LendInk: why I was angry, and why I am sorry
A week or so ago, it was brought to my attention that my books were listed as available to borrow on a site called LendInk.com. To say that I was confused was to greatly understate the situation (more on why momentarily). I was also angry -- angry enough to fire off a blunt and thoughtless post on LendInk's Facebook page. I also sent a request to LendInk's owner, Dale Porter, via the corrections e-mail listed in their FAQ asking that my books be removed and explaining why I thought that should happen (again, more on that momentarily).
Well, within 24 hours of me sending that correction request, LendInk was taken down by its ISP. I wasn't the only angry author, and some of them contacted the web host directly (I did not). When I received a notice from Amazon saying that LendInk was not authorized to lend out books on their behalf, I got even more angry.
I let people affiliated with my publishing group know what had happened. Those were all of the actions I took.
I am now, along with several other authors, the subject of a vendetta/revenge campaign by users of LendInk.
Mr. Porter explained (in the article I'm about to talk about) how his service actually works, which was *not at all clear* in the FAQ. Apparently, what they do/did was connect people with a book to loan with people who wanted to borrow it ... sort of a social media site.
Now, I can't speak for anyone else ... but I know why I was angry. Here's what I wrote in response to an article about the matter on the-digital-reader.com:
Hi. I’m one of the people who posted a rather blunt note on LendInk’s FB page. I did not send a notice to LendInk’s host (as some people accuse), but did send a letter to Dale via the corrections e-mail listed in the FAQ and asked that my books be removed. Yes, I was ticked off.
Here’s why. I specifically opted *out* of lending programs on B&N and Amazon. That’s right, I unchecked the little box. I am now working with them to discover why my books are available for loan when I asked not to have it happen. I was especially disturbed when I received a letter from Amazon saying that LendInk was not authorized to act as their agent. I appreciate Dale’s additional information above.
I totally get that LendInk was a set-up for readers and thus (according to some readers) does not owe authors any explanations. I also get that some of the users are angry — angry enough to organize a vendetta campaign against me and other authors. Some of us did what Dale’s site asked us to do in sending a correction letter (as I said, that’s what I did). Should I have been angry on Facebook? No. And honestly, with this additional information, I’m not angry at Dale either. I’m angry at Amazon and B&N for not honoring what I agreed to on *their* end.
I understand that many of you are too mad to give a damn about that. I’m sorry.
-----
Yes, I am sorry. I considered saying nothing at all about this, but I realized that my angry FB post was out of line. And no, I am not saying this because of the vendetta; I'm saying it because I know I made a mistake in where I directed my anger. I'm not one of those people who fail to read a contract; I'm not one of the people who ignore the "uncheck to opt out" boxes (despite the fact that I think they're kind of slimy, as people should have the right to opt-in instead of the reverse).
I made a mistake in where I directed my concerns ... and yes, temper ... and thus contributed on some level to the demise of what appears to have been a legitimate project after all. I hope that Mr. Porter will accept my public apology.
Well, within 24 hours of me sending that correction request, LendInk was taken down by its ISP. I wasn't the only angry author, and some of them contacted the web host directly (I did not). When I received a notice from Amazon saying that LendInk was not authorized to lend out books on their behalf, I got even more angry.
I let people affiliated with my publishing group know what had happened. Those were all of the actions I took.
I am now, along with several other authors, the subject of a vendetta/revenge campaign by users of LendInk.
Mr. Porter explained (in the article I'm about to talk about) how his service actually works, which was *not at all clear* in the FAQ. Apparently, what they do/did was connect people with a book to loan with people who wanted to borrow it ... sort of a social media site.
Now, I can't speak for anyone else ... but I know why I was angry. Here's what I wrote in response to an article about the matter on the-digital-reader.com:
Hi. I’m one of the people who posted a rather blunt note on LendInk’s FB page. I did not send a notice to LendInk’s host (as some people accuse), but did send a letter to Dale via the corrections e-mail listed in the FAQ and asked that my books be removed. Yes, I was ticked off.
