GR & amazon ... wait and see
We have enjoyed GR for years without paying a penny. Thank you GR for providing that for us.
But we should know there is no such thing as a free ride, and we have no right to expect one. We should view this new GR/amazon venture as a means to continue what we have enjoyed in an affordable way, albeit with some changes.
We should also give it a chance, see how it works out, before engaging in what may prove to be unfounded criticism.
But we should know there is no such thing as a free ride, and we have no right to expect one. We should view this new GR/amazon venture as a means to continue what we have enjoyed in an affordable way, albeit with some changes.
We should also give it a chance, see how it works out, before engaging in what may prove to be unfounded criticism.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Cathy
(new)
Mar 30, 2013 08:37AM
Thanks for that, Lew. As you probably know, some GR users are having a kitten over the news.
reply
|
flag
I've tried to avoid using the word "hysterical" to describe some of the comments.
Lewis wrote: "I've tried to avoid using the word "hysterical" to describe some of the comments."I understand but some might be defined as that!
There are some people who find any corporate activity reprehensible, as if the world could exist without business and profits. I personally admire what amazon has done and am a customer, not only for books, but for many other purchases as well. Their customer service is simply spectacular.
Lewis wrote: "There are some people who find any corporate activity reprehensible, as if the world could exist without business and profits. I personally admire what amazon has done and am a customer, not only f..."Can't disagree with anything you said.
I agree, Lewis. This is akin to the Industrial Revolution where machines took over jobs, formerly performed by individuals. Back then, the evil empire was the machine. The internet is transforming how and what we purchase and where possible, digitizing everything (i.,e. Kindle, etc.) and all information. In this particular discussion of Amazon buying goodreads, Like you, I see it as a good fit. The arguments given by those decrying the business deal are primarily one of not having a contract in place specifying what happens to one's contributed efforts should goodreads be sold. Had that been in place, one could then reasonably decide what and if to contribute at all. For that matter, the contract's there under "Terms" at bottom of page. Goodreads is a business and I think a lot of folks assumed otherwise. When getting involved in a business, one should always have a contract. That is the nature of the private sector...instead of wielding the gun of government, you are protected by the right to contract. If you omitted to do so...there's only one person to blame. When I submit things into the "ether" without a contract...I do so knowingly. Now, would I post my novel or portions of it onto the Internet without a contract in place?...absolutely not. Would I post a picture of a painting of mine? Sure!...I am in possession of it, or have a contract that says I sold it. It's common sense.
Harry wrote: "I agree, Lewis. This is akin to the Industrial Revolution where machines took over jobs, formerly performed by individuals. Back then, the evil empire was the machine. The internet is transforming ..."But Harry, how on earth would one obtain a contract? Does GR have such a contract? I rather doubt it.
So perhaps the reviewers should not have vested so much of their effort in reviews?
Readers naive though? Naive enough to not know that GR is and was a business and they might need a contract? I think of readers as being less naive than many but perhaps not.
Great comments and again, can't disagree with anything you said.
How one would obtain a contract is by asking for it. Goodreads would be dead in the water if it weren't for the reviews. The power, resides with those who use it (same goes for voting and government)...now just because a contract wasn't asked for...doesn't mean it isn't there if demanded. I've invested a lot of time in reviews, in contributing to goodreads, but I know it is shared and owned by everyone because I don't have a contract in place (there may be some copyright clause on the books that make this argument superfluous, dunno). That's ok with me, because the value I get in return...is buying books I know I'll like. And that's an implicit type of contract as well.
Harry wrote: "How one would obtain a contract is by asking for it. Goodreads would be dead in the water if it weren't for the reviews. The power, resides with those who use it (same goes for voting and governm..."Agree, Harry, the value is in books I know I'll like. But I still question the contract. Only way I could see that is if some of the 'heavy hitters' of reviewers would get together and demand it. Otherwise, for naught as I see it.
And I'll keep my ear out, but doubt there's any contract floating around out there.
