Authors Make Fools of Themselves Over LendInk.com

[Steerpike]

Goes to show that you should know what you are doing, and what you are talking about, if you're going to use social media. These authors are now getting hammered in return, and apparently some have even received threats, which is so far beyond the pale it isn't even funny.

Authors, companies, and individuals generally need to understand how fast things can spiral out of control on social media and act wisely.

Legit Ebook Lending Site Taken Down By An Angry Twitmob of Writers | Techdirt

 

[Svrtnsse]

Oh dear...

That whole affair just isn't going to end well for anyone is it?

 

[Steerpike]

Oh dear...

That whole affair just isn't going to end well for anyone is it?

No. One of the authors who originally tweeted, and then tried to correct his error, has reported that his wife has received threats at her workplace over it. It's just insane. Even the owner of LendInk.com, which came down temporarily as a result of the author's actions, has come out and called people to stop threatening the authors and their families. Shows how fast things can spiral when millions of people can communicate instantly and it is easy to hide behind anonymity.

 

[JadedSidhe]

Wow. That is just insane.

Though, I would like to have a nice list of authors (and their books) who jumped on the bandwagon.

I hope the gentleman who had the site can eventually get everything straightened out and bring his site back.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Oh man, this had me in stitches. I mean, anyone with half a brain could have taken the time I did to read a few paragraphs about how they were lending things. Personally I'd be flattered if someone wanted to lend my book and got another person to maybe become a fan and buy my other stories. HA! Next authors will be burning down libraries for letting people read their books for free!

I think my favorite comment quote was this:

• 
  Re:
  
  DannyB Aug 8th, 2012 @ 10:01am
  
  
  
  I sense a disturbance in the force.
  
  It's as if a million irrational authors cried out in terror and were suddenly 1-star reviewed in Amazon.

Uh oh, I just pirated someone's comment...

 

[Black Dragon]

What's so disturbing about this story is how a mob of misinformed zealots were able to destroy a legitimate small business.

If these same zealots circled a brick-and-mortar store and attempted to burn it to the ground, there would be police action to protect the establishment. But because this is an online business (which is increasingly the future), there are no protections in place for the business owner.

 

[Chime85]

It's a shame because the site is at heart, an electronic library. It's disheartening to see some authors flip their lids as they did.

That said, there is no need for threats to be made. One in particular made me weep, "They deserve far worse..... To 4CHAN!" Really, a fully fledged campaign?! (as much as I love freedom of speech and expression, I don't think crashing author websites etc is the way to do things)

x

 

[Steerpike]

What's so disturbing about this story is how a mob of misinformed zealots were able to destroy a legitimate small business.

Yep. A business with the potential to help the very same misinformed zealots. April Hamilton has a nice blog post about it, here:

Indie Author: Congratulations: You Killed LendInk And Denied Your Fellow Authors Their Lend Royalties

 

[danr62]

Here the owner responds on a forum where someone made the same claim:

The LendInk Site Has been Suspended

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Good grief.

In practical terms, it wouldn't be particularly difficult for LendInk to set up again on a different webhost (move the files and change the DNS), but it sounds like the guy who ran it is sort of overwhelmed by the whole thing.

I do sort of wonder how we would deal with this phenomenon; clearly it's not very difficult for a mob to form and "burn down" a site (by harassing the hosting company until they suspend the site). Unlike in the real world, where if you're part of a mob that burns down a building you're liable for arson, complaining to a web hosting company that then decides to suspend a site based on your information isn't quite so clearly a criminal act.

What this probably means is that hosting companies need to be regulated (because it's pretty self-evident they wouldn't self-regulate in this way) to have fixed, well-defined processes for handling complaints of this sort. In other words, LendInk's host should have initiated some sort of action due to the influx of complaints -- and be shielded from liability for hosting the site (in other words, they should have had no fear of any hypothetical lawsuits against LendInk). A lawsuit (or a court order) could possibly force a site to be suspended, but hosts shouldn't be susceptible to pressure to -- or even be allowed to take down -- sites that aren't meeting some sort of obvious criminal criteria (e.g. if it's distributing child porn, sure; if it's engaging in something that might possibly if you squint be copyright infringement, then it's going to require some additional review).

 

[Lawfire]

What this probably means is that hosting companies need to be regulated (because it's pretty self-evident they wouldn't self-regulate in this way) to have fixed, well-defined processes for handling complaints of this sort.

Regulation - while well meaning - is usually not the best solution.

I would think that the contract between LendInk and their host should be the solution for this situation. If LendInk's site was taking down and doing so violated the contract, LendInk should take legal action. If the contract allowed the host to take down the site under such circumstances, then it is a case of LendInk agreeing to terms and it has to deal with them. If the contract does not mention circumstances like this, well, perhaps it should in the future. Either way, LendInk could have it's day in court if it wants.

In other words, LendInk's host should have initiated some sort of action due to the influx of complaints -- and be shielded from liability for hosting the site (in other words, they should have had no fear of any hypothetical lawsuits against LendInk).

