Pay for 2257 info?

[amadman]

In my quest to get straight with new 2257 regs I have come across content producers that want to charge for the proper docs of previous purchases.(or flat out will not give it)

This seems pretty cheap to me and kind of pisses me off that they would try to take advantage like that.

I really can't see myself paying for this or any other content from these providers.

Am I wrong to feel this way?

[RawAlex]

They are obliged by law to provide the documents. The law isn't specific about who bares the costs, but obviously the content is unusable without the correct documents. Decline their kind offer, and ask them to refund your purchase of content.

Alex

[Tommy]

no your not, and I bet everyone else feels the same way

you should post their names so we all know who not to buy from in the future

[koolkat]

I understand their point, but they can pretty much count on their business drying up if they require this! Just another way to make a quick $$$ with the 2257 hysteria!

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

They are obliged by law to provide the documents.

Not really. The affiliate is obliged by law to have the docs if he uses sponsor content, but nothing in 2257 says the sponsor has to be forthcoming with any data to an affiliate. So some sponsors may possibly be choosing to depend on text links and SEs to get traffic to their sites, since sponsors that choose not to provide the data to affiliates are gonna lose a lot of their income otherwise.

As for grandfathered content licensed prior to the new regulations - well, that's a huge area of ambiguity right now, which may be how DoJ wants it.

[Edit: Oops - I see the original poster is mentioning content providers, not sponsors. Well, I still don't think the primary producer is technically obliged to provide actual docs to a licensee, but the licensee is obliged to have them! Primary content producers will have a damn hard time selling content if they fail to do it.]

[Ramster]

I agree, post who they are and we will NOT buy from them. Tell them this too, that if they do not provide the documents you will be telling everyone you know.

[Mr. Blue]

Post the name. Highway robbery to ask for a second payment for content you've already bought...I doubt any of us would want to do business with them

[amadman]

I really did not want to post who they are. Its some bulk content I bought some time ago.

They claim that they have bought the domain name and the content but not the business so they are not the ones that actually sold it to me. And they feel/claim that they are not reponsable.

They give me the option to purchase more content at the costs of the originals then they would give me records for them all. Or pay $5 per model.

[Linkster]

You ought to post who they are so that we all can avoid ripoff artists like that - its not ethical business as if they really bought the stuff from the original producer, then they also bought the obligations to customers - I can guarantee that anyone caught doing that to profit off of this will not be long in this biz

[amadman]

Ok.... It was/is rockbottom content.

I am pretty sure that most do not buy this content any longer any way.

I had bought a few bulk cds from there some time ago and have a bit of it scattered around.

Its not worth paying for again and I don't want any more of it.

[Wenchy]

Well, there goes a bunch of my content. I don't even want the disks on the premises if I don't have the paperwork, so they'll be going out with the trash. Thanks a bundle to RBC for making a bad situation even worse.

Note: Am I the only one who feels that if they bought the domain and the content, they also bought all the associated details that go along with it? Sorry... I keep forgetting how much trouble I get into when I apply logic to some situations.

[RBC]

Before banishing RBC to the untouchables, please allow for some facts to be presented. My partner and I bought the URL RockBottomContent.com from Isis Enterprises in October of 2004. All we bought was the URL and the content. We did not acquire any of the debt, nor producer contracts, nor customer contracts nor members lists. We don't sell bulk CD's nor unrestricted licenses.

With the new 2257 regs, we are suddenly getting hundreds of webmasters requesting docs for models that they bought from the previous owner. Even our attorney Becker & Poliakoff re-iterated that the responsibiity to supply and support all the customers prior to October 2004 falls on Isis Enterprise and not us. We are trying out best to provide 2257 docs to everyone as best as we can. We are not trying to screw anyone or take advantage of the situation.

Here is our dilemma, we have had to bring on extra staff to deal with all the requests. We are trying to get the new site launched, shoot new content and market the business. To offset some of our costs, we thought if someone spends close to what they originally purchased, they would get the new content plus all the 2257 docs for their original content. A win win situation. What we have since discovered is that bulk CD's were sold of most of the old content. So then we figured we would charge a $5 administration fee per model to offset our expenses so as not to take a loss.

We don't think we are being unreasonable. We are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. We are not some large corporation, we are a small business owner like most of you. We are certainly not trying to burn our bridges before they are built and with the new 2257 regulations everyone is scrambling with a sense of panic.

All I ask from former customers of Rock Bottom Content is to at the very least provide the information we request so we can expeditiously provide what you need.

