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.

Your son is probably already smarter than many people I know.

I just was chatting with one of the lawyers I write for, and the AP just totally screwed up a story on one of his cases. Of course, by the time he found out about it the story had already been picked up by several papers. I have seen so many errors in AP stories lately that I’m no longer surprised when I find out something they’ve reported is wrong. I’m to the point where I won’t even blog about something on a lawyer blog unless I have fact-checked. Used to, if something was in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, I assumed it was probably correct enough to blog about. Not anymore.

The whole internet seems to be going to [insert word I'm not allowed to say here here].

Amy – I don’t think PLR is the reason for poor web content. But if one poorly written article is spun 100 times, the problem is 100 times worse. That’s my issue with it. I guess I just want to read something new!

While my son and I look things up online, he knows the library is the place to go. I know several colleges have disallowed Wikipedia and Associated Content as sources for papers because that info isn’t always accurate. So at least schools are encouraging reputable sources.

Phil – I don’t think PLR isn’t legit. I think it’s great if it works out for all parties involved. I just don’t like the article spinning thing. It’s legal and I don’t blame anyone or look down on anyone who does this type of writing, I just don’t like the same thing being rewritten over and over again.

There are newsletter sites that take “crap” content and recycle it, but these businesses usually don’t last long because the subscribers quickly learn that the articles have no value.

This may ruffle some feathers, but if content is legit, I think such a business is legit. If one doesn’t feel compensation is enough because of the amount of times content is re-sold, then I would suggest looking for better-paying opportunities or even consider syndicating your own work.

The way PLR is *supposed* to work is that someone writes original content. Let’s say a pack of 10 articles on aquarium products. That pack is then sold to buyers who are able to rewrite that content or use it in any way they wish. The original writer knows that this will be done and is okay with it.

What happened to you (and has happened to me as well) is that some person of ill repute stole your work outright and then rewrote it. The big difference is that s/he did not have your permission to do so, while a PLR writer knows that their content will be used elsewhere. That person’s actions have more to do with their dishonesty than they do with PLR. Unfortunately, PLR has gotten a bad rap precisely because of this kind of people.

Once you buy the PLR stuff, you do own it and you can rewrite it or repackage it in a different format to sell yourself. Does that help?

I saw an ad yesterday asking for writers to ‘rewrite’ content – they wanted a bulk order on the same topic – and they wanted the writers to find their own article(s) to rewrite.

To me, that sounds like the same thing as PLR – but the dark side of it. (if they are rewriting the content of others that neither they nor the company owns)

So, if you have a few minutes, would you mind explaining where the difference is? I really don’t get it and want to understand.

On a personal level, it just seems like plagiarism. I have had an article stolen that I found and reported, and to ‘fix it’ they changed a few words.

Um, hello – the article was MY work – but because they got caught and changed a couple words, suddenly it “wasn’t” mine anymore and “wasn’t” plagiarism. It was also an article that I get page view bonuses on, so now I am competing against myself (so to speak) – and someone else is benefiting (the thief even put their byline on it). It is among my top read articles.

So, basically someone is getting paid to steal the work and income of others. THAT is the part of it that bothers me.

The sad thing is that I see a lot of postings for PLR jobs on bidding sites such as Elance. The person buying the content is making money because they sell it multiple times. However the person writing it only gets paid once, and usually for a very low fee.

In my opinion, PLR is unsatisfying for the writer and the reader. Since those are my primary roles, I avoid buying or receiving PLR content.

I have just started writing PLR packs as a way to generate additional income. I think the appeal for writers is that you can spend time writing articles just once, but continue to make money on your content. On Angela Booth’s writing blog, she has this piece of information:

“If you can write ten PLR articles in a week, you can make $4000 a week.”

I don’t know where that figure came from, but it certainly would appeal to many writers. If you wrote 10 articles for one client, even if you made $50 per article, you’d only end up with $500 for the week. Never mind the $10-15 per article jobs – that would only be $100 to $150. $4,000 makes those numbers seem extra low.

As a PLR writer, I write PLR articles just as I would write articles for any client. I may use the Web for basic research, but I stick to using reputable sites. For example, if I am writing an article about pheochromocytomas (tumors that start in the adrenal medulla), I will do a search for pheochromocytomas but only view authority sites such as National Cancer Institute or the endocrinology department site of a major teaching hospital. I don’t use Wikipedia or similar sites, as the content can’t be relied upon.

I look at it this way: I do everything I can to ensure quality content. Even if I didn’t write PLR, and I only wrote for individual clients, I can’t be sure what a client will do with the content once it leaves my hands. All I can do is do extensive research and make sure information is accurate and up to date.

She demanded I either rewrite them or she’d file a complaint with Paypal to get her money back. In 3 years I’d never run into this, so I opted to rewrite them just to shut her up. After I’d calmed down and gotten them done, I decided to look into this a little more closely. Turns out she was selling them for PLR content and had already sold 10 packs of these articles at six times what she’d paid me. Her latest buyer wanted the articles to match their viewpoint and offered to pay her more to change them.

Needless to say, I was furious and let her know what I’d uncovered and I’ve never heard another word from her. I watch the job writing boards regularly to make sure I don’t see her posting jobs again because I would warn others against using this mommywriter.net. The Web site’s long gone and I’ve never seen her post since.