PLR rights what are the limitations legally?

14 years ago

Oh,OOps this is not my opinion this is copied from a lawyers site .
I am not a lawyer thankfully

Antitrust

Federal and state antitrust laws were enacted to promote competition by making certain anticompetitive activity illegal. Anticompetitive activity occurs when a company abuses its monopoly power or engages in conduct that prevents competition or restrains market trade in order to remain a market leader in a particular area. Examples of anticompetitive activity include: horizontal price-fixing (i.e., two or more competitors agree on what price to charge or pay); vertical price-fixing (i.e., seller and buyer agree at what price product should be resold); market allocation (two competitors agree not to compete in a particular area or product); predatory pricing (i.e., a company lowers prices below cost to drive a competitor out of business); tying (i.e., requiring a buyer to purchase something that he or she does not want in order to buy something that he or she does want); exclusive franchise agreements (i.e., a seller grants a buyer the exclusive right to resell a product or service); and territorial and customer restrictions (i.e., a seller grants a buyer the exclusive right to resell in a particular territory or to a particular customer).

The federal antitrust laws generally limit damages to businesses or individuals who purchased goods or services directly from the person or company that violates the antitrust laws. Since most products and services are sold through distributors, wholesalers, or retailers, most claims under the federal antitrust laws are brought by businesses, not consumers or other end-users. Many state antitrust laws, however, allow consumers and other end-users to recover damages resulting from anticompetitive conduct, even if they did not purchase goods or services directly from the person or company that violates the antitrust laws.

Price fixing occurs when competing sellers agree on what prices to charge - i.e. agreeing to not sell below a certain price. Bid rigging happens when firms agree to bid such that a designated firm submits the winning bid. Customer allocation involves arrangements between competitors to split up customers, such as by geographic area, to reduce to eliminate competition.

Companies violating antitrust laws are subject to criminal suits that can lead to jail time and large fines. Or, a civil action can be filed asking the court to compensate for past violations, and forbidding further violations.

Individual violators can be fined up to $1 million and sentenced up to 10 years prison, and corporations can be fined up to $100 million for each offense.

Price fixing, bid rigging and customer allocation cause great harm to consumers and taxpayers by causing them to pay more for products and services, and by depriving them of the benefits of competition. Antitrust laws can save consumers billions of dollars in illegal overcharges by making sure people benefit from competitive pricing for the goods and services they purchase.

Cases of antitrust behavior have been tried against the soft drink, vitamin, trash hauling, road building, electrical contracting, fax paper, explosives, plumbing supplies, doors, carpet, bread and software industries. Private individuals who claim damages, can bring a suit against another individual, a corporation, or corporations - a very effective way to deter antitrust criminal activity.

Because price fixing, bid rigging and customer allocation are all secret behaviors, the antitrust agencies rely heavily on complaints received by consumers, or people in business.

Price Fixing Laws

There are three major federal antitrust laws: the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Sherman Act (1890) outlaws all contracts, combinations and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain interstate and foreign trade, including fixing prices, rigging bids and allocating customers. The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. A monopoly occurs when one firm gains control of a market sector by supressing competition using illegal conduct.

The Clayton Act (1914) prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition and thereby increase prices to consumers. All persons considering a merger or acquisition above a certain size must notify the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission.

The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce.

Both the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act carry no criminal penalties, and are tried as civil cases.

Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1590858].message }}

Aaarrrggghhh

14 years ago

Originally Posted by EWGQDD

if you buy PLR rights to a product you can sell it for whatever, is that true even if within the PLR rights you purchased you are told you can only sell it for x amount of dollars?

Just because a product is PLR doesn't mean the author can't put additional restrictions on the product.

I write my own products, I buy other PLR products. Terms are different for every product.

I see many ASSUME because it is PLR that they can do anything they want with it and completely avoid the license which is usually included with any PLR or MRR product.

There really is no way of policing (sp?) it, you can just put in your license with your PLR product and hope it is abided by. You take take steps in having the new owner register their version, etc. I personally find my time is well spent elsewhere.

If you have a PLR product that says you should not sell it for less than $XX.XX, then those are valid licensing terms. If you don't like it, don't buy that PLR, or, contact the owner and find out if you can change that

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"What Can The Source Publishing Do For My Business?"
We Grow Your Business On-Line
>> TheSourcePublishing.com <<

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1590906].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

This is inaccurate according to the law. you may not set a price and demand it be sold that way or you could be fined 1 million dollars and spend 10 yr in prison as a result. it is ILLEGAL to do said price fixing.
Refer to post above^

-WD

Originally Posted by Aaarrrggghhh

Just because a product is PLR doesn't mean the author can't put additional restrictions on the product.

