Was Lendink a pirate site?

[steven522]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Here's the link everyone wanted:

Wow. There are authors going to the comments on the article and still posting about how the site was "pirate" and others issuing non-apology apologies. One even had the nerve to blame the LendInk owner (Dale Porter) for not telling them all soon enough to stop the mob attack.

"Good grief." - Charlie Brown

[Joykins]

It's so hard to put stupid back in the box once it reaches critical mass.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Skibble

Which brings me to the point that many of the complaining authors seem to have missed. LendInk's listings included buttons to purchase the books, as well as to request a loan. In cases where a book was not lendable according to its contract, only the purchase button was active; the loan button was not operable. Because of that, authors had nothing to lose and everything to gain by being included in LendInk's search results. Users, upon seeing that the book they wanted wasn't lendable, could use LendInk's purchase link instead. A win for all.

It's possible that some book listings on LendInk had incorrect lending status on them, e.g. you could request a loan of a book that wasn't really lendable, because it's a continual problem for these sites to keep up to date of Amazon's catalog lending status changes all at once. Sometimes these inconsistencies are fairly widespread. So maybe you could request to borrow not-lendable books through LendInk, but the process would stop at some point during the loan process because if Amazon or B&N listed the book as not-lendable, the loan couldn't go through.

Muddying the issue, of course, are the books that have multiple ebook editions, some of which are lendable and some of which aren't...I own some of these and it is difficult to list them at lending sites, period, because even if it is legitimately lendable, the software can only check the current listing which might be non-lendable.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by steven522

Wow. There are authors going to the comments on the article and still posting about how the site was "pirate" and others issuing non-apology apologies.

Why do you sound surprised? Did you expect people who would join in an ignorant and misinformed public cyber-lynching to suddenly develop character and intellect, and post a sincere public apology?

[artbatista]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So the point of this thread is to lambast the authors for contributing to the shut down of lendink? Or is the point of this thread to discuss whether or not the functions contained within lendink were piracy or not, IMO if the author is not compensated for each reader who has enjoyed what the author has wrote, then that is a pirate read. Whether or not the author has chosen to lend or not lend their books is irrelevant.

it is obvious now that logic means nothing to you. One last time:

You sell me your chair. I take the chair to my home.

What these authors did is akin to calling the police and report that I stole the chair you sold to me. If this is too complicated for you, I truly pity you.

Cheers


Art

[jersysman]

I think I'll go take a look at that list of authors and add them to my list of "No Buys". It's just my way of showing my outrage at the stupid conduct of these mob enablers.

[frostschutz]

Amazon & Co should simply add a "1-Click Borrow From A Random Stranger" button right above or below "1-Click Buy". No more need for external networks. Maximum efficiency.

Problem is the feature is probably not meant to be used this way. If there's money involved with lending somehow (and there should be since libraries have to pay too?) the basis of this feature will be some kind of mixed calculation which stops working once it gets overused.

If users organize themselves in networks like this, as opposed to just occassionally lend something to people they know relatively well, the next store might decide to not offer the possibility of lending in the first place; and the existing ones might see a need to restrict or remove it.

After all in the end they really really want you to buy those things, not borrow them.

So legal yes, but good for readers and fair against authors? Not sure. Part of me feels that if you don't actually have a friend you could borrow from, you should be obligated to buy it, since that's how it used to work with paper books. You didn't just ask random people on the street to hand over their books to you.

I'm not a book writer but I can understand their position somewhat; it's hard to see your work show up on a different site every day. And it's easy to make mistakes. You can't go by looks anymore either, many pirate sites give themselves a very professional look these days. So when you see something like that it's easy to think piracy first and ask questions later, unfortunately.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by artbatista

it is obvious now that logic means nothing to you. One last time:

You sell me your chair. I take the chair to my home.

What these authors did is akin to calling the police and report that I stole the chair you sold to me. If this is too complicated for you, I truly pity you.

Cheers


Art

Don't bother. I'm convinced Giggleton is an alien anthropologist who doesn't quite understand the normal business transactions most humans view as obvious, probably because his planet has long since created Star Trek style replicators and abandoned money. I picture him trying to buy a taco from a Mexican restaurant by handing the cashier a combination of pocket lint, drawing of a spider and a lecture about how all tacos should be free.

[odiakkoh]

Originally Posted by frostschutz

Amazon & Co should simply add a "1-Click Borrow From A Random Stranger" button right above or below "1-Click Buy". No more need for external networks. Maximum efficiency.
Problem is the feature is probably not meant to be used this way. If there's money involved with lending somehow (and there should be since libraries have to pay too?) the basis of this feature will be some kind of mixed calculation which stops working once it gets overused.
If users organize themselves in networks like this, as opposed to just occassionally lend something to people they know relatively well, the next store might decide to not offer the possibility of lending in the first place; and the existing ones might see a need to restrict or remove it.
After all in the end they really really want you to buy those things, not borrow them.
So legal yes, but good for readers and fair against authors? Not sure. Part of me feels that if you don't actually have a friend you could borrow from, you should be obligated to buy it, since that's how it used to work with paper books. You didn't just ask random people on the street to hand over their books to you.
I'm not a book writer but I can understand their position somewhat; it's hard to see your work show up on a different site every day. And it's easy to make mistakes. You can't go by looks anymore either, many pirate sites give themselves a very professional look these days. So when you see something like that it's easy to think piracy first and ask questions later, unfortunately.

