Okay Warriors...What Is Your Definition Of RR, MRR and PLR

Steven,

Which poster are we supposed to believe has the right answer?

~Bill

The rights of each product are defined by the product creator and detailed in the notice that usually accompanies it. If I create a product and sell it, then I want to define what the product can and can't be used for. I certainly don't want some standard definition created in a chat forum or elsewhere to define how my product can and can't be used.

Steven,

I agree with your definition of RR. For MRR, I'd make it clear that only the resale rights could be sold on (not the MRR).

The creator of a PLR product decides what rights to pass on. Usually they include the right to modify the product, add one's own name etc.

However, if a PLR product has a limited release, it's perfectly logical not to allow resale rights (unless it's been significantly altered) in order to preserve its value. Otherwise, there'd be no point in limiting the numbers.


Frank

Excellent post and I agree 100 percent, I have come across PLR products that in the sales copy plainly stated that it was un-restricted then when I opened it up I found restrictions, I call that deceptive.

Cant sell at auctions, cant sell here, cant sell there, cant take PLR and sell as a wso, cant do this cant do that, in fact I found so many things that you cant do that I felt like throwing up my hands and saying what can I do with this stuff and why did I buy it to begin with?

so I am with you on this topic.

There are several points to make here and you have done a great job on bringing out the many differences in products rights, I believe that it is a two way street, however often you see in license files only those rights that the seller claims is valid and no mention is made that the buyer has any rights at all.


This is all about to change, simply becuase of the revised, 16 CFR Part 255

The FTC
Has begun a process of labeling what is decceptive and what is not deceptive but they stop short of actually legally defining what that may be, mostly because the FTC has no legal authority to do so YET. (notice I say Yet)

I say that mostly because the law is a funny thing more so in the US than in other places, however, Internet Marketing is in the cross hairs of the FTC make no mistake about that and PLR along with many other types of internet marketing products will have to change, as I am sure it will, I do not claim to be an expert, but I know this much, there have been a lot of criminals loose on the internet selling a great many things and that is about to end and it will not be long before we start to see examples being made.

This is one reason why I feel this is a great post and it needs to be not only discussed but defined.

Here is my take on PLR,

1. On Private Label Rights, many product creators do not seem to tender the application of Intellictual Property rights, If I as a buyer, take PLR and make it over in my own way, it becomes mine, (how much does that require?) that likely is a matter for the courts and it is likely not something that will come before a court any time soon, but likely 40 to 60 percent would be considered correct and applicable.

The point I have is this, If I take a PLR product and turn it into something so totally different that you can no longer recognize what it was from what it started out as, then its mine now, and if I want to sell it on an auction site, I am going to do just that and I would dare anyone to stop me from doing exactly what ever I wanted to do with that converted PLR material.

If a product creator wants to place restrictions on PLR material, they should be selling MRR or RR or some other confusing limited rights products, not PLR, once a thing becomes private, then it is just that private, that is also a matter of law.

Onto a second point,

2. Venue of law, in every situation the law may be applied differently, if you live in a country that has little or no law that would apply to this issue then how do you seek any type of clarification, the answer is you cannot.

Conversely, if you live in a state in the US where they have certain laws that provide protection to certain aspects of legal precedence, then that law takes the form of how it is applied to your individual situation, one of the most interesting things to me is when I read disclaimers that require an individual to give up all their rights in order to make use of a product.

Disclaimers, final point, (for now anyway)

it used to be enough to just make a disclaimer, stating that results are not typical, a legal safe harbor, that for many years has withstood the tests of time, but times they are a changing, no longer are disclaimers good enough, not for the FTC anyway.

You might wonder how this effects the topic, well consider this, if you advertise that your Product, PLR, or what ever it is, will do a particular thing for a particular person, you had better be able to prove it, with scientific methods, (read the revised 16 CFR Part 255) note the emphasis on revised.

