marriage doesn't imply "burning gays at the stake" and more than being against olives implies I may punch the delivery driver in the face if he brings me a pizza with olives. And for the record I'm not against either gay marriage or olives. Except the green ones, those are nasty. Olives I mean.

Re:I dont think its even that...

[cornjones]

Move away from the gay marriage issue as I think it clouds what the GP is saying. what about focusing on the creationist teaching and scientific demonization? Where are the moderate christians on that? As the GP said, "various referendums around the country definitely indicate that these mythical voiceless moderates dont really represent a significant percentage of christians, much less the general population."

I find it disheartening to be sabotaging our children w/ the level of education and anti-science stance that seems to be coming from the far christian right but I am not seeing (significant percentages of) moderates marginalizing the loonies.

Re:I dont think its even that...

[Voyager529]

What about focusing on the creationist teaching and scientific demonization? Where are the moderate christians on that? As the GP said, "various referendums around the country definitely indicate that these mythical voiceless moderates dont really represent a significant percentage of christians, much less the general population."

I find it disheartening to be sabotaging our children w/ the level of education and anti-science stance that seems to be coming from the far christian right but I am not seeing (significant percentages of) moderates marginalizing the loonies.

A bit of a strawman here. Teaching Creationism to one's own children does not in itself advocate violence toward abortion clinics or picketing at soldiers' funerals or homosexual marriage ceremonies.

I went to an explicitly religious school. Did I learn about Creationism? yes. Did I learn about evolution and the big bang theory? of course - and I aced the New York State Regents exams on Earth Science and Living Environment ('biology' by any other name), and got a B in chemistry. Despite going to a Christian school, I wasn't taught about Creationism at the expense of Evolution, and few parents (certainly not my own) would have had it any other way. The science departments taught us about chemical reactions and fossil records and DNA replication like every other school in the state - better than 90% of the public school districts in the county based on New York State Regents test scores, in fact.

Seriously, I don't understand where all this "Christians are against teaching science" stuff is coming from. The earth is round and revolved around the sun, cells divide, fossils are found in rock layers (though admittedly the Genesis Flood is considered responsible for this, and yes, that's an explanation I'll personally align myself with), DNA is made of four amino acids, and giraffes with long necks will reproduce more successfully than giraffes with short necks in areas where accessible food is kept in trees high up off the ground.

For those calling for Christians to speak out against individuals who are in favor of violence against abortion clinics, violence against gays, significant discrimination against...basically anyone, or banning science in classrooms (one of these things is not like the other...), I, for one, am explicitly stating these things. Yes, seven levels deep in a Slashdot thread isn't much of a pulpit to stand on, but these things are NOT in line with the Bible I read or the God I serve, and I do NOT endorse these actions.

Re:I dont think its even that...

[cornjones]

I wasn't trying to equate the stance against science w/ abortion clinic bombings, though I see that may come across in the thread.

I am worried, specifically about the stance that is being taken by the far right against science. Things like the text books in Texas changing based on religious views, removing critical thinking education , and denying climatology based on religion.

This is based on 2 minutes of googling. I am sure i could come up w/ more. You yourself admit that you don't believe in evolution. This theory is excellently proven and you can see it in action. you admit it yourself for giraffes. but based on the bible, are you saying you believe in a 6000 year old universe?

You mention the earth revolving around the sun, how long was that proven before the church changed its mind on that one?

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[temcat]

But see, they're writers, not readers!

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[icebraining]

The authors had to sign contracts? Who exactly forced them?

Re:What the heck kind of business was Lendink?

[Shikaku]

How callous. It doesn't matter as long as it never hurts you, doesn't it?

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[icebraining]

You're right, I misread. But then I don't really get the point of that post, since that was essentially what GGP had already said.

How much lost revenue we have because of the draco

[devent]

It really saddens me that we have invented that machine that can make copies for effective 0 costs and distribute them around the world with light speed for effective 0 costs again, but we pass legislation to cripple the new technology as best as we can.

It's like we invent the warp engine and pass legislation to limit the maximum speed to 100km/sec to prevent the old space rockets to go out of business. Or we invent the replicator and pass legislation to throw out at least as much food as we produce out of energy to save farming.

We need finally wake up and stop destroying new emerging markets. No wonder entrepreneurs have trouble come up with business models in the internet. It's not that people don't pay or the piracy or any other straw-man. It's the simple fact that any business on the internet is dealing with information and we try our best to destroy information sharing via politics.

Put the copyright back in the way it was (with registration, only 14 years and 14 years extension) and then successive lower the copyright terms as the distribution becomes easier and easier.

How much lost revenue we have because of the draconian copyright laws? How many new jobs can we create in the new markets?