Here’s why. I specifically opted *out* of lending programs on B&N and Amazon. That’s right, I unchecked the little box. I am now working with them to discover why my books are available for loan when I asked not to have it happen. I was especially disturbed when I received a letter from Amazon saying that LendInk was not authorized to act as their agent. I appreciate Dale’s additional information above.
I totally get that LendInk was a set-up for readers and thus (according to some readers) does not owe authors any explanations. I also get that some of the users are angry — angry enough to organize a vendetta campaign against me and other authors. Some of us did what Dale’s site asked us to do in sending a correction letter (as I said, that’s what I did). Should I have been angry on Facebook? No. And honestly, with this additional information, I’m not angry at Dale either. I’m angry at Amazon and B&N for not honoring what I agreed to on *their* end.
I understand that many of you are too mad to give a damn about that. I’m sorry.
-----
Yes, I am sorry. I considered saying nothing at all about this, but I realized that my angry FB post was out of line. And no, I am not saying this because of the vendetta; I'm saying it because I know I made a mistake in where I directed my anger. I'm not one of those people who fail to read a contract; I'm not one of the people who ignore the "uncheck to opt out" boxes (despite the fact that I think they're kind of slimy, as people should have the right to opt-in instead of the reverse).
I made a mistake in where I directed my concerns ... and yes, temper ... and thus contributed on some level to the demise of what appears to have been a legitimate project after all. I hope that Mr. Porter will accept my public apology.
Sharon,Yet again you impress me. I hope the other authors who mistakenly directed their anger can follow your example.
Personally, I think lending is a fantastic thing, for both readers and authors. However, I respect author's right to chose not to allow their books to be borrowed. Once those choices are made, it is the responsibility of booksellers and any other applicable sources to respect that choice.
Shawn wrote: "I'm wondering why you chose to opt-out of the lending function on Amazon?"Hi, Shawn. First, thank you for your comment. I admit, I was not sure what to expect when I sent this out into the ether. However, I knew that it was the right thing to do. When I make a mistake, I say so. I made a mistake.
In answer to your question, honestly, it was because all of my eBooks cost less than a cup of coffee at your Local Fancy Joint of Choice. I offer my books free of charge through periodic promotions via Smashwords (which allows for users of any eBook platform to obtain them, not just Kindle) throughout the year and know that, as a result, there are plenty of chances for people to get the books for free *and* "for keeps" (as we used to say on the playground).
I understand that everyone will run his or her business differently, and I'm all for that. If you want to opt in for lending, I say go for it.
Thanks again.
Kelly wrote: "Sharon,Yet again you impress me. I hope the other authors who mistakenly directed their anger can follow your example.
Personally, I think lending is a fantastic thing, for both readers and aut..."
Hi, Kelly. Thank you so much for your comment. I am all for people running their businesses however they see fit. If you get a chance to read my response to Shawn, you'll see why I decided against lending.
Appreciate you taking the time.
I think I think of it more from a reader's perspective, than an author's. A friend of mine recommended that I read the first Outlander book by Diana Gabaldon. I continually told her I would, when I got a chance to get to the bookstore. I just never really made time for it. Finally she mailed me a copy. I started it, and devoured the series. If I, as a friend and a reader, can loan a book to a friend for her to read *instantly*, I am all for it. Especially if she is a procrastinator like me.
But you are entirely right, people that have already decided they want your books have plenty of opportunities to get them.
Kelly wrote: "I think I think of it more from a reader's perspective, than an author's. A friend of mine recommended that I read the first Outlander book by Diana Gabaldon. I continually told her I would, when..."
And I completely respect your POV on the matter! I love using the library, for example, for mystery books nowadays. I used to purchase them and realized that I never read them again, so it didn't really make sense. I know that part of the argument for eBook lending is that it's just like using the library, and I can see the similarities.
I also admit that part of it was a desire to be inclusive of *all* eReader formats when it came to people being able to get my books if money was an issue. Some folks have older computers that are not compatible with the newer apps and can only read PDF files as a result, for example. I also give away numerous copies of my eBooks to deployed service members via Operation eBook Drop.
