Is it bad to spill any guru's secrets online?

[Nick Brighton]

Originally Posted by Lance K

Regardless of ethics, it would probably be a boost to your credibility if you first acted upon what the "guru" taught you.

That way you can make some money online before you attempt to teach others to do so.

How do you know if what the "guru" teaches actually works unless you try it yourself?

Originally Posted by faxinator

Personally, I don't think that it is possible to create a full information product that doesn't include some ideas that I didn't invent. If so, it must be a pretty darned tiny little product!

I mean, as an example: if in any of my products I tell people simple ways to find longtail keywords, I'm using someone else's idea. I didn't come up with the concept of using longtail keywords to drive traffic, and I learned how to find them by following the advice of others.

Likewise, if I create a system and as a part of that system I show someone how to get one cent PPC's as a part of my overall strategy, again I didn't invent that concept.

I once wrote a book on options trading, but I learned options trading from someone else.

Also, as an aside:

For years I've had season tickets in the West Club Section on the 50 yard line at RayJay for all the Bucs games. I may have an extra ticket for the home finale against the Raiders (I'll know for sure a bit later). Let me know if you'd like to attend with me.

I agree totally!

There isn't anything at all wrong with this if you put your own twist on it... this is about business - it's not worth your time to pay attention to how someone feels about you "possibly" sharing their online secrets because of some personal attachment that they have to their work.

I think that it's all fair game to rework and add to some other persons work.

It's just business:

Go to Home Depot - tell me how many different brands of hammers that they sale that are identical

Go to Wallgreens - they sell Wal-tussin as an alternative to Robitussin

Check out Best Buy or Circuit City - Sony and Toshiba both sale a 42 inch flat screen T.V. that almost do the exact same thing

You all know that this list can go on forever...

All of these things have very subtle differences but, they do the same thing.

Do the originators of these ideas complain? Maybe, but they still continue to promote their products and some of them make billions.

Marketing is nothing more than promoting a new or different perspective... from time to time, a new innovation hits the scene... But the gist never changes

[Allen Graves]

We're not talking about Sony or Home Depot or billion dollar companies with thousands of employees!

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

We're not talking about Sony or Home Depot or billion dollar companies with thousands of employees!

Allen,

I understand that...

But, what are we talking about?

Was my comparison not valid?

I was making a point to he OP.

Google and Yahoo are billion dollar Internet marketing companies that do the same thing with subtle differences.

My comparison was nothing more than an exemplification. You know... an explanation using an example.

Take care

[tomw]

I don't see what the discussion is. It is not ok to infringe on someone else's intellectual property and then try to market it as your own! That's why there are laws against it. Try rewriting a Harry Potter book, a Tony Robbins course or anything else that was originated by someone else in your own words and try to sell it. Post your results here...that is if they have internet access in prison.

WTF? I thought this was a forum for marketers.

To address one of the sensible issues that came up in the thread, generally infomarketers will follow a rudimenatary process of;

Telling prospects WHAT to do.
Selling customers HOW to do it.

Thomas

[Josh Anderson]

Simply rewording what someone else published is also known as copyright infringement.

It's not just unethical it can also be illegal.

Additionally if you were sued for it you would have to cover your legal expenses that could easily reach 5 and even 6 figures by themselves.

Then if the case was settled in favor of the plaintiff they would be rewarded both actual and punitive damages if the work was registered with the US copyright office.

For each infringement the punitive damage according to the law can be $150,000 but if you distributed the work to more than one person you would be committing multiple infringements at $150k per in punitive damages possible. So it could quickly reach into the millions on punitive damages alone.

So if you like the idea of not only being dishonest but also being sued for it and having to cover your legal expenses in addition to the possibility of loosing the case to the tune of millions of dollars...

Then by all means go ahead and infringe on others copyrights.

Sounds like a wonderful way to build a legit business and reputation right?

NOT!

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by tomw

Try rewriting a Harry Potter book, a Tony Robbins course or anything else that was originated by someone else in your own words and try to sell it.