Haha...think about all the little "agree" buttons you hit when installing software, etc. Have you actually read through the twenty page contract you're actually signing when doing so? Most of us don't. We just want to use the software. Contracts are everywhere. Even when you install free software, you're signing a contract. Did we hit an agree button when signing onto goodreads? Did I also sign an agreement between Facebook and Goodreads when signing on with FB? Probably. Honestly, I can't remember if I did. LOL
Harry wrote: "Haha...think about all the little "agree" buttons you hit when installing software, etc. Have you actually read through the twenty page contract you're actually signing when doing so? Most of us ..."You are absolutely right, of course re: signing the 'contract' by agreeing to their contract when we signed up. I didn't and still don't like the fact that my FB friends who join GR are automatic friends. But I take the good with the bad.
But having another contract saying my reviews are mine, probably not. And probably but signing up originally, it says somewhere that my reviews are theirs to use as they want. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care. But apparently there are a lot of GR reviewers who do, according to that blog I've been reviewing.
Life's to short to sweat this stuff...that's what I say. Rather spend my time fretting over whether the temp is high enough to go to the pool!
Harry wrote: "Haha...think about all the little "agree" buttons you hit when installing software, etc. Have you actually read through the twenty page contract you're actually signing when doing so? Most of us ..."Ha, ha yourself, friend!
Hey, have you read this goodreads contract you implicitly signed by making use of the site? Should be interesting to see what changes in language will occur as a result of this buyout.
Harry and Lew:Meant to pass this link on. This summarizes, I think, the problems GR users have with Amazon. And I'm saying, of course, they are not my problems. I enjoy the discussion...the discussion of everything, I think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katie-f...
I read that article. Funny thing is, I didn't know Amazon owned abebooks.com, one of my favorite sites. As far as I can see, that site hasn't suffered at all from being owned by Amazon. I think Lewis is right, it's more about corporate hatred than it is about facts.
The GR contract, #4 is the 'it belongs to us' which we knew was there. Like Facebook, which is also free, everything belongs to them. Just one reason I seldom post on FB, use it mostly to register, etc. to other sites.
My friend Jeff Yoak and I have been discussing on FB earlier. Apparently he didn't know it, I think, anyhow. But he feels like it's a good thing and said so with his comment tucked among all those that say otherwise! Jeff is great and says what he thinks. Like you guys.
Cathy wrote: "Harry and Lew:Meant to pass this link on. This summarizes, I think, the problems GR users have with Amazon. And I'm saying, of course, they are my problems. I enjoy the discussion...the discus..."
Thanks. I shared this on Facebook.
Harry wrote: "I read that article. Funny thing is, I didn't know Amazon owned abebooks.com, one of my favorite sites. As far as I can see, that site hasn't suffered at all from being owned by Amazon. I think ..."Saying again, I don't disagree with you or Lew or Jeff for that matter. I have GR friends though who are skeptical.
As to your message 16, the contract makes a distinction between "goodreads content" and "user content". Did you see that?
Cathy wrote: "Harry wrote: "I read that article. Funny thing is, I didn't know Amazon owned abebooks.com, one of my favorite sites. As far as I can see, that site hasn't suffered at all from being owned by Ama..."I confess I couldn't force myself to read the entire contract. What % of GR members do you think have?
Lewis wrote: "Cathy wrote: "Harry wrote: "I read that article. Funny thing is, I didn't know Amazon owned abebooks.com, one of my favorite sites. As far as I can see, that site hasn't suffered at all from bein..."Is zero a number?
Lewis wrote: I confess I couldn't force myself to read the entire contract. What % of GR members do you think have?Exactly, in all the diatribes I've read, not one of them referred to the contract all of us sign when using the site! We are an emotional nation, often disconnected from rationality and what's right there before our eyes. LOL
Harry wrote: "As to your message 16, the contract makes a distinction between "goodreads content" and "user content". Did you see that?"No...but will look. I've got three conversations going on about this. Wearing my ass out this afternoon!
Just followed the link and read the Huffington Post article by Katie Fransen. Hope she copied all her reviews before deleting her account. That was drastic!
Jan wrote: "Just followed the link and read the Huffington Post article by Katie Fransen. Hope she copied all her reviews before deleting her account. That was drastic!"Jan, I agree. She was not kind.
The way I read the terms and agreement, GR owns the reviews anyway. Seems like a lot of work (copying reviews)for naught, to me, anyway unless the user just wants to make a point. But a point? To who?