In other words, it's not that I don't want people to have access to my books if money is an issue (which is often the case with borrowing, and I get that). I want them to be able to *keep* the book, since it might take them more than two weeks to read it (or get to it) and there are no renewals (unlike the brick-and-mortar library).
Thanks again for your comments and thoughts.
I did not know you could donate ebooks to servicemembers. When my husband was deployed he used read an average of 10+ books a month. It was actually why we bought our kindle in the first place.
Kelly wrote: "I did not know you could donate ebooks to servicemembers. When my husband was deployed he used read an average of 10+ books a month. It was actually why we bought our kindle in the first place."Yes indeed! http://www.operationebookdrop.com is the website. Please encourage your husband and his fellow servicemembers to join. I think there are some 500 authors involved at this point, across all genres. It was the brainchild of independent author Edward C. Patterson, himself a veteran. I've been participating for almost three years now.
Sharon wrote: "Kelly wrote: "I did not know you could donate ebooks to servicemembers. When my husband was deployed he used read an average of 10+ books a month. It was actually why we bought our kindle in the fi..."He's out now, but he still has lot's of contacts in the military. I will get him to pass it along. Thanks!
Sharon, your book's being listed on a lending site doesn't mean it's available for loan on the site. As it's common on other lending sites as well, titles are displayed, but if the book isn't lendable, it just gives the user the option to buy it instead. (One author who got a tweet about LendInk last week made sure of this by trying to borrow one of her own.)That's how the sites attempt to pay for themselves - affiliates get a few cents for books purchased they their links.
I use Lendle.me and they encourage us to add books we have, even if they aren't lendable, so they'll show when people search, or when selecting which books we own.
So it's actually very good for authors, either way - just like all the blogs that list books people can buy.
Vesper wrote: "Sharon, your book's being listed on a lending site doesn't mean it's available for loan on the site. As it's common on other lending sites as well, titles are displayed, but if the book isn't lend..."Hi, Vesper. Part of the reason I wrote this post is that I went back to Amazon and B&N from the perspective of a consumer and discovered that my books are listed for loan, even though I opted out. My beef is with them, for certain, and not with Mr. Porter. I definitely went off half-cocked and am very sorry for having done so.
Thanks for your note and the information. Sometimes it's very frustrating to try and do all the right things and still wind up with your foot in your mouth. :-/
All you had to do was look at the site to see what they were doing. It was in fact QUITE clear. By the way, if you receive 70% royalties you CAN NOT opt out of loans. Neither ignorance nor anger is any excuse. Nor is it graceful to try to blame what you did wrong on the person you wronged.
Edit: It isn't only users who are angry. You and your cohorts managed to make indie authors look both stupid and vindictive, although I don't believe in vendettas. But a sincere apology instead of excuses would look one HELL of a lot more sincere.
Thanks, Sharon, and hey, your foot isn't nearly as hard to swallow as many others have been this week. ;) I just saw one on the KDP board saying authors should be glad and stop apologizing, because even though it turns out LendInk was innocent, what happened to them was still a good thing because it serves to warn bad guys of what can happen. Yikes!
LendInk's facts were exceedingly clear. I address that issue in my Noir Nation post, here: http://bit.ly/QSAKI7
J.R. wrote: "But a sincere apology instead of excuses would look one HELL of a lot more sincere. "I don't know how much more I can be than to take the blame for what I did and explain what happened. However, I will do my best. This is the text of the e-mail I sent to Mr Porter:
Dear Mr. Porter: I have posted a couple of times on the LendInk FB page to say this, but I also decided that I need to apologize here, as well as sharing a link to the blog post I wrote where I talk about why I was wrong.
I admit, when I made my angry post on your FB page, I went off half-cocked. You see, when I made my agreement with Amazon, I disabled lending. My publisher (theoretically ... and I'll explain why I use that term momentarily) did the same on Barnes & Noble. However, after I sent you the e-mail to the corrections address asking that my books be taken down and, obviously, after I went to your FB page, I then went to those two websites -- only to see that the lending I had not authorized was happening.