I believe not only is this a good topic to discuss but it is a must, because if we fail to self regulate this industry the government will do it for us they have said as much in writing, again see the revised documents, presented by the FTC, The number one reason why I bring this up for discussion is this, central fact,

Opps my final final point, really,

what is deceptive, what is not deceptive.

It is not what you think is deceptive, it is based on what "they" think is deceptive, if your PLR product fails to mention that a buyer has rights provided under law, and only represents that the seller has the right to restrict the use of the product, then that statement is deceptive, think about that for a moment.

That is why I say that this discussion is not only important but it is something that is imperative both from a legal standpoint and from a private standpoint, simply put there really should be a standard, in a grey world where it is sometimes difficult to determine what is true and what is false, discussion is the only way forward.

Hey Steven,

I feel you.

I've wondered about this too. I've almost bought a lot of 'unrestricted plr' stuff only to see a bunch of exclusions which include what I wanted to do with it.

I think the IM niche has done its usual trick and applied terms to things which don't belong and ended up using labels that are not appropriate.

I think in IM people know that others want PLR - so that's what they want to call their offer - they just don't want to actually deliver that, so they add a bunch of exclusions.

It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a chicken salad and finding out there's a piece of chicken and some cucumber and them telling you "that's what we call a salad".

It's just IMers trying to give you what they want but call it what you want.

My definitions are exactly the same as your Steven.

It irks me when I download a PLR product and get ready to make it my own only to find the author has placed limitations on it... one recent example was I couldn't remove the box at the end of the report advertising this persons product.

I mean, that's not PLR. It's MRR at best.

PLR is full rights to do what you like with a product. Well, at least to me it is!

I'm no lawyer, and do not vouch for the accuracy of what I'm saying here, but this is what I have always *understood* the terms to mean.

Resell rights - license to sell a product to others

Master resell rights - license to sell a product AND the resell rights to others

Private label rights - license to label a product as one's own creation, and/or modify/edit/add/remove from it as desired

The only difference from the definitions you outlined would be that PLR has no bearing whatsoever on the RR and MRR. Since the product is YOUR OWN, after you have edited/modified it, you have ALL rights to it.

As to the license document that accompanies PLR products, I suspect that the rules would apply to use of the product WITHOUT further modification. PLR is the right to modify and rebrand as one's own. But unless the change is significant enough for it to become a DIFFERENT product from the original, the rights as defined by the original creator must apply (I guess).

Maybe someone should get an expert like Bob Silber over to comment on this discussion.

All success
Dr.Mani

I think this problem is responsible for a whole lot of heated discussions around here.

People don't know the difference between "Duplicate Content" and "Article Syndication", rewriting articles and "spinning", unique and original content.

We call "opt-in pages" "squeeze pages" now.

Paul (Myers) recently had to tell people the difference between a forum post and an article.

Apparently, now people are applying their own definitions to the different "Rights" packages. Hence this thread.

Speaking of which, Steven, I agree with your definitions laid out and add that there was a time when the licenses would include a pay range to stay within (Please don't sell this product for less than $ or more than $)

So - where does "unrestricted PLR" come into all this?

I've seen these also include restrictions on pricing etc...

I think as a standard for selling products/ passing on rights what Steven has put is how I see it:

RR (resale rights) - Can simply resale the product. Cannot pass on rights
and cannot modify the product.

MRR (Master release rights) - Can resale the product but can also pass on
the rights to others. However, cannot modify contents.

PLR (Private label rights) - Can resale the product, can pass on rights to
others and can modify the product.

However as you can always specify exactly what rights you want to give as the owner if it falls outside the above you just have to put that as well.

I fear that there will NEVER be everyone agreeing on one "standard" format.

Chris

Steven, this whole rights issue is like the wild west, it seems every PLR seller is coming up with their own restrictions everyday.

PLR is the worst of them all sellers are put all kind of crazy restrictions on them and most don't come with details of what you can or can't do...

While I think it's an interesting question, I think that in practice these are virtually impossible to enforce, particularly RR vs. MRR.

In fact, I know of several marketers who blatantly disregard licensing restrictions and have done so for years.