I write my own products, I buy other PLR products. Terms are different for every product.

I see many ASSUME because it is PLR that they can do anything they want with it and completely avoid the license which is usually included with any PLR or MRR product.

There really is no way of policing (sp?) it, you can just put in your license with your PLR product and hope it is abided by. You take take steps in having the new owner register their version, etc. I personally find my time is well spent elsewhere.

If you have a PLR product that says you should not sell it for less than .XX, then those are valid licensing terms. If you don't like it, don't buy that PLR, or, contact the owner and find out if you can change that

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1590912].message }}

Aaarrrggghhh

14 years ago

Originally Posted by WD Mino

This is inaccurate according to the law. you may not set a price and demand it be sold that way or you could be fined 1 million dollars and spend 10 yr in prison as a result. it is ILLEGAL to do said price fixing.
Refer to post above^

-WD

I do not know what your qualifications are but I must respectfully disagree.

You are not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You are making comparisons between bananas and cracker jacks.

Sorry, but as the author, I hold 100% copyright protection...I can hold someone even more accountable for damages if I register that copyright for the product created. But that is neither here nor there.

I am not a lawyer...just have worked with them writing their federal litigation appeals briefs for over 16 years...done with that, now I write my own products and help others...and so long as it is not content that adversely affects the public at large, the FTC has nothing to do with the licensing rights I might chose to give someone.

The FTC is busy with those who are creating testimonials on review pages that are fake and made-up and DO adversely the public at large. Just like in live commercials where they are paid actors that have no experience with an actual drug or pill, yet will says whatever the script says that they are getting paid for.

Hardly coherent in comparing FTC laws with licensing regulations as rightly and naturally given to those who create information. Unless of course there are some recent changes for 2010 that I don't know about, which is highly probable given our current state of affairs. Anyway, I hope you will be more mindful before you go about stating the law and ensuring that it is quite on point and, hope you are an attorney as it is worded in your previous it could easily be stated you are giving legal advice...is that what you intended?

Anyway, again, yes, it is impossible to 'police' these issues but if you have issues with the TERMS in which the rightful producer is graciously extending, then don't buy or use their product. If you don't like the price of my product, don't buy it - lol. Most publishers however are very approachable and will work with you. I know I am

DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney nor do I wish to be one

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"What Can The Source Publishing Do For My Business?"
We Grow Your Business On-Line
>> TheSourcePublishing.com <<

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591709].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Aaarrrggghhh

I do not know what your qualifications are but I must respectfully disagree.

You are not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You are making comparisons between bananas and cracker jacks.

Sorry, but as the author, I hold 100% copyright protection...I can hold someone even more accountable for damages if I register that copyright for the product created. But that is neither here nor there.

I am not a lawyer...just have worked with them writing their federal litigation appeals briefs for over 16 years...done with that, now I write my own products and help others...and so long as it is not content that adversely affects the public at large, the FTC has nothing to do with the licensing rights I might chose to give someone.

The FTC is busy with those who are creating testimonials on review pages that are fake and made-up and DO adversely the public at large. Just like in live commercials where they are paid actors that have no experience with an actual drug or pill, yet will says whatever the script says that they are getting paid for.

Hardly coherent in comparing FTC laws with licensing regulations as rightly and naturally given to those who create information. Unless of course there are some recent changes for 2010 that I don't know about, which is highly probable given our current state of affairs. Anyway, I hope you will be more mindful before you go about stating the law and ensuring that it is quite on point and, hope you are an attorney as it is worded in your previous it could easily be stated you are giving legal advice...is that what you intended?

Anyway, again, yes, it is impossible to 'police' these issues but if you have issues with the TERMS in which the rightful producer is graciously extending, then don't buy or use their product. If you don't like the price of my product, don't buy it - lol. Most publishers however are very approachable and will work with you. I know I am

DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney nor do I wish to be one

Would you as a product creator who has sold PLR with a set bottom price to your clients sell PLR rights to someone else with a price lower than the first person you sold it to?

Would you if you saw that your product was being undersold by IM's who are not honest let the ones who actaully spent good money on PLR sell at a competitive price or just basically tell them to bad, all the while you adjust your prices to compete with the theives who stole your product?

Or would you sell PLR with a certain price floor and then turn around and let affiliates sell the same products for lower prices?

I am curious about your personal stand on this.

I myself would have to allow those who bought PLR rights from me compete for pricing. As long as the products in question were actually being sold illegally. And as long as my clients gave me some time to at least try and get the thieves to stop selling the product.