I wrote this blog post: http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_..., after that. My beef was not with you at all, but with Amazon and B&N, just as you said on the FB page (I responded there, but there were a good many comments and I do not know whether you will see mine). I also posted a separate link there to this blog post. That post went out to my website, my FB fan page, my Google+ and anywhere else that the RSS feed goes. I cannot tell you how sorry I am that I reacted in anger instead of in logic, and for any part that my post on FB may have played in your site being taken down. I did not take any other actions than the e-mail you received, that FB notice, and telling my publisher (as noted in the blog).
I think that the people who are threatening you and your family are very, very wrong (I should hope that would be obvious). I am dumbfounded that such a thing would be happening, no matter *how* angry people are.
Again, I am very sorry. I hope you do put your site back up, to be honest. I wish I had better understood where I should have directed my ire, and cannot figure out how many more ways to say it.
----
Anyway, yes. I was wrong. I am beyond appalled that people made personal threats against this gentleman, and cannot even begin to figure out what to say about that. In fact, it's what I got up to try to write about and find that words fail me.
Eddie wrote: "LendInk's facts were exceedingly clear. I address that issue in my Noir Nation post, here: http://bit.ly/QSAKI7"I'm reading your post right now, Eddie. I thank you for the link. I did not find the FAQs to be particularly clear, and I do appreciate the post Mr. Porter has put up several places that clarified the issues. I will admit that it is possible and even probable that I was so damned mad when I read them that they didn't make sense. Seeing the notice from Amazon that I cite didn't help.
What did help was calming the hell down, talking to some people, and figuring out that I had shot the messenger. All I can do is continue to apologize, because I was in the wrong. I do hope you will have a look at the comment above, which includes the text of my e-mail to Mr. Porter.
I'm not best pleased with myself, to say the least. This is not an example of how I usually go about my business, and I am sorry.
The losses in this matter are consequential for everyone. Dale Porter lost a business, indie writers lost an avenue for finding that most precious of gifts, an adoring reader, and the members of an angry and destructive mob are now getting one-starred on Amazon. I think the emotions of the moment got the better of many people who are otherwise thoughtful and caring. Apologizing, as you have done, is a positive step. Some others are still gloating over Lendink's demise or are throwing up gorilla dust to escape responsibility.
Eddie wrote: "I think the emotions of the moment got the better of many people who are otherwise thoughtful and caring. Apologizing, as you have done, is a positive step. Some others are still gloating over Lendink's demise or are throwing up gorilla dust to escape responsibility. "Thank you. Your comment actually helps more than you know. I've been very upset with myself and will doubtless continue to be.
I got up this morning because I wanted to write about how upsetting it was to me that people had threatened Mr. Porter and his family with personal harm. I found that I couldn't -- because I don't even know how to express it. I read your comment and JR's, and I decided to post the text of my e-mail to Mr. Porter not only in the comments here, but as a separate blog entry.
As I said at the end of that entry, I'm just one person: a mid-list indie author who screwed up. I don't know what else I can do but to apologize as I've done. I don't understand the threats, I surely don't understand the gloating. I don't understand the vendetta, either, because that's not how I operate ... but I do understand what it is to be angry and react without thinking, and that I was wrong.
Again, I do appreciate your comments.
I've been following this Twitter fueled dust-up with some interest as an example of how misinformation can be spread by the ill-informed leading eventually to a vindictive cat fight. It was especially disappointing to see that you, as a former journalist and editor, had succumbed to the lazy authors who went off half-cocked, not having read the terms of their agreement with Amazon - is the commenter correct in noting that anyone getting 70% can NOT opt out of lending?). Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised since indolence appears to be the in the job description of most journalists today.(Note that I never used LendInk since I purchase all my books, not liking the heavy restrictions placed on Kindle lending, and so have no dog in the fight except as a reader who has to make choices from an astonishinglylarge pile of books. Whether I might be steered away from those authors who participated in this lynching remains to be seen.)
Nevertheless, your apology is appreciated, and I would hope that you have been as diligent in passing your apology along to those other authors who trampled on Mr. Porter in hopes they might apologize as well.