Actually, if you get a paid subscription to Executive Book Summaries, you'll get complete 5,000-word summaries of the top-selling business books. They take the content, distill it down to 5,000 words, and sell it to you as a PDF, an MP3, several different formats.

I think that some of you take this stuff too personally...

Everyone is selling reworked material, services, and products. Occasionally something new comes around - but, it's nothing more than a new way to do something that has already been done.

Before anyone else misconstrues my words... Plagiarism and copyright infringement is definitely wrong...

But, we would all be naive if we thought that all of our stuff was entirely original.

Is it bad to spill any guru's secrets online? Of course... if you plan on doing a copy and paste.

Many of these same people that some of you call "guru's" do it all the time.

Just pay attention to these product launches that take place all of the time.

How many different ways can you really learn PPC, SEO, Article and Video marketing and so on?... At some point there will be repetition.

Even if it dances on the fine line of being legal or illegal.

Marc

p.s. if anyone disagrees with me - that's cool... just save the insults.

[tomw]

Steve, you always make crack me up because you ALWAYS have an answer for EVERYTHING

I wish you had an answer to how I meet the girl in your picture

I'm sure that Executive Book Summaries do this UNDER LICENSE like many such services NOT in the manner advocated in certain places in this thread.

Take it easy.

Thomas

Originally Posted by faxinator

Actually, if you get a paid subscription to Executive Book Summaries, you'll get complete 5,000-word summaries of the top-selling business books. They take the content, distill it down to 5,000 words, and sell it to you as a PDF, an MP3, several different formats.

[Allen Graves]

Originally Posted by marcanthony

Everyone is selling reworked material, services, and products. Occasionally something new comes around - but, it's nothing more than a new way to do something that has already been done.

That is not true. I am living proof. I have several things that have never been done, thought of, or even heard of before I figured it out on my own.

AL

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by tomw

Post your results here...that is if they have internet access in prison.

Take it from someone who spent years in the real world publishing business...

Enforcement of copyright is almost exclusively a civil matter. Despite being responsible for copyright law, the US Copyright Office does not enforce it. If you want to enforce your copyright, you've got to convince the FBI to look into it and then convince them that it's worth prosecuting.

Of course, the FBI will also remind us that copyright infringement cannot occur when someone uses material that cannot be protected by copyright: and those would be facts or ideas.

Among the things that cannot be copyrighted: ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices.

So if I teach a course on how to save money on your monthly mortgage by legally removing the requirement to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) and then one of my students leaves the class and writes a book on the same subject or publishes a Web site on the same information I taught him, then I have no legal recourse.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

That is not true. I am living proof. I have several things that have never been done, thought of, or even heard of before I figured it out on my own.

I'd sure like to see that, Al! I never thought anything like that possibly existed.

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

That is not true. I am living proof. I have several things that have never been done, thought of, or even heard of before I figured it out on my own.

AL

Allen...

For sake of argument... I have to use generalizations...

I'm sure that you have done many things that haven't been done before but - you are not apart of the majority.

So... I commend and respect any and all of your original workings.

I was just making a point...

Take care

[Allen Graves]

It's all well and good.

My work is copyrighted. If someone decides to share the ideas, I can only make their online life as miserable as I can. LOL

Have a nice day

[Allen Graves]

Originally Posted by faxinator

Among the things that cannot be copyrighted: ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices.

So, basically...anything in the internet marketing world. LOL

AL

[TimGross]

Originally Posted by faxinator

"Among the things that cannot be copyrighted: ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices"

You left out the rest of that sentence, which is:

"...as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration;"

In a nutshell, that means that when you commit an idea, procedure, method, system process, concept, principle, or discovery to concrete form (for instance, create a training manual/video/product/proposal), that form has copyright. You left out the most important part of the sentence.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

So, basically...anything in the internet marketing world.