I know that legally it would be way to time consuming and money consuming I think to fight a legal battle over a 27.00-100.00 product, right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591770].message }}

Aaarrrggghhh

14 years ago

Originally Posted by EWGQDD

Would you as a product creator who has sold PLR with a set bottom price to your clients sell PLR rights to someone else with a price lower than the first person you sold it to?

No, I do not do 'levels' and I do not place price restrictions. When I deliver PLR, mine are 'unrestricted'.

Originally Posted by EWGQDD

Would you if you saw that your product was being undersold by IM's who are not honest let the ones who actaully spent good money on PLR sell at a competitive price or just basically tell them to bad, all the while you adjust your prices to compete with the theives who stole your product?

This is one of the reasons I don't get into putting pricing restrictions and, I also tend not to directly compete in niches with my own customers.

Originally Posted by EWGQDD

Or would you sell PLR with a certain price floor and then turn around and let affiliates sell the same products for lower prices?

I am curious about your personal stand on this.

I don't do this so I would not know but it does not sound right to me, but is that coming from the publisher or the PLR rights holder?

Originally Posted by EWGQDD

I know that legally it would be way to time consuming and money consuming I think to fight a legal battle over a 27.00-100.00 product, right?

The only ones who ever win in litigation are the attorneys, period, at least, that is what I have seen

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"What Can The Source Publishing Do For My Business?"
We Grow Your Business On-Line
>> TheSourcePublishing.com <<

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592188].message }}

Steve Wells 14 years ago

I don't do this so I would not know but it does not sound right to me, but is that coming from the publisher or the PLR rights holder?

This has happened and I have checked with the original sellers websites and the pricing they are selling competing products for are now lower than the price floor I was orginally suggested to sell at.

I will have to look at the licence again and see how they worded it.

If they suggested a price floor then its just a suggestion, even if its worded firmly I would gather?
- Thanks
Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592266].message }}

John Rogers

14 years ago

EDIT - I've got to eat my words on this one. After a couple of hours of reading, I must concede. Brian Kindsvater is of course correct.

John

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591087].message }}

flipkid 14 years ago

You are wrong.

Price fixing is big time illegal.

Here's a case you may be familiar with.

John

PLR isn't price fixing, it's a form of licensing. As a publisher you are free to set pretty much any restrictions you so choose.

I can't post links yet but look into licensing law rather than PLR. PLR is kind of 'online marketing industry' terminology, not a legal one.

Private Labeling happens in all levels of manufacturing, including publishing (a form of manufacturing). If you private label 1000 mattresses from a Chinese manufacturer and they say that you cannot sell them for more than $250 each and you agree to that, those are the terms. PLR products online usually say that purchasing a product constitutes acceptance of their terms. If there aren't any double-check with the publisher. Otherwise it's all yours!

This is not conjecture, btw.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591132].message }}
- Steve Wells 14 years ago
  
  I would like to see somemore interaction in this post, as of now this subject in my opinon is not settled.
  
  Are there any internet lawyers who are well versed and knowlegable on this forum we can call upon to answer this question?
  
  I just want to know the actual law concerning PLR rights. I want to know that if someone sets a pricing limit on the PLR of a product and then allows someone else to sell the same product at a lower price, lets say an affiliate, is that illegal?
  
  I have seen this done also, which I think is totally wrong........
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591161].message }}

kindsvater

14 years ago

Once again, this lawyer disagrees with the absolute statements and legal references from the above non-lawyers.

I know everyone is well-meaning, but you'll want to do some further research into the current status of the issue.

Setting price floors is very common and 'anti-trust' limitations are easily circumvented. If the merchant doesn't like your pricing they revoke your license.

For example, if you drop-ship the merchant will often set a minimum advertised price or MAP. Violate that and you'll be canned. Good luck with a lawsuit.

I'm a little busy watching Alabama v. Texas right now, so if you want to research this further forget that year 2000 FTC case reference. In fact, don't look at anything older than a 2007 Supreme Court case called Leegin Creative Leather Products.

Also, I'm not condoning price fixing. Quickly, I'm talking about MAP which essentially get the same result as price fixing. And, I doubt 'anti-trust' is going to apply to a PLR product.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591146].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

Once again, this lawyer disagrees with the absolute statements and legal references from the above non-lawyers.

I know every is well-meaning, but you'll want to do some further research into the current status of the issue.

Setting price floors is very common and 'anti-trust' limitations are easily circumvented. If the merchant doesn't like your pricing they revoke your license.

For example, if you drop-ship the merchant will often set a minimum advertised price or MAP. Violate that and you'll be canned. Good luck with a lawsuit.

I'm a little busy watching Alabama v. Texas right now, so if you want to research this further forget that year 2000 FTC case reference. In fact, don't look at anything older than a 2007 Supreme Court case called Leegin Creative Leather Products.

