Thanks!
Bobbi

I don’t mind the modification, the rewrite, the insertion of someone else’s name as the author, and so on, to suit their own content requirements and needs, but I just couldn’t imagine allowing someone else buy the content and then resell it. Is the right to resell always a component (granted right) of PLR?

THIS is good? No. Not by any means. It’s a cop-out and a cheap way to abuse the Internet. PLR will eventually gorge the information system and crash it.

You know what? I’ll be there to rebuild it into something better.

I am not saying that ethical writers do not have an internal responsibility, and perhaps even a legal responsibility, to provide accurate information. Far from it.

But if a person is willing to believe Billy Bob’s Website of Homeopathic Information to the disregard of all others (including actual, live, human physicians…well, some would argue the human part…), then that is not my issue, whether I am a writer or not.

A real-world analog, if I may:

In the K9 search and rescue group I volunteer with, we have a member whose dog was apparently born with the ability to air-scent and alert-the-handler (versus trailing dogs like Bloodhounds who follow trails). The training officer said this dog had one of the most innate natural abilities she’s ever seen in a dog. So what did the owner do?

Followed the advice of another member who couldn’t even control her own dog (aggression), who told the member to train his dog as a trailing dog instead of an air-scent dog because the dog wouldn’t then run away from the owner. The advice-giving member had been a part of our group for….8 months.

So, now the dog languishes in training because the owner is a stubborn cuss who won’t listen to the subject-matter-expert.

So, you have the expert, the writer (advice giver) and the consumer (dog owner). Whose responsibility is/was it to figure out the correct information to best train his dog?

The training expert? Nope. She gave the best advice she could based on her knowledge and expertise. “You can lead a horse to water….”

The advice giver (”writer”)? Some. But she was ignorant and should have kept her yap shut about a topic she knew nothing about, and hadn’t even researched.

The dog owner? Bingo. So narrow-minded was his desire in how HE wanted to train the dog, versus how the dog would best perform, that he decided to go with what he wanted to hear, versus what was accurate information.

Finally, people have been ignoring the advice of experts for eons…heck, even the Bible discusses how you cannot be a prophet in your own home (Matthew 13:54-58).

Tim

I also keep thinking of my grandmother. She passed away in 2000 at the age of 93, but was of the generation that if something was in print, it was the absolute truth. She bought every miracle vitamin or time saving gadget. I could regale you with stories about that until the cows came home. Suffice it to say if Grandma had a laptop you can bet she’d be following bad advice regarding her health rather than going to a doctor. Sure, I know it’s her responsibility – but the fact is if something happened the writer or the website owner could be sued – and I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time until that happens.

Sure it’s up to the reader to get correct facts, but as a writer don’t we have a responsibility to provide accurate information?

And how is that the writer’s fault or responsibility? At some point, people need to be accountable for their own actions, including the “consumers” of this information.

Vetting information is one of these actions, and failure to do so carries consequences of varying proportions. For writers, it can me the loss of a job or legitimacy. For the user, it can be a failing grade, an incorrect self-diagnosis or making your CEO look stupid.

When my mom was killed by a drunk driver, I was interviewed, and the police reports were accessed. I was given access to all the same reports – from the officer who witnessed it, to the accounts from all the other witnesses, to the photos, to the coroner’s report – all of it. I also spoke at the hearing and was interviewed then, too.

I was appalled to see how every newspaper and news station here that reported on it had different ‘facts’, and most were wrong through every phase of the story. It was a very eye-opening and disheartening experience from a writer’s standpoint. As the family member of the victim, it was frustrating and disappointing.

I take extra care now about where I get my information, how I verify it, and what I believe in the press.