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[Firethorn]

I'll admit, I probably could have spent a few more minutes phrasing it clearly.

My point is that the authors still had to agree in the contract to the lending policy. Amazon/B&N only 'gave' buyers of ebooks the ability to lend their ebooks(once per title, for two weeks only) in the sense that they programmed in the functionality. In the case of Amazon, further research that I've don revealed that you could be eligible for a 70% royalty rate if you agree, but it's maxed out at 35% if you want to disallow lending. As such, it makes NO SENSE to not allow lending, because you get twice as much money, and at most a 3rd party gets access to the book for 2 weeks; if they like it and want to reread it, they'd have to buy it(discounting piracy here, which is a separate issue).

My second point is that studies conducted by Baen(a publisher with a great DRM-free ebook store), shows that 'free samples' tend to INCREASE sales. "Mother of Demons" saw increased paperback sales when they released the ebook free for download to the whole internet.

Even the AC wasn't entirely correct - part of the problem was that the site would list ALL books; 'borrow' was simply greyed out where lending was unavailable, and the site then encouraged you to buy the ebook, which if you purchased would give LendInk 6% referral commission, and the author his 35-70%. The authors didn't look close enough in their herd frenzy and thought ALL listed books were available for 'borrowing'.

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[Firethorn]

Giving away copies helps sell the physical book, later books in the series, other books by the same author, books by Baen, etc...

Baen has managed to get better than a grand out of me. Of course, I have almost a thousand books out of them...

Re:What the heck kind of business was Lendink?

[sumdumass]

From what i can tell, it appeared that he was an affiliate with barns and amazon until the entire taxing of internet activity in California thing went down and amazon removed affiliates in California. I do not know if he charged a membership or not to use the lending service, but it appeared you needed an account to access it.

Either way, it seems the linking of lenders was the secondary nature of the site, as a promotion service or something for users to go there. When they searched for a book, if someone was willing to lend it, it would show that as an option on the way to amazon's checkout (where ultimately the lending process would take place). If there wasn't someone willing to lend, you got an option to purchase the book.

I think the potential to getting a lend copy was the driving force behind difference between it and the otherwise 2 million other sites like this that sold ebooks for a commission.

Re:This is why you don't host with GoDaddy

[sumdumass]

Any company would comply to multiple cease and desists./blockquote
I don't know why, unless the C&D is in the form of a DMCA take down notice, the network is immune from copyright violations the C&D claims to point out.

Simple solution, as always

[Skapare]

Respond to each complaint, personally, with a lawsuit.

Re:How much lost revenue we have because of the dr

[dbIII]

Here's an example of how truly insane it is.
In 1932 an Australian music teacher wrote a song: "Kookaburra."
In 1934 she entered it into a competition run by the Girl Guides Association of Victoria and won, giving over the rights to the Girl Guides in exchange for a prize (I don't know what, but the budget would have been low so most likely something donated by a local business). The rights for the song were sold in 1934 and the proceeds used to buy a camping ground far from the city where land was cheap. After some years Australian copyright expired and the song would have gone into the public domain.
Fast forward to around 1980 and the flute player with the band "Men at Work" put a riff from "Kookaburra", at that time public domain, into the song "Down Under", and that version was recorded by the band in 1981.
Move ahead to near the present day and Australia adopting copyright extensions on the insistence of some shady characters in the USA as part of one of the many one sided conditions of a "free trade" deal. Then one recording company wanted to take over another but they were not selling. The lawyers were called in, the archives searched, and it turns out the company doing the takeover had previously owned the rights to "Kookaburra" before it entered the public domain and thanks to new laws it was out of the public domain and theirs again, and even better the company they wanted to take over had recorded the song "Down Under" with that "Kookaburra" riff. It all went to court, the law had changed to retrospectively make it an offence to use part of a song that had been in the public domain. Substantial damages were paid, of course none went to the heirs of the composer or the Girl Guides, and the flautist that included the riff suffered months of depression before being found dead in his home.
All that messing about just so one company could find a blunt instrument to use on another.

Authors and Business

[thewiz]

Looks like publishers and authors didn't read the contracts that Amazon and B&N sign. The authors gave the rights to electronically distribute their books and even "lend" it from one person to another. Along comes LendInk to help people to find people willing to lend/borrow book(s) with others. Nothing else; no piracy and the actual lend/borrow is conducted via Amazon or B&N.

Does anyone have a list of publishing companies and/or authors that bitched about LendInk? I'd like for my money to go somewhere else.

Re:How much lost revenue we have because of the dr

[dbIII]

I've got one detail wrong - it turns out that even though the rights changed hands many times the copyright persisted until some years after the original composers death, even though the original composer had signed away the rights 54 years earlier. It's an insane mess and a huge waste of time for something that really shouldn't be taken so seriously.