Also, I'm not condoning price fixing. Quickly, I'm talking about MAP which essentially get the same result as price fixing. And, I doubt 'anti-trust' is going to apply to a PLR product.

When your game is over can you please inform us in more detail if this OFF LINE law applies to ONLINE PLR rights........

And can you let me know if the one setting the price floor, can then turn around and set a price floor LOWER with someone else than they have set with you, via either another PLR licence for the same product or with an affiliate?

If we can clear this up I think that many, many people will be very blessed to know their rights involving this subject............

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591176].message }}

Chris Grable

14 years ago

Kindsvater,

Sorry if I am dense but... Are you tellng us that setting a minimum price for any online or offline product (PLR included) IS price fixing and IS illegal.... BUT this aspect of the law has been so easily circumvented that it is in effect... little more than a technicality?

Thanks!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591227].message }}

kindsvater

14 years ago

Last post tonight (got some Fantasy cred on the line for the game) - a couple concepts:

If various competitors in a market get together and agree to fix prices - like the CD example - that price fixing is illegal, but not quite applicable to this situation.

PLR rights can vary, but the general concept is that someone creates a document. That person is the copyright owner.

As the copyright owner they can license some of their 'rights' - which includes the right of someone else to resell the document. Violate the contractual rights and that license can be terminated. The person buying the PLR does not acquire all copyrights - which makes sense as multiple people are buying the PLR.

The PLR owner is thus like a merchant with a drop-ship program, or a merchant licensing products for retailers to sell.

There is no different in the law between online and offline products.

Can the PLR owner set a MAP? IMHO, due to the recent Supreme Court opinion the answer in most circumstances will be yes.

Hope this helps.

Don't confuse price fixing amongst competitors with a product owner setting a MAP for resellers.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Use Elf Links to Stop Google's Affiliate Bans - Brian Kindsvater IM Help

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591265].message }}

Aaarrrggghhh

14 years ago

Originally Posted by kindsvater

If various competitors in a market get together and agree to fix prices - like the CD example - that price fixing is illegal, but not quite applicable to this situation.

PLR rights can vary, but the general concept is that someone creates a document. That person is the copyright owner.

As the copyright owner they can license some of their 'rights' - which includes the right of someone else to resell the document. Violate the contractual rights and that license can be terminated. The person buying the PLR does not acquire all copyrights - which makes sense as multiple people are buying the PLR.

The PLR owner is thus like a merchant with a drop-ship program, or a merchant licensing products for retailers to sell.

There is no different in the law between online and offline products.

Can the PLR owner set a MAP? IMHO, due to the recent Supreme Court opinion the answer in most circumstances will be yes.

Hope this helps.

Don't confuse price fixing amongst competitors with a product owner setting a MAP for resellers.

Yes, this helps and thanks for the clarification.

Now that would just be a shame if the right was taken away from copyright holders to be able to set a minimum price for their works, much like different levels of membership access where you are granted additional uses of the work depending on the payment scale.

We have many PLR membership sites with different levels of memberships, it is along the same concept...the more you pay, the more access you have, same with your completed works, you can grant limited use and more liberal uses...such as the MRR only or full unrestricted rights....sorry, it's almost my bedtime...hope that makes sense.

Thanks for your contribution and another great thread at the WF.

Thanks

Signature

"What Can The Source Publishing Do For My Business?"
We Grow Your Business On-Line
>> TheSourcePublishing.com <<

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591753].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

14 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me price fixing is an agreement among competitors to set an agreed upon artificially high price, which would be different from setting a licensing stipulation that sets a minimum price, while leaving the licensees free to set higher prices.

I read something about this back in November. I can't recall the specifics, but whether setting a minimum price was legal or not depended on how the product owner communicated with licensees. Sorry to be so vague, I'm just trying to say it's not as black and white as most of you are trying to make it.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591238].message }}

digigo

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me price fixing is an agreement among competitors to set an agreed upon artificially high price, which would be different from setting a licensing stipulation that sets a minimum price, while leaving the licensees free to set higher prices..

Exactly... there is no price fixing issue here.. price fixing concerns market participants and consumer right.. for PLR it is licensing deal.. the owner can license and dictate however terms he pleases. Take it or leave it.. so if there is price set in the licensing term.. you can not sell it differently without breaking the contract. There is no public interest harmed in private party doing so

then enforceability is another issue.. matter of economics

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591253].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

I would like to see somemore interaction in this post, as of now this subject in my opinon is not settled.

Suggest you read the post right above the one you said the above in - that was posted by a lawyer who is highly qualified in law and the internet.

And you want more???