I would hope a judge would throw out such cases quickly, but in today's lawsuit happy society, you never know.

A lawsuit (or a court order) could possibly force a site to be suspended, but hosts shouldn't be susceptible to pressure to -- or even be allowed to take down -- sites that aren't meeting some sort of obvious criminal criteria (e.g. if it's distributing child porn, sure; if it's engaging in something that might possibly if you squint be copyright infringement, then it's going to require some additional review).

I cannot agree with the "not being allowed to" sentiment. Again it would depend on the contract, but the host owns the "property" the site is just renting space. If I owned an office building and rented space to various businesses, should I "not be allowed to" stop renting to a business of my choosing? If it did not violate the contract (renter's agreement) why should I not?

 

[Steerpike]

I tend to agree. If, for example, you wanted to start a hosting company that only hosts Christian sites, you should be able to do that via your agreements with your customers.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I would think that the contract between LendInk and their host should be the solution for this situation. If LendInk's site was taking down and doing so violated the contract, LendInk should take legal action. If the contract allowed the host to take down the site under such circumstances, then it is a case of LendInk agreeing to terms and it has to deal with them. If the contract does not mention circumstances like this, well, perhaps it should in the future. Either way, LendInk could have it's day in court if it wants.

Hosting companies do not and will not ever sign contracts like this with any company that isn't gigantic. The default terms of service invariably say "We can shut down your site for no reason at any time we feel like it" or equivalent wording. So, yeah, LendInk could try to get a better contract with a hosting company, but unless they're paying through the nose, they aren't going to get one.

My point is that hosting services should be treated as common carriers -- not liable for the actions of their customers. A landlord isn't liable if you commit a crime on property you rented from them.

I cannot agree with the "not being allowed to" sentiment. Again it would depend on the contract, but the host owns the "property" the site is just renting space. If I owned an office building and rented space to various businesses, should I "not be allowed to" stop renting to a business of my choosing? If it did not violate the contract (renter's agreement) why should I not?

You ARE aware that there are laws expressly prohibiting this kind of thing, yeah? There's a variety of reasons that landlords may not refuse to rent to a particular person or company -- most obviously, religious, racial, or gender issues. (It's often hard to prove that racism/bigotry is the reason they refused to rent to someone, but the laws still exist.)

 

[Steerpike]

There is always the question of what laws there are, versus what laws there should be.

 

[Penpilot]

OMG.... serious facepalm on this. Those authors got a serious case of foot-to-mouth disease and should be ashamed... ASHAMED. In essence they stole someone's livelihood away from them without bothering to checking if they were in the right. This isn't even going in half-cocked. It's no cock at all. <insert totally inappropriate sexual innuendo here.> Sigh.

 

[Lawfire]

My point is that hosting services should be treated as common carriers -- not liable for the actions of their customers. A landlord isn't liable if you commit a crime on property you rented from them.

Agreed.

You ARE aware that there are laws expressly prohibiting this kind of thing, yeah? There's a variety of reasons that landlords may not refuse to rent to a particular person or company -- most obviously, religious, racial, or gender issues. (It's often hard to prove that racism/bigotry is the reason they refused to rent to someone, but the laws still exist.)

Yeah, private property rights have been trampled on. Also, I am not advocating discrimination. If a building owner disagreed with the business practices of one of their renters, and evicted them from the building, is that discrimination as well? A legitimate video store turns into an adult video store, for example. Or, perhaps a better example, a small diner decides to turn into a BBQ joint. The smoke from their new pit is bothering other renters. It violates no laws, but is annoying to others. A building owner could not remove them?

There is always the question of what laws there are, versus what laws there should be.

Exactly.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Yeah, private property rights have been trampled on. Also, I am not advocating discrimination. If a building owner disagreed with the business practices of one of their renters, and evicted them from the building, is that discrimination as well? A legitimate video store turns into an adult video store, for example. Or, perhaps a better example, a small diner decides to turn into a BBQ joint. The smoke from their new pit is bothering other renters. It violates no laws, but is annoying to others. A building owner could not remove them?

I'm not sure how you get from "you can't discriminate based on religious/racial/gender grounds" to "you can't terminate a rental contract for any reason at all." "Being an olfactory nuisance" isn't a protected class in any anti-discrimination law on the books.

 

[Lawfire]

You ARE aware that there are laws expressly prohibiting this kind of thing, yeah?

I am not sure how you got from "my property, my rules," to "you can't discriminate based on religious/racial/gender grounds."

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I am not sure how you got from "my property, my rules," to "you can't discriminate based on religious/racial/gender grounds."

...because that's what the law currently states? I mean if you want to argue that it should be legal for landlords to discriminate based on religion, race, or gender, go right ahead... but good luck with that, as I don't think there are any states left in the Union that allow that sort of thing, nor very many people left who think it should be legal to do so.

 

[danr62]

It's kind of like this:

Why should I be afraid to spank my kids in my own home for fear that a neighbor will be looking in a window and think I'm abusing them and calling the police? Don't I have the right to discipline my children as I see fit (within reason)?