[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I don't think that they're doing that any more. But their store is clearly sketchy. And they regularly publish articles where all of the information came from posts here on MobilRead, without any attribution. Nate always gives appropriate attribution for stuff from here.

Everyone makes mistakes and it is possible for malicious people to reform and redeem themselves.

But they have continued to behave badly to present even if they have stopped infringing copyright (although much of their plagiarism is word for word for long stretches).

I've updated my post #10 in this thread with more instances of their malfeasance.

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Here is the thread from 2010 where goodereader was outed as a copyright infringer.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=85235

Here is a thread pointing to their self-branded 6.8" ereader scam. The discussion continued for a couple of years.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=285702

Here is a thread from 2018 that documents their Indiegogo self-branded 13.3" ereader scam and their rooted Sony DPT-RP1 scam,

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=292243

Here is a 2019 thread with pointers to a couple of 2019 goodereader editorials decrying copyright infringement but the thread also points to documentation that they were still infringing copyright in 2011 but were trying to disguise that.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=292243

Here is a thread from this January with an example of poor service and evasiveness:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=326706

This 2019 thread documents some behavior that may or may not cross the boundary from legal to illegal, but is certainly in sleazy territory.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=321104

I've omitted the many, many threads documenting the many times they have copied information from mobileread and many other sources, not only without attribution, but also implicitly or explicitly passing it off as their own work.