Eric_W wrote: "It was especially disappointing to see that you, as a former journalist and editor, had succumbed to the lazy authors who went off half-cocked, not having read the terms of their agreement with Amazon - is the commenter correct in noting that anyone getting 70% can NOT opt out of lending?). Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised since indolence appears to be the in the job description of most journalists today.Nevertheless, your apology is appreciated, and I would hope that you have been as diligent in passing your apology along to those other authors who trampled on Mr. Porter in hopes they might apologize as well. "
I guarantee that no one is more appalled than myself. I have verified on my KDP dashboard (as recently as a wee bit after 3 AM today) that lending was not enabled there. On only one of my KDP titles do I even charge enough to *qualify* for the 70 percent royalty. However, lending was enabled by my distributor for B&N ... and Amazon's teensy print (for lack of a better way to put it) says they can enable lending if they find it available anywhere else for lending. I'm working with my distributor and B&N to try to solve that part of the problem.
To the second point I quoted ... yes. I am trying to get this blog post and discussion out as many places as possible. I've asked Vesper via PM if she would send me the KDP forum link to which she referred so that I can enter the discussion there. I've shared this post and discussion in every author's group to which I belong (including the one in which I was notified of my books being on LendInk) with a header stating how appalled and embarrassed I am.
Here's the thing. I know that not everyone will care what I have to say. I know that no one has to accept my amends. I also know that I have to do this, because I know how badly I screwed up. (I also concur that journalism is no longer the same profession it used to be, but that's a discussion for another time.)
I appreciate you taking the time to comment, and your civil tone. If you have some suggested places for me to share this information and discussion, please do send them to me via PM. I'm finding what I can, and doing what I can, but I don't know every corner of the 'web.
Thanks again.
I respect a sincere apology and think it should be accepted. There are too many people who continue to defend what they did. What bothered me about your post was that you seemed to say it was his fault because he didn't explain sufficiently.The fact is that it is OUR responsibility to understand the agreements we have signed. It was never his responsibility to explain them to us.
However, I take your apology as sincere. I hope more people will start taking responsibility for their actions. A lot of people were hurt by this, not only Mr. Porter although he was the most damaged.
Sharon, I can't seem to load my PMs from this device, so I'll just post the link here. http://forums.kindledirectpublishing....
Another one who's beyond forgiveness, to me, is Jeanette Vaughn, who is trying to play both sides.
This morning, she was still claiming that some of the books were pirated and the authors are being libeled. She appears to have done some editing on her blog after her legal vulnerability was pointed out...I can't see it all.
It's these CYA-type non-apologies that are making my blacklist.
Way to many argued in the face of the facts to come out now and try to cover their skin by deleting their comments or apologizing for just "misunderstanding and asking for my books to be removed".
I agree, Vesper. The original mistake was bad, but we all make mistakes. I'd forgive that with a sincere apology. These non-apologies are going on my shit list, big time. I will be scouring Twitter to be sure I'm not following them, etc.
Sharon wrote: "Eric_W wrote: "It was especially disappointing to see that you, as a former journalist and editor, had succumbed to the lazy authors who went off half-cocked, not having read the terms of their agr..."Unchecking the box doesn't disable lending if you are receiving 70% royalties. The lending is part of why you are getting higher royalties.
Edit: I admit that I think you shouldn't be able to uncheck it if you're getting the higher royalties. That's a programming screwup and has nothing to do with the agreement we make with Amazon.
Hi, JR and Vesper. Thanks for your additional comments. I'll go read the provided thread and post a link to this blog and discussion there *at the very minimum* later on today. I have no doubt I'll respond to individual posts as well.
You say the FAQ was not clear. So that gives you the right to destroy this person's website? YOU were confused, so you get to destroy him? No. It is your responsibility to understand something before you send a take-down request (which is a form of legal action). You also could have done what I did - actually sign up on the site and see how it works. You would have seen that 1) the site did not "have" your book, and was not providing to people illegally (or immorally), and that 2) all it did was give a person who has posted that they will lend a book, the email address of someone who wants to borrow that book. That's it. Because YOU were confused, and YOU didn't put an effort into understanding it, a perfectly legit and actually helpful site (helps people find new authors) is gone.