You've got people posting without clearly stating "I am not a lawyer" - might be smart to just listen to the one person who IS.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591279].message }}

Chris Grable

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Suggest you read the post right above the one you said the above in - that was posted by a lawyer who is highly qualified in law and the internet.

And you want more???

You've got people posting without clearly stating "I am not a lawyer" - might be smart to just listen to the one person who IS.

Kay, I think they posted at about the same time.....

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591370].message }}

digigo 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

You've got people posting without clearly stating "I am not a lawyer" - might be smart to just listen to the one person who IS.

very true.. but I would guess that is the risk participants have to take in discussing any legal matter in a open forum...a disclaimer can mitigate that risk but risk still... anyone care to give an example where simply making a statement brings legal trouble and financial loss to the author??
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591442].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

Sorry for the mistake above I am not a lawyer thank God.
However copyright law is completely different. I mean as soon as I write something I own the rights if I say so or otherwise setting a price to say you cannot sell below a certain number has nothing to do with licensing Hello? you folks are not being truthful here I posted the law above. like it or not that is fact and that is what I could fight You on if you tried to force me to sell at a lower or higher price then I chose or saw fit.exclusive franchise agreements (i.e., a seller grants a buyer the exclusive right to resell a product or service); and territorial and customer restrictions (i.e., a seller grants a buyer the exclusive right to resell in a particular territory or to a particular customer). price fixing is only one aspect of the above post you want to try and go there be my guest but if you did that to me the next thing you would have is a set of nice little papers not a oh I am sorry. you are not licensing the price you are licensing the product. it is illegal no matter how you try and spin it you cannot demand a price remain upon anything at a fixed rate. there is another little part of that called fair competition and supply in demand.
you may wish to refer to the fact that even here in canada a little while ago there was a ginormous lawsuit in regards to this very thing offline or online the law applies.

-WD

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591788].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by WD Mino

Sorry for the mistake above I am not a lawyer thank God.
However copyright law is completely different. I mean as soon as I write something I own the rights if I say so or otherwise setting a price to say you cannot sell below a certain number has nothing to do with licensing Hello? you folks are not being truthful here I posted the law above. like it or not that is fact and that is what I could fight You on if you tried to force me to sell at a lower or higher price then I chose or saw fit.exclusive franchise agreements (i.e., a seller grants a buyer the exclusive right to resell a product or service); and territorial and customer restrictions (i.e., a seller grants a buyer the exclusive right to resell in a particular territory or to a particular customer). price fixing is only one aspect of the above post you want to try and go there be my guest but if you did that to me the next thing you would have is a set of nice little papers not a oh I am sorry. you are not licensing the price you are licensing the product. it is illegal no matter how you try and spin it you cannot demand a price remain upon anything at a fixed rate. there is another little part of that called fair competition and supply in demand.
you may wish to refer to the fact that even here in canada a little while ago there was a ginormous lawsuit in regards to this very thing offline or online the law applies.

-WD

I am not a lawyer either obviously, but what you are saying makes way more sense to me than what others have said on here.

If its true or not I do not know but for some reason someone telling me that I cannot compete in selling their product after I have purchased said product with PLR makes no sense to me.

I do believe that they should have a suggested price but in no way should they legally be able to tell you you can't compete, you bought the PLR licence to make money.

For them to say I am going to sell at a lower price and your PLR licence is now in effect and you cant make any more money or compete with me on the pricing is B.S. Same goes for the fact that all IM products with PLR deal with theives who steal the product or others who price way too low and now you are making no money.

In the case that I cannot compete I would say please refund my money, and thank you.....

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591846].message }}

Aaarrrggghhh 14 years ago

Originally Posted by EWGQDD

In the case that I cannot compete I would say please refund my money, and thank you.....

Exactly my point...look for publishers that are in alignment with your own business needs.
- Thanks
Signature

"What Can The Source Publishing Do For My Business?"
We Grow Your Business On-Line
>> TheSourcePublishing.com <<
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591915].message }}

Aaarrrggghhh

14 years ago

Originally Posted by WD Mino

Sorry for the mistake above I am not a lawyer thank God.
However copyright law is completely different. I mean as soon as I write something I own the rights if I say so or otherwise setting a price to say you cannot sell below a certain number has nothing to do with licensing Hello? you folks are not being truthful here I posted the law above. like it or not that is fact and that is what I could fight You on if you tried to force me to sell at a lower or higher price then I chose or saw fit. price fixing is only one aspect of the above post you want to try and go there be my guest but if you did that to me the next thing you would have is a set of nice little papers not a oh I am sorry. you are not licensing the price you are licensing the product. it is illegal no matter how you try and spin it you cannot demand a price remain upon anything at a fixed rate. there is another little part of that called fair competition and supply in demand.
you may wish to refer to the fact that even here in canada a little while ago there was a ginormous lawsuit in regards to this very thing offline or online the law applies.