PLR is basically saying, "Feel free to modify this as you like and resell it under your own name and brand". Trying to restrict HOW or WHERE you sell the modified content is fruitless, IMHO. I'd imagine it would be impossible to enforce in court anyway, mainly because if the licensee did a decent job of modifying the original product, it could be quite challenging to convince the court it's a derivative work in the first place.

The bigger problem, in my mind, is the proliferation of content that started out life as Product A sold as PLR, modified and turned into Product B, resold in various ways including PLR, modified and turned into Product C, and so on.

Thankfully that's not much of a problem b/c from what I can tell 95% of PLR buyers either never bother to sell the product or, if they do, they don't change it at all.

-David

I think, like a lot of others, this was such a "hot" button for me... that I immediately started typing, and forgot to post a "thanks" to Steven for starting this thread... congrats, Steven!

private label rights mean you assigned it to me and you have relinquished all rights to set rules. Once i buy the private label rights its mine not yours

And i have no problem paying more for those types of rights if thats what i have to do

But if i cant do whatever i want with it then you have mislead me its not PLR

The only real problem with PLR rights - The graphics!!!! Argh!

OK, I write ebooks as a "ghostie" - nice to see so many of them around on various sites - (quite a buzz - Thanks)

My packages allow for the sales page + pdf to be sold as is, they also allow the purchasher to ammend or alter or add to the sales page, the open office or word doc file or if they feel the need to delete from the above mentioned files - as the purchasher sees fit. But and this is a big BUT - they do not have rights to offer the graphics provided with the package - why? because you can never be sure where those graphics have come from and indeed what rights you have to pass on to others.

When you ask someone to make you a mini site - do you tell them what you intend to do with that said mini- site - and do they realise that the graphics they just paid a single licence fee for will be abused by you and your customers, then, when they get a call from Ghetto Images- well, I'll leave it there.

There is no one single definition of what is - can't be and never will be - each and everyone decides or interprets licence terms and think we are abiding by them.

Only a Legal ruling can set a precedence as to what resale rights means, or wholesale rights means or private lable rights means and which bit of each is included in the package.

An analogy of this is in the real world!

Supermarkets
They have resell rights to things like Heinz / Batchelors/ Hellmonds / Nestle / Etc products

They have master resell rights to their own brands that they have contracts to private companies / manufacturers to produce for them with their Supermarket labels on.

They have PLR rights to think of a product, bring it to the marketplace and then "DICTATE" how others must sell it, they might let others have their own labels on the product, or they might let them only sell at a certain price with their own label on the product - it's down to contracts.

If you don't get people to agree to terms and conditions clearly spelt out, then how on earth can you expect to have control over your licence terms?

Probably, all of the above is going to be dismissed as "ramblings" but, what the heck, thought I'd add my thoughts on this anyway.

Steven

PM me and I'll send you a copy of this guide

All Rights Explained

It's all what u need I think.

John

I have seen that guide, and in fact I am sure that I have PLR rights to a guide nearly the same as that one, LOL, sort of ironic, I did read through it, and I think it is about half right, but again it really depends on the legal jurisdiction that the case becomes active in, or what they call the venue.

This has been a very interesting discussion, one filled with many different opinions.

One of the most interesting things I have learned over the years dealing with many different legal challenges, is that contract law and intellectual property and publishing rights as a whole are not well defined, more so the newer applications to IP and the internet some may be somewhat better defined over the last three or so years, but still there are a lot of grey areas, there really is no bottom line.

The one thing I have noticed is that often contracts are drawn up without any regard to actual laws that govern that contract, I have seen contracts that attempted to waive the rights of the lessee even when certain rights cannot be waived by a contract, as in some that state venue is a settled issue when in fact it is not and cannot be decided by contracts. However it is in every boiler plate contract you will find out there simply because it is one point (among many) where the argument begins.

The thing with opinions is that for every one lawyer you find that has one opinion you can find ten more that have the opposite opinion, which one is right? Is not the job of a good attorney to argue his or her point to the logical conclusion where the law may be applied to the condition that exists at the time of the case.

