Once an article is downloaded...

libertate · Post by **libertate** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:13 pm

Once an article is downloaded under "Usage", it should not be listed as available for Unique, or Full Rights. I believe, both of those imply that the article will not be seen on other sites.

Post by **constant-content** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:13 am

Think of it like a template, people can keep buying the same template over and over and then someone can take it off the market so no one can buy it again with a unique purchase.

We list the number of downloads so the customer knows if it has been bought before. At they point they can decide if a unique purchase is what they want.

Thank you

libertate · Post by **libertate** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:58 pm

Hmmm.. I understand, but as a buyer I am not interested.

Once I see an article has been downloaded, I do not consider Full or Unique at all. It is counter intuitive.

Why would I pay a premium for something that is not unique?

If it is used to "show" the author's ability, then mark it as cannot be downloaded.

ukresident · Post by **ukresident** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:41 am

Its a matter of supply and demand, if you don't buy it as uniqe and others don't either, the author will eventually decrease the unique asking price until he/she has a buyer for the unique lisence, in the meantime he/she can keep selling the usage liscense and as chris said, the amounts of downloads is very clearly stated.

thomask · Post by **thomask** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:15 pm

Keep in mind also that with the FULL RIGHTS LICENSE you are able to personalize, and customize the article to fit your own writing style, and re-build it to fit better with what you will use it for. I have already done this with a couple articles I have purchased here.

While I was initially unhappy with the article once I got to see the balance of it, I considered the following:

1. You get what you pay for.

2. My target audience (after giving it more thought) would find the article more useful then I, as a seasoned computer user would.

I, Would, and will continue to consider already downloaded articles for FULL RIGHTS LISENCE due to perhaps my unique usage.

I can however understand the concern over being accused of plagurising works, if its already BEEN downloaded, which I suspect is the main concern? (That and unique content fodder for the search engines...)

Thomask

libertate · Post by **libertate** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:17 am

thomask wrote:[...]
I can however understand the concern over being accused of plagurising works, if its already BEEN downloaded, which I suspect is the main concern? (That and unique content fodder for the search engines...)

Correct.

If the article was downloaded, and displayed on an other site, how can it be unique or gain full rights to it? There is no acceptable way for the content writer to retract previous downloads.

Post by **constant-content** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:11 pm

Not everyone needs unique rights, hence the "Usage" license. Every customer has different needs and if the writer doesn't want to chance a usage purchase they don't have to offer one.

Also once an article is purchased with full rights it can be changed.

Galskygge · Post by **Galskygge** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:38 am

Admin is right. I am an author, but also a customer to other peoples' articles, etc. because I run my own website. Personally I believe the way things are set atm are just fine.

thomask · Post by **thomask** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:44 pm

constant wrote:Not everyone needs unique rights, hence the "Usage" license. Every customer has different needs and if the writer doesn't want to chance a usage purchase they don't have to offer one.

Also once an article is purchased with full rights it can be changed.

I am sure that if it came to legal issues, you could simply refer them to constant-content.com as your 'Private Label Source'.

The question on whether it would still be plagurism is a question for the courts to decide really. I've seen some of these PLA/PLB (Private Label Articles/Books) offerings now available and wonder, does that mean the sellers of these packages are encouraging plagurism? Should they not then be illegal to sell?

Just some thoughts to ponder...

Thomas

Post by **constant-content** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:05 pm

CC handles the licenses, so anyone would just point to the terms if the court was involved. its pretty simple, the site handles licenses for the writers articles. The customer and writer agree to the sites terms and that is that. If a dispute happens we will handle it, in some cases its a refund and in others its removal of content.

Lets not make this a bigger issue then it is people.

thomask · Post by **thomask** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:33 pm

constant wrote:CC handles the licenses, so anyone would just point to the terms if the court was involved. its pretty simple, the site handles licenses for the writers articles. The customer and writer agree to the sites terms and that is that. If a dispute happens we will handle it, in some cases its a refund and in others its removal of content.

Lets not make this a bigger issue then it is people.

THANKS!

I just had never looked at it from the perpective of being accused of plagurizing (which for some reason is a hot topic in the rejections area), which of course brought to mind all these emails I have inviting me to become a member of various PLB/PLA systems. Thus the question that arose.

Hope your summer gets easier!

Thomas