Well, the concepts, anyway. The expression of the concept can be protected by copyright, but the idea can't. So if I come up with a COMPLETELY new way to drive traffic to Web sites -- something that has never been done before -- and I put together an e-book explaining that idea and sell it on the Web for $47, the first person who buys it can legally take that e-book and write their own explaining the exact same concept.

Is it kind of a crappy thing to do? I guess so. Is it illegal? Nope, so long as they use their own words to describe the process and not mine.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by TimGross

You left out the rest of that sentence, which is:

"...as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration;"

In a nutshell, that means that when you commit an idea, procedure, method, system process, concept, principle, or discovery to concrete form (for instance, create a training manual/video/product/proposal), that form has copyright. You left out the most important part of the sentence.

It's not important or relevant to the point that I was making, as that portion ONLY applies to the expression, not the idea. I'm talking about ideas not being subject to copyright, not the fixed form of it.

If I make a video about how to successfully castrate kangaroos using a set of ice tongs, that video is protected. But I would have absolutely no claim whatsoever against someone else who produces their own video about how to successfully castrate kangaroos using a set of ice tongs.

[easysleazy]

Ouch, I'd never thought it would go that way.

I don't know if my original post was misunderstood or twisted but
what I meant by "spilling the secrets" was NEVER to copy somebody
else's work and SELL IT UNDER MY OWN NAME. Never!

By "spilling the secrets", I meant telling what's in an internet
marketer's course FOR FREE (in detail) on Internet, in a blog,
articles, videos, reviews, etc. WITHOUT selling any of that information
to customers.

Maybe the line is kinda thin in that case. That may explain uh, some
angry replies.

[Josh Anderson]

Ouch, I'd never thought it would go that way.

I don't know if my original post was misunderstood or twisted but
what I meant by "spilling the secrets" was NEVER to copy somebody
else's work and SELL IT UNDER MY OWN NAME. Never!

By "spilling the secrets", I meant telling what's in an internet
marketer's course FOR FREE (in detail) on Internet, in a blog,
articles, videos, reviews, etc. WITHOUT selling any of that information
to customers.

Maybe the line is kinda thin in that case. That may explain uh, some
angry replies.

Copyright infringement does not mean "word for word" copying.

If you published something in your own words that was based on a copyrighted work you may still be liable for copyright infringement.

Recently the toy maker Mattel sued the creators of the Bratz dolls for copyright infrigement. The creator of Bratz was inspired to create them while working for Mattel on the Barbie products.

Though Bratz were not exact copies of Barbie the Mattel won the case to the tune of $100 million and the Bratz creator was recently ordered by the court to destroy their molds and stop making the dolls.

People can excuse themselves all they want and they can take the risk by infringing on other people's copyright but if you play the game just be prepared to defend your self in court and for the possibility of loosing that battle.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by easysleazy

By "spilling the secrets", I meant telling what's in an internet marketer's course FOR FREE (in detail) on Internet, in a blog,
articles, videos, reviews, etc. WITHOUT selling any of that information
to customers.

Again, the original IM'er has absolutely no copyright claim over an idea. None whatsoever. They can only claim infringement if you copy their EXPRESSION of the idea.

If you completely write something in entirely your own words, even if it is based on someone else's idea, then the expression is completely your own and you are protected under copyright law.

It is a dangerous position people put themselves in if they believe that they own copyright protection over a concept.

They don't.

[sevenish]

Originally Posted by Allen Graves

It's all well and good.

My work is copyrighted. If someone decides to share the ideas, I can only make their online life as miserable as I can. LOL

IDEAS do not fall under copyright protection. You are deluding yourself if you think you have a right to enforce what others do with your ideas should you choose to share them.

The CONTENT describing your ideas falls under copyright protection; the IDEAS themselves do not. I mean, think about it!

[easysleazy]

...

I wonder how judge Judy would think of our little litigation problem, hi hi! (^_^)

Anybody studied law here that can help us?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

Recently the toy maker Mattel sued the creators of the Bratz dolls for copyright infrigement. The creator of Bratz was inspired to create them while working for Mattel on the Barbie products.