Again it depends on the case, the Judge, the law and the venue, among other things. I am not really sure that any one opinion can be the right one, simply because every legal challenge is different.

Very interesting stuff, (disclaimer, this is not legal advise)

PLR (Private label rights) - Can modify the product.

Private label has nothing to do with resale. It's a misconception. This is why some products are labeled "PLR/MRR."

Furthermore, resale and master resale rights are not unrestricted. There are still other rights which may be denied, such as the right to sell the product under a specific price, or in a specific marketplace.

RR, MRR, and PLR don't amount to exact definitions of rights. They're convenient shorthand for categories of rights. The details still have to be explicitly called out.

Offline, "Private Label" means you can have your label put on a product manufactured by a company that supplies a lot of different companies or "labels", and there are plenty of restrictions.

For one, I can't tell my customers that Matt's Discount Washing Machine is the same thing as an expensive Maytag Washer.

Many private label products have restrictions on where they can be sold too.

Wal-Mart's private label license for a lot of their "generic" t.v.s and other appliances can not be sold at Target stores.

Most offline companies don't have a problem with license agreements that contain restrictions on use. It's pretty much accepted.

How many times have you gone to a restaurant where you had a choice between Coke or Pepsi on the same menu?

I used to deal with private label information products offline.
The only right that was conferred was the right to edit and
rebadge the material under the customers own label.

This was mainly material that was to be used within the customers
own business eg employee handbooks.

The private label did not give the rights to resell or anything else.

This is I believe where the problem lies. Within the IM industry the
rights are seen as cumulative ie MRR includes RR and PLR includes MRR and RR
when in fact they are totally different rights all together.

Private Label Rights only allow the editing and rebranding. Strictly speaking
they do not even allow the resale of the product, only the use within one's
own business. So a PLR article could be changed and used to promote your business as an article or as web content.

If you want to resell it then you need resale or master resale rights. They bear no relation to the PLR.

If the creator wants to offer transferable PLR with MRR then that is up to them, but lets face it, unrestricted PLR soon becomes valueless.

If I am buying PLR what I want to see is a restriction on it being resold unless it has
been substantially changed. I don't want to see it just renamed and sold. I want to see that it is altered and repackaged with added elements to make it a unique product.

Once it's a unique product then it's up to the vendor what rights he attaches.

Even Master resell rights should be identified as transferable or not, but the general opinion seems to be that they can be passed on indefinately.

What cannot be argued is that the explicit rights should be clearly displayed before purchase.

As to setting a price, in the offline world if a retailer sells a product too low, then the supplier simply stops dealing with them. That's why you can't buy Levis in Tesco.

In the online world once a product has changed hands that's it. There is no way of stopping the distribution, and as most sales are automated, there isn't a realistic way of stopping the supply of any future products either.

At least now most products sold with any form of rights do come with a licence which at least is a step in the right direction.

Is this answer going to be different for everyones answer?

or do we need a lawyer in the house ?

I limit the number of plr licenses sold for most of my stuff and that would be pointless (not to mention deceptive) if all the buyers could turn around and sell plr rights. I also refuse to buy plr with so called "unlimited restrictions" because I consider it useless for my purposes.

Edit: I some how missed a ton of responses before posting the above. I had no idea people read the rights and terms so differently. In my mind (and terms) it's really simple: plr means you can put your name on them, link them, etc and if desired you can use the content as a base to create your own products.
Restrictions on plr products only apply to what is delivered to you.

If you take full advantage of the editing rights and make something completely new, you own full and unrestricted rights to what you created. You are still bound by the original license on the original content *as it was delivered to you* but that has no bearing on the new content/product you made.

Changing the title and author is not changing the content. Usually you need at least a 50% difference.

Hi,

Newbie here browsing around and found this thread. This is a very informative thread and cleared out a lot of questions regarding PLRs.

Hope to learn more from you guys.