Constant Content

As I understand the development of Google's search algorithms the first person to buy and publish a CC article with a usage licence gets all the SEO benefits because they are the original publisher in Google's eyes. Subsequent buyers using the article on-line will be regarded as copycats and marked down. Doesn't this mean that the first buyer of a usage licence gets something much more valuable, and should therefore pay more for it?

Not necessarily. I posted an article on a site which I copied from an article directory. I correctly linked back and everything. My site gets WAY more traffic on the article than the original does, and for many different keywords. I believe the reasons include: a) effective backlinking strategy b) strong domain c) Good on page SEO. d) dumb luck.

Also, some people use the articles in email newsletters that are not even posted online.

Interesting. What you do with an article obviously affects the traffic it receives, but I still think that the first buyer of a usage licence gets first mover advantage. This will only get bigger as Google seems to be moving towards author recognition with its "rel=author" tags. Are there any stats on where articles end up? I has assumed that they were for websites but newsletters and magazines must also buy content.

Another important aspect is the frequency factor. If a webmaster updates his or her's site content three times a week, and they purchased an article a week after a site that only updates once a month, the second purchaser will have the advantage because Google recognizes their frequent updates and crawls them more often. It will see the article on their site first. That's why fresh content is so important. Personally, I don't use any content on my sites that I sell to someone else.