Though Bratz were not exact copies of Barbie the Mattel won the case to the tune of $100 million and the Bratz creator was recently ordered by the court to destroy their molds and stop making the dolls.

Actually, that is a mis-characterization of the details of the lawsuit. You say:

"Though Bratz were not exact copies of Barbie the Mattel won the case to the tune of $100 million..."

when in fact any resemblance between the two dolls was not at issue. What was involved was the actual expression of the design of the Bratz dolls (which has nothing to do with Barbie).

Instead, the ruling is based on the fact that the Bratz doll designer created the ACTUAL DRAWINGS of the Bratz designs while he was employed by Mattel -- thus making the drawings Mattel's property. The effect then is that anything that came from those drawings (derivative works) are protected by copyright which belongs to Mattel, not the designer.

So you see, the case had nothing to do with the Bratz doll and any resemblance they may have to Barbie.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by easysleazy

Anybody studied law here that can help us?

I have studied law, and I have been helping out.

[easysleazy]

Thanks for the (free) insight, counselor Faxinator!

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by easysleazy

Thanks for the (free) insight, counselor Faxinator!

I studied law but I've never taken the bar. I found out that being an attorney is more about paperwork than it is about arguing before the court.

[Magic Johnson]

If you are smart you work th the secrets outside anything about money making niche. Just pick any B2C list or anything outside of IM.

Why would you want to shout of those secrets to everyone else then. If this are secrets, then test them outside and then-- work the hell out of them there.

Doing anything else will not make sense. Unless those secrets is just hog-wash packed in with a new face.

When you know the secrets, if they are good-- you will never want to share them......trust me I know when I found out some MEGA secrets a few months ago.

geez do as you please then

[Magic Johnson]

Originally Posted by faxinator

Actually, that is a mis-characterization of the details of the lawsuit. You say:

"Though Bratz were not exact copies of Barbie the Mattel won the case to the tune of $100 million..."

when in fact any resemblance between the two dolls was not at issue. What was involved was the actual expression of the design of the Bratz dolls (which has nothing to do with Barbie).

Instead, the ruling is based on the fact that the Bratz doll designer created the ACTUAL DRAWINGS of the Bratz designs while he was employed by Mattel -- thus making the drawings Mattel's property. The effect then is that anything that came from those drawings (derivative works) are protected by copyright which belongs to Mattel, not the designer.

So you see, the case had nothing to do with the Bratz doll and any resemblance they may have to Barbie.

Exactly, outright copying like this is sheep, real cheap to the degree of lameness. If you can't get your head to something new or slightly different then. Geez -- do your homework or lose in court.

[Josh Anderson]

Again, the original IM'er has absolutely no copyright claim over an idea. None whatsoever. They can only claim infringement if you copy their EXPRESSION of the idea.

If you completely write something in entirely your own words, even if it is based on someone else's idea, then the expression is completely your own and you are protected under copyright law.

It is a dangerous position people put themselves in if they believe that they own copyright protection over a concept.

They don't.

We are not talking about an idea. We are talking about published works being dissected and a new work being published based on the copyrighted work.

Here is a better example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/ny.../16potter.html

Is the guy guilty? Who knows only the court will decide but they certainly are screwed to the wall by Rowling's legal team who would not have standing to sue if there was not a legit claim of possible infringement.

In that case the guy wrote a dictionary based on the Harry Potter series dissecting Rowlings work.

Not word for word copying... but still a copyright infringement case.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

We are not talking about an idea.

Yes, we are. Read the OP's posts.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

Here is a better example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/ny.../16potter.html

That's not a better example at all, it is completely different and involves a work of fiction at the core. The specifics of the world of Harry Potter are an invention of Rowling that was expressed in a fixed medium and thus derivative works (the lexicon in the example) may be subject to her copyright protection.