-WD

With all due respect you really really need to be careful making legal statements and not being a lawyer. Not sure how it is in Canada but in the U.S., you will have much more to worry about than 10 years in jail.

"it is illegal no matter how you try and spin it you cannot demand a price remain upon anything at a fixed rate."

Product owners can set any price they want to and set the terms of the offer. You, however, are under no obligation or duty to accept those conditions...you could simply find another supplier that would be more suitable and more in alignment with your business endeavors. Super simple.

Thanks

Signature

"What Can The Source Publishing Do For My Business?"
We Grow Your Business On-Line
>> TheSourcePublishing.com <<

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591898].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

I did not offer legal advice that is legal advice/law offered publicly by a lawyer on his site and is public information that can be found anywhere you chose to look it up.

with all due respect your license would be void if you violate a law in writing it. you cannot set pricing you may say You are given the non exclusive rights to resell change edit sell whatever put you cannot demand the product be sold at a set price nor can you demand where they be sold which is what this thread is about I am the person he spoke to to begin with I said you cannot set a price in stone it is a msrp not an ARP here in canada the us or wherever. that is not legal why is this so hard to figure out.

Copyright laws are the only thing governing the plr business so show me in the copyright law where it says you hold the right to set the price..
it is not there I have studied this stuff lawyer be damned I run a business and needed to know certain things as should every other person who runs online or offline.

-WD

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591952].message }}

Tina Golden 14 years ago

WD and the OP, you two need to scroll back up and read kindsvatar's posts. He actually is a lawyer. Perhaps he knows the law a bit better than those who are not?

Tina
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
Fast & Easy Content Creation
***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1591998].message }}
- Paul Myers 14 years ago
  
  Tina,
  
  WD and the OP, you two need to scroll back up and read kindsvatar's posts. He actually is a lawyer. Perhaps he knows the law a bit better than those who are not?
  
  Forget it. They're arguing based on looking right, not being right.
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592360].message }}
  
  WD Mino 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  Tina,Forget it. They're arguing based on looking right, not being right.
  
  Paul
  
  Oh. I don't understand that Paul. I will be quiet now I am not trying to prove I am right I am simply saying it can't be right .
  
  -WD
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592369].message }}
  
  Paul Myers 14 years ago
  
  Will,
  
  Until recently, I thought exactly the same way you do now. I still have some licenses that read that way, because it's fair to the original buyers and NOT setting a minimum doesn't create problems.
  
  However, I have since been corrected by more knowledgeable people (like Brian, who knows his stuff) and will be less liberal in the future.
  
  As for the ethical issue you bring up, I have another perspective for you. Consider: Why should a creator be forced to compete with his own creation?
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592387].message }}

Lance K

14 years ago

Originally Posted by WD Mino

I did not offer legal advice that is legal advice/law offered publicly by a lawyer on his site and is public information that can be found anywhere you chose to look it up.

But you did republish it without proper citation of source.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
~ Zig Ziglar

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592038].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

Lawyer or not Tina the law is accessible to all and so is the info regarding it no one is legally allowed to set a price and demand it be kept that way. that is not legal nor moral.

Lawyers are not always right either talking about circumventing laws is not very cool but again this is governed by copyright law there is no where in copyright law that states you have the authority to set a price floor . that is ridiculous and that is not a valid license and very few plr licenses are worded that way either.
-WD

Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592028].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

True lance I did not think just posted it and for that I was wrong and made correction never thought it would come across as me saying it but I should have said not a lawyer.

your right
-WD
****Edit.

I also want to say i myself am a product creator etc I write my own licenses but as far as I understood I was not allowed to demand a price because markets and supply in demand fluctuates

I by no means am saying a license is not to be adhered to I am only saying the price fixed at a certain price is not legal as far as I understand the laws I read. If someone came to me when the market had gone down and tried to hit me with the your not allowed to sell it for that I would dispute that that is all I am saying you must adhere to licenses.

price fixing on the other hand should not be included in a license to begin with only a suggested price based on the value of the product so many people license something the market goes down they change their price to compete if you say your not allowed to well ... seems like a restraint and messing with fair trade etc doesn't look legal to me
-WD

Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592064].message }}

BIG Mike

Banned 14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592234].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

Originally Posted by BIG Mike

No offense, but you're wrong on a number of levels, and we don't all live in the Great White North dude.

In Greece for example, the Government fixes all prices - want to buy a car? You can't stroll down to your local dealer to negotiate best price - the price is the same at every dealership you go to. The best you can shoot for are incentives, i.e.; an alarm system, GPS, etc.