Easy solution

[galexand]

Find the authors involved (people like british children's author Nick Mackie), and find their books on Amazon, and leave bad reviews stating that you shouldn't expose your children (or yourself) to the works of bad people. I vote we include Debbie Bennett in this little campaign, by virtue of the golden rule. Whine first, ask questions later. Maybe tomorrow we can apologize for being ignorant jerks, like she has, and that will make it all better.

Help the Authors Understand

[stuffduff]

Nothing helps an author get sales like good reviews, word of mouth, etc. If the authors want such finite control over who can and cannot read there books, and what people can and cannot say, we must simply ask permission. If one person does it, they will think that person is sick. If ten people do it, they will believe those ten are insane. However, when enough people do it, and the author is no longer able able to communicate with their publishers, editors and lawyers, because they cannot even access their e-mail, they may begin to realize that their ignorance of the situation is what has crippled them, not the actions of these few people. Picking a fight with their readers is the easiest way for them to find themselves out of a job. Then they can go back to having someone else tell them what they can and cannot do, and when they can and cannot do it.; which is something that they have worked very hard to not have to do. Then they will see that the freedoms that they wish to restrict for their readers will lead to a restriction in freedoms for themselves. We will mourn their loss, and as Luddites, they will pass into history only their failures; their dreams forever removed from the common memory. Others, who can understand and appreciate the subtle differences of today's world, will pick up those readers and gift them with many wonderful new feelings and ideas; visions of a more open world.

I do judge

[phorm]

And following that logic (whether for biblical reasons or otherwise).
I don't have a problem judging people on certain criteria. However, I would expect them to judge me (and generally judge myself) by the same criteria.
Basically it follows along the whole "practice what you preach" line of thinking.

It's the hypocrites that are the problem. Those that believe themselves better than others and thus act worse. Religion does sometimes attract those types, as some people seem to believe that going to church automatically makes them a "better person" despite their poor behaviour: gossip, shunning of others, discrimination, abuse, etc.
However, as I've also often seem religious types go out of the way to help their fellows, it's not a set rule by any measure. Many of these people do follow the "do as you'd have done unto you" rule.

As with anything, the vocal combative types do tend to be more visible though.

make the would be lendee(s) respond to the letters

[0-9a-zA-Z_. !*'()123]

If the people who want to use the service are - as part of their membership - required to defend the service, you have an ad-hoc army of letter responders (making the ISP happy).

Re:Cry me a river

[Catbeller]

The publishers have recently collectively sued - twice! - libraries and such to shut down the practice of lending books, I shit you not. Not little tries, but HUGE attempts. What sickens me is that ebooks, instead of setting books free for all, is becoming a method of stopping centuries of reading books for free. And not only that, but they are burying any book that can't be show to be copyright free - millions of paper books will disappear when the libraries are finally closed down. Google and Microsoft almost saved them all - but it seems that the idiots will win. And history loses. REAL history - the words will disappear.

Re:Cry me a river

[Catbeller]

Yet still they flourish, and their predecessors flourished centuries before them.

No one guaranteed that history will stop for you because you've always made a living doing what you like to do. Tell that to the steelworkers, auto factory workers, and all the other people who were told to go work for Wal-Mart. No one sued for them. And they are the country.

To stop history, we need to monitor everyone's communications and make sure they don't read what they are not supposed to read. A total eyeball control police state. And now we have one.

Congratulations, "content creators". You've stuck a meter on everyone's eyeballs. No fascist state has ever dreamed of accomplishing what you have done. We used to mock the Soviets because all copiers had to be registered with the State to make sure unapproved materials weren't being reproduced. And here we are. And here we will live. And it's all because of you. Winners all.

Re:Easy

[SealBeater]

Amazon is starting to block my reviews.

Reconsider supporting this author.
Author had a direct role in having Lendink, a legal ebook lending site shut down for piracy erroneously. If you can't even legally borrow their book using Amazon, why should you support them financially?

Re:Cry me a river

[johanw]

Don't worry, this is only the penalty for the fools that actually pay for crippled content. Ebooks are much easier to crack than it is to scan and OCR paper books, and the resulting files are small. Distribution via torrent/usenet/sneakernet is efficient. I now carry a library on my phone.

Re:"So much for the American Dream"

[shutdown -p now]

Ah yes: the American dream of living off the work of others, creating nothing original, and making millions in the process. Why, isn't that what the American dream is *really* all about?

What was created in this instance is a useful service. A perfectly legal one at that.

By your own argument, a person who buys anything and then resells it for a higher price has also "created nothing original" - Amazon would be a perfect example of that.