Harry Potter is fiction, not fact. The material described in an internet marketing program are facts which are not subject to protection, while the fixed expression of them are (the Web site, the PDF document, the videos, etc).

[Josh Anderson]

Originally Posted by faxinator

Yes, we are. Read the OP's posts.

Here is the very first line from the orginal post that started this thread:

For example, Guru ABC sells his online success course "How to make money with Internet", I buy it and I like it.

We are talking about a fixed copyrighted work not an idea.

The OP proposed buying studying and dissecting the copyrighted work and publishing a new derivative work based on his interpretation of the content found in the original published and copyrighted course.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

The OP proposed buying studying and dissecting the copyrighted work and publishing a new derivative work based on his interpretation of the content found in the original published and copyrighted course.

Sigh. You've missed the intent entirely...

There's no sense in my bothering to continue to the discussion. The law is the law and the law is quite clear and specific.

[Josh Anderson]

Sigh. You've missed the intent entirely...

There's no sense in my bothering to continue to the discussion. The law is the law and the law is quite clear and specific.

???

No wonder you did not take the bar ;-)

No one reading the original post can mistake the intent it was clearly stated. He wanted to take a copyrighted work and create a new work based on his interpretation of the content and research into the content contained in the original fixed copyrighted work.

Could he do it without being sued? Maybe. Could he be sued for Copyright infringement? Definitely.

Anyone interested in researching a little more on "derivative works" and copyright law may be interested in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
http://copyright.gov
http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/obje...F99DB505D/310/
http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/Obje...14A0D63CA/310/

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

No one reading the original post can mistake the intent it was clearly stated.

"I don't know if my original post was misunderstood or twisted but
what I meant by "spilling the secrets" was NEVER to copy somebody
else's work and SELL IT UNDER MY OWN NAME. Never!"

I understood the original post. Perhaps others did not...

[Josh Anderson]

No one reading the original post can mistake the intent it was clearly stated. He wanted to take a copyrighted work and create a new work based on his interpretation of the content and research into the content contained in the original fixed copyrighted work.

From the original post:

For example, Guru ABC sells his online success course "How to make money with Internet", I buy it and I like it...

...Should I leave an affiliate link even if I tell everything?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

He CAN legally tell everything, in his own words.

[Josh Anderson]

He CAN legally tell everything, in his own words.

You studied law?

Maybe you should study it again sometime.

Because its not as clear cut as that.

You cannot just interpret a published copyrighted work in your own words and publish it that is cut and dry copyright infringement.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

... ...

Ok, I'll leave you to litigate the matter, counselor. Your law professors were apparently better educated than mine, because mine taught me that there is no copyright protection on a "secret".

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Oh, and BTW easysleazy, just to be clear:

I assume that your question was hypothetical only, and in reality I would avoid doing what you proposed in this thread. There may not be an enforceable claim of copyright over a "secret", but anyone can sue for anything, even if they don't have standing in the law. It would just be a big headache for you.

On top of that, while it may be technically legal, it isn't nice.

However, that stated, there is a provision of copyright law which allows the use of copyrighted material in a way similar to what you propose. That provision is for "criticism". In a nutshell, if I buy an online course and want to write a blog about the course, I can legally publish material from the article provided that I supply my own commentary along with the material.

The court has repeatedly upheld this use.

There was a case a few years back (sorry, can't recall the litigants involved but I'll see if I can find it later) in which a church required paid membership to access its documents outlining the church's doctrine. A paying church member took the documents and published them on the internet for free. A newspaper also published much of the church's documents. The church sued both the member and the newspaper. The member lost, the newspaper won. Why? The member published the documents without any substantial comments of his own, while the newspaper provided criticism of the documents it published.

[JOhnny Depth]

No, this is what is making them money in the first place.

[Louis Raven]

So you want to buy.. say.. "Mass Control", read it, then sell it under your own words?

That there's copyright infringment without the legal worries.

Not cool in my book.

Louis

[easysleazy]

Nah, I never had any intention of doing it. Just askin'.