Cathy wrote: "You say the FAQ was not clear. So that gives you the right to destroy this person's website? YOU were confused, so you get to destroy him? No. It is your responsibility to understand something before you send a take-down request (which is a form of legal action)."I didn't set out to destroy anyone's life. I did not send a notice to his ISP; I sent an e-mail to his corrections link.
I understand why you are angry -- and you are right. I was confused *and angry* and I was wrong. I hope you will read the rest of the discussion here, but I understand if you do not.
Cathy wrote: "As I posted multiple times on kindleboards.com, ALL books would come up on lendink if you searched the right way." Hi again, Cathy. I think I have posted exactly *twice* on Kindleboards, some time last year, and I do not read them. Again, I am sorry. I was confused, angry and wrong. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Vesper wrote: "Sharon, I can't seem to load my PMs from this device, so I'll just post the link here. http://forums.kindledirectpublishing....
Another one ..."
Hi, Vesper, and thank you. I read the thread and made my post. I appreciate you providing the link so that I could at least offer my two cents.
One of the things we MUST learn from this is to not take someone's word for this kind of thing. Look, when this started I got a PM on a popular writers' forum from a long-standing member telling me this was a pirate site. I went and looked for myself.
It took less than 5 minutes to see they were wrong. That doesn't make me smarter than the people who say the FAQ was unclear. It just means I know what I agreed to with Amazon and I looked before I made assumptions.
Maybe that also means I've been around long enough to know that a large part of what people say on the internet is misinformation.
J.R. wrote: "One of the things we MUST learn from this is to not take someone's word for this kind of thing. "I wholeheartedly concur.
One of the other things I have learned about *myself* from this is that I must not, ever again, try to read things when I am angry -- and not to speak when I am angry. Both things distort reality and get in the way of dealing with the issue at hand.
I really do appreciate everyone's comments, and that people are willing to have a dialogue. At the end of the day, one thing is abundantly clear: I made a mistake and it is up to me to make amends.
Thank you again.
It's nice to hear what you've said. Hopefully we can ALL learn from this. There were mistakes made on both sides of this situation.
Mistakes on both sides? No. The mistake was made by people who attacked someone who had done nothing wrong. NOT on both sides. I am glad for the apology but I will NOT accept blaming others. This was not a "mistakes were made on both sides" situation.
This story may have a happy ending. More on that in a bit. But first, I need to say for the sake of perfect clarity that J.R. is absolutely right. The people who attacked LendInk were absolutely wrong at every turn. Dale Porter did nothing to deserve their pathological ire. Nothing.
However, I think Jack may be referring to the behavior of a handful of LendInk's supporters who have been one-starring the books of some of LendInk's attackers.
LendInk's attackers acted in a vile and disgusting manner, but they should be called to account in a manner that is within the bounds of civil discourse and civilized behavior. One-starring books and leaving fraudulent reviews are crude and unacceptable acts.
Now for the good news. Based on the level of support he has gotten, Dale Porter will be restarting LendInk and has created a crowd sourcing project to further that end. Anyone who would like to help out can do so by going here: http://bit.ly/Sgq5UR
I agree that any calling to account should be in a civilized manner. I scoured my twitter list to unfollow the people who had done that, for example. I feel that is a reasonable reaction.I absolutely support and have contributed to the crowd sourcing for Dale Porter's restoring the site. I hope others will. It is something practical and positive we can do in the face of this debacle.
Dean wrote: "I rather think there is still a lot of anger on both sides. And many who did act in a manner that should NOT have been place on a public forum like the Internet. The problem is the authors acted ..."Hi, Dean. Thank you for your comment. I know that some authors have tried to take down their posts, etc. I'm not one of them (nor am I saying that you're accusing me of doing so). If I were trying to hide that I was wrong, I would never have made this post, or the one in which I published the text of my e-mail to Dale Porter. Nor would I have talked to other authors in various groups about how wrong we *all* were. That is part of the amends process for me, because I know that amends and apologies are not identical.