I run a wholesale membership where I set all pricing for resellers - it's part of the licensing terms. They aren't involved in the process and the pricing I set is significantly lower than all of my competitors. And in my case, I have a mechanism in place to control pricing.

Here in Greece what I am doing is not only legal, but considered to be ethical and a "Best Practice".

Ok Mike but I am not disputing the licensing terms in north america as I understand what i have read it is not legal to demand a certain price . for instance I buy a product that says you can sell resell etc but you have to do so for x amount of dollars. then the market goes down. the price no longer fits the demand and the product creator drops the price. he cannot therefor make me sell at the price he originally told me to that is not legal at all which is the case here someone is selling a product for lower then the product should be sold for steve is asking if this is ok. I see to demand a price on something is not legal or ethical a suggested price on the other hand leave room for market fluctuation and supply in demand.
-WD

Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592242].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

My post count says 666 can't have that so I am posting I hope I have not come across in a different manner i intended I am trying to be clear here to set a price in a fluctuating market demanding a person sell it at that and then you yourself drop the price as the manufacturer cannot possible be legal at all. I may have used the wrong legal reference but I never ever claimed to be a lawyer I just saw the law and thought well there ya go it is illegal.

@Steve, Hey sorry man I thought this would have been a lot simpler to resolve for you. seems like a lot more confusion has come out instead of clarity.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592284].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by WD Mino

My post count says 666 can't have that so I am posting I hope I have not come across in a different manner i intended I am trying to be clear here to set a price in a fluctuating market demanding a person sell it at that and then you yourself drop the price as the manufacturer cannot possible be legal at all. I may have used the wrong legal reference but I never ever claimed to be a lawyer I just saw the law and thought well there ya go it is illegal.

@Steve, Hey sorry man I thought this would have been a lot simpler to resolve for you. seems like a lot more confusion has come out instead of clarity.

Thats okay man, I started the thread, but its obvious not too many people know exaclty what their rights are even though they participate in this alot....

Thanks

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592301].message }}

BIG Mike Banned 14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592313].message }}
- WD Mino 14 years ago
  
  [QUOTE=BIG Mike;1592313]I don't understand where you and the OP are coming up with this - in this respect, the creator of the product has changed the terms of the license. So you can now sell it at the lower price (except in cases where the manufacturer is doing something promotional).
  
  There is no remaining issue Mike the problem is just as you say here he has a product he was charged x amount of dollars for the price is set at a fixed term the owner is now selling the product lower. legally how can this be demanded then for him to sell it at the higher price. that is the whole crux of this issue lawyer be damned. to say it is ok and legal well I would fight that person (edited you) in court for that myself so I guess we would see then but I cannot possibly see how it is legal or how it is even ethical
  -WD
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592339].message }}

Will Edwards

14 years ago

Here's the problem as I see it: person 1 buys PLR, reads the licence and does not like it so he changes the licence document or deletes it or creates a new one. Then he sells the PLR on.

The package passes from person to person around the net and by the time some honest individual purchases - 3 or 4 times removed from the original author - he has no idea what the original terms were meant to be. Furthermore, he does not know that the terms he is abiding with are a contravention of the original authors terms.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592289].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

WOW . I never thought of that either Will . geesh it just goes on and on how can anyone even know then if the license they have is legit. Geesh I hope I myself am not doing something wrong I have a ton of licensed products. but I suspect if I am the victim I would not be held accountable but who knows maybe I would. OH MAN this is some weird stuff. surrounding this plr thing
-WD

Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592302].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

It is not the issue of competing with his own product and if he is selling rights he should have already have gotten whatever he could out of the product before offering rights as far as I am concerned. but to have a price limitation in effect preventing Steve from selling the product at a lower price forcing him to sell it at a higher price is just crap not legal or ethical as far as I understand things I don't personally give rights away to my products unless I have sold it for what I can and now decide to get more out of it by offering rights. I do not however . put a demanded market value on it I say this product is worth this and I suggest you price it accordingly .

That is what I am saying it makes 0 sense and in fact I would sue the person doing that because that is unfair and simply restraining of free trade competition and supply in demand. how am I wrong on that I don't understand but the way things are being presented is like i can do whatever i want infringe on anyone I want and there is zippo anyone can do even though I am selling it at say 10% of what I am demanding you to sell it for and that would be considered legal?

This whole thing is very weird

Thanks

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592399].message }}

GarrieWilson

14 years ago

Bryan,

Why are you talking about MAP? The OP asked about minimal selling price. Talking about MAP is just confusing some people.