[MaskedMarketer]

Originally Posted by Josh Anderson

It's not just unethical it can also be illegal.

Of course it CAN be illegal. That's why you consult a lawyer. The responses on this topic are all over the place.

No one here is a lawyer

Originally Posted by marcanthony

I think that some of you take this stuff too personally...

Everyone is selling reworked material, services, and products. Occasionally something new comes around - but, it's nothing more than a new way to do something that has already been done.

Exactly. Everyone explains it in there own words. How many books at the book store are just re-works of each other! That's how it works.

And these authors always give each other a "pat on the back" to add more testimonials. Same way the online "gurus" do it.

What about NLP. Everyone who claims to be teaching NLP (they can be sued, right)? Richard Bandler and John grinder created NLP, now we have hundreds of people copying them? Wouldn't that be considered illegal?

People are literally "copy and pasting" NLP and the techniques that Bandler and Grinder gathered from other psychotherapists. <--- Bandler and Grinder copied others too!

Heres what the International Association for Neuro-Linguistic Programming Law Firm had to say:

"Based upon the advise we have received, we will continue to take the position that no one individual or group can claim a monopoly in the use of the term "Neurolinguistic Programming" and its acronym, "NLP" "

Tony Robbins learned NLP, then formed NAC (or whatever his version is called). Isn't this the same as what we are describing in the OP?

These are real servere cases , I would assume, since they are literally copy and pasting NLP and the techniques used.

Would that make everyone teaching NLP unethical and ripping off John Grinder and Richard Bandler? Or maybe there ripping off Erickson, Satir, Bateson, ,Perls?

Isn't that what people are describing on this forum as being illegal and unethical?

Bandler and Grinder created and "started" NLP. They formed it.

Now others are copying off what they "started"

How is this different?

Originally Posted by marcanthony

Many of these same people that some of you call "guru's" do it all the time.

Just pay attention to these product launches that take place all of the time.

How many different ways can you really learn PPC, SEO, Article and Video marketing and so on?... At some point there will be repetition.

Lets take the Artibrage Conspiracy for example. Didnt this guy learn from another another PPC/PPV marketer? So some of his stuff would be considered not original and copied? Obviously you have you're own creativity in there, but to say none of the work is really a re-work of same concept (expect with a higher price tag and the GURU BRAND behind it) its crazy.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by faxinator

I'd sure like to see that, Al! I never thought anything like that possibly existed.

So would he. But it sounds cool, so roll with it.

No one seriously concerned about their "secrets" is selling them to others, and if you are....well, you only have yourself to blame when it comes back to bite you in the a**.

IMHO, of course.

[P_Cerrito]

Wow! While ideas may not be secrets and the info may be readily available elsewhere- it is still packaged in a finished product to produce specific tested results at a opportunity cost to the author(sometimes significant).
Where is the integrity? Could it de-value the authors work? Is there a lawyer in the house? haha

I wish ya'll success.

[esr]

Aside from the main point of this post, I have learned something valuable that I always suspected, but didn't know for sure.

The "guru's" DO have secrets that they won't tell, and it's most likely these secrets that made them so successful.

Doesn't matter how many ebooks we buy, we have to discover the "REAL" secrets by DOING, not by READING.

[Eric Lorence]

Originally Posted by blackhatcat

So would he. But it sounds cool, so roll with it.

No one seriously concerned about their "secrets" is selling them to others, and if you are....well, you only have yourself to blame when it comes back to bite you in the a**.

IMHO, of course.

Agreed, the guru will sell this "secret" or rather "system" because they are smart enough to have positioned themselves at the top of it.

The buyers of this system then become the downline.

These methods are where the real fortunes are made.

Study what the Guru's are doing, more than what they are trying to sell you into.

[Lance K]

Originally Posted by faxinator

I studied law but I've never taken the bar. I found out that being an attorney is more about paperwork than it is about arguing before the court.

Objection...Prejudicial!