To Jack, JR and Eddie: Thank you for the continued dialogue. I think it would be appropriate for me to participate in the crowdsourcing project as well, as a way of making some material amends. It feels like right action to me. Thanks, Eddie, for bringing it to my attention.
Eddie wrote: "This story may have a happy ending. More on that in a bit. But first, I need to say for the sake of perfect clarity that J.R. is absolutely right. The people who attacked LendInk were absolutely ..."
Hi, Eddie. Thank you again for the FundRazr link. I made a donation just a couple of minutes ago, as promised, and have shared that information in another blog post. It's gone out to my FB and Twitter, is about to go to my Google+ and will be out on RSS within the next half-hour or so. I'm also sharing it with my various writing groups. I am grateful to you for letting me know about the link.
J.R. wrote: "Mistakes on both sides? No. The mistake was made by people who attacked someone who had done nothing wrong. NOT on both sides. I am glad for the apology but I will NOT accept blaming others. This w..."The "mistake" Dale made was in not keeping the site maintained, which he freely admits. If you're not available to to do removals on request, people CAN get frustrated. The site he was running was LEGAL, but taking down content when requested is just good manners.
As to the authors, there was WAY too much vitriol and bloody-mindedness in the comments they posted, and many of them were willfully ignorant and stupid about the terms of their contracts with Amazon, as has been PROVEN.
So YES, mistakes were made on _both_ sides IMHO.
HOWEVER, that being said, Dale did not deserve being treated the way he was for running an entirely LEGAL website, and a lot of folks (myself included) went overboard in "dealing" with this issue.
Jack wrote: "J.R. wrote: "HOWEVER, that being said, Dale did not deserve being treated the way he was for running an entirely LEGAL website, and a lot of folks (myself included) went overboard in "dealing" with this issue. "Thanks, Jack. You're right. And I genuinely believe it is up to those of us who were in error to make whatever amends we can, along with taking the lumps. We were the ones in the wrong.
Jack wrote: "The "mistake" Dale made was in not keeping the site maintained, which he freely admits. If you're not available to to do removals on request, people CAN get frustrated. The site he was running was LEGAL, but taking down content when requested is just good manners."No. Dale did nothing wrong. Consider a blog writer who posts a picture of your book on their blog, posts a review, and has buttons to buy it (linking to your book's page on B&N and Amazon). You can email them and ask them to take the blog post down, but they have no obligation to do so. Posting your book's photo (and lendlink simply linked to Amazon's photo, so they weren't even storing your book cover image) and having affiliate links to Amazon is totally acceptable, and you as a writer have no reason or recourse to ask the site owner to take it down. Your book is out there. It's a public thing (and I don't mean people should be able to pirate it).
And I'll add that Dale may have admitted he didn't keep the site updated, but he didn't say admit that doing so was a mistake or wrong.
Cathy wrote: "And I'll add that Dale may have admitted he didn't keep the site updated, but he didn't say admit that doing so was a mistake or wrong."And it wasn't a mistake or wrong. Heck, I have a hobby website that I set up six years ago to help teach myself HTML and I seldom even *look* at it anymore.
At the end of the day, a whole lot of us were in error, as I said to Jack above. The responsibility is on us.
Thanks for coming back and reading more, Cathy, as well as commenting.
Dale Porter would like to restart LendInk, but his web host will not allow him to use them anymore because they cannot handle all emails they are getting. So he is trying to raise some funds to restart, make the site better, and have a small legal fund if something like this repeats.Here is the link: https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/9LiId
This might be a way to help him for the damage done to his reputation and the costs he unfairly has to pay to get the site hosted elsewhere.
Philana wrote: "Dale Porter would like to restart LendInk, but his web host will not allow him to use them anymore because they cannot handle all emails they are getting. So he is trying to raise some funds to res..."Thanks, Philana. Eddie shared the link earlier, but I'm glad to see it again in case people miss it. I made a donation myself and I've shared the information in a new blog post that went out earlier. I appreciate you commenting.
I also have made a contribution to Dale's start-up fund and urge others to do so as well. I am happy to see something positive done. On the topic of leaving 1-star reviews, there is an ongoing debate on that topic on KindleBoards that might interest you since the authors take positions from "Don't ever do it" to "They deserve it" and some of us in the middle taking a position of "I won't, but I understand why some people do". The latter happens to be my position.
http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php... if you want to take a look.