In the Leegins case, they are the manufacturer and stopped providing inventory BUT the person could still sell any on hand Leegins merchandise for any price they want. Leegins just doesnt have to provide the merchandise.

With PLR, *I* would be the one manufacturing. *I* would be duplicating/reproducing it. The copyright holder would not be providing my clients with copies or me with one everytime I sell one.

Most PLR licenses do not expire.

So please, provide a foundation as to why a minimum price would be OK when the license is to reproduce and sell a product.

I can see the no bundle, no membership sites but not the minimum price or cant give away.

Garrie

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Screw You, NameCheap!
$1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:
SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592410].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by GarrieWilson

Bryan,

Why are you talking about MAP? The OP asked about minimal selling price. Talking about MAP is just confusing some people.

In the Leegins case, they are the manufacturer and stopped providing inventory BUT the person could still sell any on hand Leegins merchandise for any price they want. Leegins just doesnt have to provide the merchandise.

With PLR, *I* would be the one manufacturing. *I* would be duplicating/reproducing it. The copyright holder would not be providing my clients with copies or me with one everytime I sell one.

Most PLR licenses do not expire.

So please, provide a foundation as to why a minimum price would be OK when the license is to reproduce and sell a product.

I can see the no bundle, no membership sites but not the minimum price or cant give away.

Garrie

I think we are getting somewhere now? Maybe?

Thanks

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592418].message }}

Paul Myers 14 years ago

Garrie,

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. Analogies between the two are almost always doomed to fail.

You own the copyright. You are licensing the rights to do the copying and distribution you describe. Without that license, you can't do them legally. The production/distribution logistics are irrelevant to the issue, except as specified in the license.

There's another flaw in your argument, in that one can immediately deplete a licensee's inventory by revoking the license to make copies...

Paul
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592448].message }}
- Kay King 14 years ago
  
  the law is accessible to all
  
  The law is accessible - it is the layman's interpretation of the law that can be incorrect. If laws were easy to understand, we wouldn't need lawyers and that would add to the unemployment lines - and we can't have that.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
  ***
  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1598660].message }}

dave147

14 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592416].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by dave147

You must set a minimum recommended price so as not to greatly and quickly devalue the product, otherwise the product will be sold for $1 and less. Not that this is not happening anyway but at least the seller knows he is going against the licence terms with regard to a minimum recommended price

I dont think its a must because alot do not do it.

As for setting a minimum in stone vs. strong verbage suggestions of a minimum, I think there is a difference.

Also the whole point is to make sure its not devalued but when you the seller of the PLR actually has affiliates selling it at a lower price and you yourself have a higher price floor then something is not right

Plus if your product has already been devalued meaning its all over the net for next to nothing HOW can you legally and morally hold someone to a set floor pricing knowing full well that they will not be able to sell it at that price because the product has been devalued by theives......

Thanks

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592436].message }}

WD Mino

14 years ago

That is what I figured myself how is that legal but apparently it is and not only that it is how people are and it is widely accepted. Steve I really am weary with this now I am gonna sign off from the convo it just makes no sense to me If this turkey is selling it for much lower and demanding you to sell it higher I personally would follow the market and meet the demand with a supply I don't see how legally he can do that it is an oxymoron and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I wish you well with it man I am sorry it has turned into a dragged on event. I meant well in what I said and I didn't mean to present some legal advice as if I had said it I thought it was pretty obvious it was not me speaking but I made a mistake. I simply copied the law after I read it maybe I was wrong but I just don't get this at all period.
-WD

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592439].message }}

Steve Wells

14 years ago

Originally Posted by WD Mino

That is what I figured myself how is that legal but apparently it is and not only that it is how people are and it is widely accepted. Steve I really am weary with this now I am gonna sign off from the convo it just makes no sense to me If this turkey is selling it for much lower and demanding you to sell it higher I personally would follow the market and meet the demand with a supply I don't see how legally he can do that it is an oxymoron and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I wish you well with it man I am sorry it has turned into a dragged on event. I meant well in what I said and I didn't mean to present some legal advice as if I had said it I thought it was pretty obvious it was not me speaking but I made a mistake. I simply copied the law after I read it maybe I was wrong but I just don't get this at all period.
-WD

Hey I am tired also, have a good sleep, at the least we have made some people aware that there NEEDS TO BE some set rules in place that are simple and easy to understand about PLR.....

Tall to ya all later, thanks for the input and see ya all later.........

Thanks

Signature

Need Custom Graphics Work? - Message Me For A Design Quote!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1592451].message }}

PLR rights what are the limitations legally?

Trending Topics

Newbie

How did you turn it all around?

best high quality crypto traffic.

A healthy fascination for Hollywood...

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?