But nowadays they have the same service for pbooks as well. You either mail people books or you just drop the book off at random locations and post on the website where the book is. So yeah back in the day you had to know a friend but these days it's not a good comparison.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by frostschutz

Amazon & Co should simply add a "1-Click Borrow From A Random Stranger" button right above or below "1-Click Buy". No more need for external networks. Maximum efficiency.

Problem is the feature is probably not meant to be used this way. If there's money involved with lending somehow (and there should be since libraries have to pay too?) the basis of this feature will be some kind of mixed calculation which stops working once it gets overused.

If users organize themselves in networks like this, as opposed to just occassionally lend something to people they know relatively well, the next store might decide to not offer the possibility of lending in the first place; and the existing ones might see a need to restrict or remove it.

After all in the end they really really want you to buy those things, not borrow them.

So legal yes, but good for readers and fair against authors? Not sure. Part of me feels that if you don't actually have a friend you could borrow from, you should be obligated to buy it, since that's how it used to work with paper books. You didn't just ask random people on the street to hand over their books to you.

I'm not a book writer but I can understand their position somewhat; it's hard to see your work show up on a different site every day. And it's easy to make mistakes. You can't go by looks anymore either, many pirate sites give themselves a very professional look these days. So when you see something like that it's easy to think piracy first and ask questions later, unfortunately.

People who objected to LendInk have no leg to stand on, they are clearly in the wrong. The lending feature doesn't say "close friends only". With paper books, people aren't restricted to loaning their books to close friends only, they can loan, give or sell them to anyone they wish. People do loan paper books to people they really don't know.

The bottom line is that the author CHOSE to allow the books to be loaned. The author didn't choose to only allow them to be loaned to close friends. The purchaser is entitled to loan the book once, to anyone they wish. It can be a close friend or a total stranger. The books can't be loaned out an indefinate number of times, only once.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People who objected to LendInk have no leg to stand on, they are clearly in the wrong. The lending feature doesn't say "close friends only".

In the facebook page drama, apparently one author said that "any site that wants to list affiliate links to any of her books should have to get her permission first."

So some authors may not have realized the lending feature existed, and might believe that even if it does, the individual customers SHOULD ask author permission before loaning their books. Or recommending them.

Which, um. I'm happy not to recommend any books by authors who think I need their permission to suggest their works to other people.

[QuantumIguana]

Oh, I'll play...

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So the point of this thread is to lambast the authors for contributing to the shut down of lendink?

They deserve to be lambasted for making false accusations.

Or is the point of this thread to discuss whether or not the functions contained within lendink were piracy or not, IMO if the author is not compensated for each reader who has enjoyed what the author has wrote, then that is a pirate read.

What's to discuss? It wasn't piracy.

Your claim that authors should be paid for each person who reads the book doesn't match your insistence on not paying for books.

Whether or not the author has chosen to lend or not lend their books is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is 100% relevant. If an author allows the book to be loaned, the author has no grounds for complaint if the book is loaned. The authors freely chose to allow lending. You could forbid authors selling their works, thus it does make sense that you would find irrelevant the agreements the authors made. After all, only the decrees of the book commissar mean anything...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

In the facebook page drama, apparently one author said that "any site that wants to list affiliate links to any of her books should have to get her permission first."

So some authors may not have realized the lending feature existed, and might believe that even if it does, the individual customers SHOULD ask author permission before loaning their books. Or recommending them.

Which, um. I'm happy not to recommend any books by authors who think I need their permission to suggest their works to other people.

Once you've given permission, people don't need to ask permission. Do I need to ask permission when I read the books I purchased? I need no permission to link to a book, copyright only covers making copies, and a link, a review or discussion is not a copy. Loaning a book creates a copy, but the author has already given permission. It is fascinating that some, just can't apologize, but instead double down.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by frostschutz

So legal yes, but good for readers and fair against authors? Not sure. Part of me feels that if you don't actually have a friend you could borrow from, you should be obligated to buy it, since that's how it used to work with paper books. You didn't just ask random people on the street to hand over their books to you.

Nevertheless there exist these...private libraries all over the place in hotels, vacation rentals, lunchrooms, lounges, cruise ships, and common rooms, where people can pick up a book and maybe drop one (or a dozen) off without even knowing who bought the book.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Joykins

Nevertheless there exist these...private libraries all over the place in hotels, vacation rentals, lunchrooms, lounges, cruise ships, and common rooms, where people can pick up a book and maybe drop one (or a dozen) off without even knowing who bought the book.

Not to mention places online like PaperBook Swap or Book Mooch. Where you swap books with online strangers. It's been around for years. The difference is you get to keep the book unlike Kindle Book Lending where you get the book for 14 days once.