Backlinks from the same content. Do they have any SEO value?

They're not so much high-PR, more "high context-relevance" (much more important than PR!). But admittedly many of them are higher PR than article directory backlinks (it's not too difficult to beat PR-0 links, of course).

I get them mostly from:-

- people who've syndicated an article in the past (usually originally from EZA but not always) to whom I send new articles by email before submitting to directories (these are all context-relevant sites, at least to some extent, otherwise they wouldn't have wanted an article in the first place);

- people who syndicate new articles from a directory (almost always from EZA);

- people I've found through blog-searches, other Google searches, and so on;

- context-relevant forum-posting (not forum profiles: those are often as useless as article directory backlinks);

- pinging, social bookmarking, web 2.0 sites, all the usual sorts of stuff (I just do a lot less of this kind of thing than many people, I think, and less and less all the time, and I'm not sure to what extent it's paid off for me - you never know, once you've done something, how much it's helped you because you can't tell how well/badly you'd have done without it ... I actually suspect but can't prove that these things have actually helped me less than everyone claims).

I don't normally check PR's, because I don't honestly care about it that much anyway. I'd far rather have a PR-0 context-relevant backlink than a PR-3/4 one from a non-context-relevant site.

I think the page rank of the page is just one determinant of the value of a backlink, and almost certainly not nearly as significant as many people imagine.

Getting context-relevant relevant backlinks always seems to help to lift my new-ish sites up through the SERP's. I admit I'm not competing for keywords like "make money online", "pick up girls" or anything as competitive as this, of course.

Have never subscribed, I have to say.

I'd certainly be potentially interested in any that are relevant to my niches.

My slight reservation about such backlink packages is that the link-juice value of a backlink is clearly in inverse proportion (albeit not quite linearly) to the number of backlinks appearing on the page, and I can't help wondering whether "pages that have appeared on lists" end up not being worth too much because of the number of links on them?

The "high-PR" backlinks that people sell at places like fiverr.com, I think, are a complete waste of time and money because they're usually advertised as something like "PR-2 to PR4 sites" and of course this is typically just plain dishonest, because there's no such thing as a "PR-2 site" or a "PR-4 site". Sites don't "have page-rank": pages have page-rank, and what's actually being sold is a backlink on a PR-0 page of a site whose home-page happens to have PR-2 or PR-4 or whatever. That's no better than an article directory backlink!

I have a couple of .edu blogs of my own, and they're useless, because they're not authority sites.

I think the ".edu" business is hugely misunderstood. Some people (especially people selling backlinks!!) seem to imagine that just because a page is on a .edu site, the backlink is going to be worth more! This is nonsense. The truth, of course, is very, very different, for all the reasons explained here.

I do commenting (rather than guest-posting) on context-relevant (rather than "high-PR") blogs - as much as I possibly can. It isn't always easy, of course. But if you can really add value to someone's page, they'll often "let it through" and give you the backlink you want, and to me these backlinks are each worth thousands of article directory backlinks - some would say tens of thousands, so it's time really, really well spent - even though it's not that easy.

I'd be willing to do guest-posting, I suppose, but would want the post published and indexed on my own site first, and would still submit it to a few article directories later - otherwise it's too much work just for one backlink.