Bad reviews have always been one way that authors are "punished" for what is perceived as bad behavior and it has happened to writers and performers from Norman Mailer to Woody Allen to Mel Gibson and on. Whether it's good or not, we have to realize that once we put our work out there our behavior as well as our work is open for comment.
I voice very public political views. One day (as far as I know it hasn't happened yet) someone who hates my political opinions will leave reviews that "punish" me for them. I knew that when I posted on certain issues. Recently I received exactly that threat on The Guardian. While I may whine a bit when it happens, that is the price of having a public persona.
J.R. wrote: "I also have made a contribution to Dale's start-up fund and urge others to do so as well. I am happy to see something positive done. On the topic of leaving 1-star reviews, there is an ongoing de..."
Thank you for sharing that link, JR. I appreciate the opportunity to read the discussion.
What you did was completely inexcusable. To attack an individual or business without a full grasp of the facts was unfair, to say the least. This man broke no laws and did not violate copyright in any way and had you done even the minimum of research before you attacked, you would have known that. Also, having your books available on a lending website might have been a good marketing tool for you.
You seem so eager to destroy another person's ability to create livelihood for themselves, I cannot find that admirable and it feels that your apology is just self serving, coming after there was a backlash from disgusted readers.
Bullying should be unacceptable in all of its forms and what you took part in was the worst kind of ill informed hateful bullying. You should be truly apologetic. I wonder if you really are.
Michelle wrote: "You should be truly apologetic. I wonder if you really are. "Hello, Michelle, and thank you for your comment. Yes, I am truly apologetic. I was confused, angry and wrong.
I don't know whether you read any of the additional comments, or any of my other posts, but I can tell you that I have written directly to Mr. Porter to apologize (the text is in comments above and in a separate blog post). I have also donated the FundRazr to help get the site back up. I have gone to every writing group in which I participate, including the one where I was initially told that my books were on a "pirate site" and done my best to correct people's continuing wrong impressions.
If you want, you may read here and here.
I understand and accept that not everyone will believe me or accept my overtures and amends. I was wrong, and I am very much aware of that. Thank you for taking the time to leave your thoughts here.
Edited to add: I received a kind, gracious and forgiving message from Mr. Porter this morning. I am exceedingly grateful to have done so.
Honest question here...Did you donate anonymously? If so, why?
It seems like any author who was involved in the takedown would want their name attached to the donation to show that they are truly sorry and hopefully undo some of the bad press they have been getting.
The top 20 authors who have most been associated with the drive that ended with LendInk's demise could all "say" they donated anonymously.
I am not calling you a liar but I am just seriously curious.
It is fairly obvious to me that Dale is not going to get anywhere near his total. only 36 donations so far and if you remove the single $1000 donation then he has only received $553 in the interim. The story is dying and I don't see a big upswing in donations happening, and in the end the site is still gone.
Tom wrote: "Honest question here...Did you donate anonymously? If so, why?"
Yes, I did. The reason is that I don't authorize FB applications these days, and that appeared (it is possible I was wrong) to be the only way to attach your name.
I totally get that you're not calling me a liar; you're absolutely right that people can claim to have done all kinds of things. I will appreciate any information that you might have that I was unable to find.
I'm wondering whether it would be worth "bumping" my challenge post (for lack of a better way to phrase it) from 8/14 in the groups in which I shared it? It's possible that people missed it, after all.
Thanks for your comment.
PS - It seems that I *may* be able to add an additional comment (I'm looking at a couple of things right now), so I will try. Your point is well taken.
Edit: Nope, I can't log in to comment without authorizing the app. :-(
Edit #2: I added a clarifying comment to this post: http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_....
I concur that *all of us* need to figure out more ways to get the word out.
I'm wondering why you chose to opt-out of the lending function on Amazon? My first book will be up in several weeks and I have been planning on allowing the lending function, so I am interested as to why you chose the opposite. I respect your opinion.
Shawn