Are we being so unreasonable?
I would like to hear some feedback without the bashing.

DB Stuart
RockBottomContent.com

[serenity]

Wow guys, I had no idea how quickly you trash someone before finding out the real facts. You guys are really scary. Guess it's really easy to jump on a bashing bandwagon when you're behind a keyboard.

We're not trying to rip anyone off or make a buck off the new laws. We're just trying to figure out a complicated situation so everyone wins. We are not making a bad situation worse. We are in the same boat as you guys. When we bought Rock Bottom, we did not buy all his original content. We only have 2257 docs for the stuff that is currently up on the new site. Hell, it has taken us 6 months to sort through everything and make sure it is all legal and above board.

So, no need to throw out your CD's or get all dramatic. I honestly don't think that charging a $5 administration fee per model is a lot to ask, considering that some of you guys are asking for 2257 docs for over 50 models.

C'mon guys, cut us some slack.

[N J]

Damn I'm glad we are located outside US - I can easily put myself in your shoes...both webmasters and contentproviders.

For RBC, $5 per model sounds fair enough, but if bulk cd's were sold it can be a lot to small webmasters and considering you probably need the same docs for several webmasters you should be able to lower that price, if people bought bulk cd's.

[Jeremy]

I gotta agree with the content guys. A moderate charge per info request to cover admin costs is not massively unreasonable (something similar to this was decided in the UK recently). I'm sure that if webmasters could charge someone for all the extra work they're doing, they would. As it is the cost is a business expense.

It would make for good cumstomer relations however, if the cost charged was discounted against future purchases.

In RBC's case, if the content is mainly fron pre-selected CDs, I'd charge per CD rather than per model. I'd also be trying to recoup some of the costs from the previous owners or directing all 2257 enquiries for their content to them.

[Linkster]

Knowing the full situation now - it does make sense that the new owners would have some reasons to require some sort of payment as the original CDs should have (and I thought they did) come with the basic 2257 IDs anyway - it was, and still is good practice to include that and most content producers did.

[Ramster]

RBC
I still think it is not right. Maybe you need to hire staff, maybe not. Maybe you need to simply allot some time to sorting and emailing IDs to webmasters. Not sure but either way I'm sure there's a cost for you and that is very unfortunate.

But $5 per id? If you think about it I'd bet that each set was sold 10, 20 sometimes 50 times. So for that model ID to each webmaster you're going to charge $5... times the 50 sets? For 1 ID you'll be charging a total of $250 (based on 50 sets)?

I might be wrong and am not attacking you on this and I won't "boycott" you or anything like that it's just that I still think charging is wrong.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by serenity

Wow guys, I had no idea how quickly you trash someone before finding out the real facts. You guys are really scary. Guess it's really easy to jump on a bashing bandwagon when you're behind a keyboard.

You have no idea...

Originally Posted by serenity

We only have 2257 docs for the stuff that is currently up on the new site.

Does this mean that webmasters who own older content which is no longer listed are pretty much floating down shit river?

Originally Posted by serenity

So, no need to throw out your CD's or get all dramatic.

If the above is true, it may be necessary to toss the older stuff, since the docs are unobtainable. Or maybe they could sell the cds to offshore webmasters. I'm doubting that anyone knows who owns what. (damn, I'm sneaky)

I feel for both sides in this situation, which is unlike me. Just plain ugly all around.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by serenity

Wow guys, I had no idea how quickly you trash someone before finding out the real facts. You guys are really scary.

Re-read the sequence of posts...it benefits you that your name was posted here as you were able to present your side of the argument. Far better than having your name quietly go about through the grapevine as ripoff content providers.

As for charging, etc, each person will feel differently regarding this...Future clients of course won't care about it, but you have to be careful as to how many people feel burned for having to pay for something they already purchased. I don't know how much extra cost this is adding to your bottomline right now, but you should consider how much this will cost you long-term.

Will this alienate the original customer base? Will the original customer base buy from you again after having to pay for content twice? Will the original customers tell other webmasters of their experience? How much will word of mouth hurt you long term?

Personally I think you guys are shooting yourself in the foot...Your lawyer has an opinion based on law, but it isn't based in business. You bought RBC so you had an established url, an established base of users, an established platform to expand, but you're throwing that away by alienating your past users. They don't want to know what your lawyer thinks, they just want the documentation on content they already purchased.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by RBC

Before banishing RBC to the untouchables, please allow for some facts to be presented. My partner and I bought the URL RockBottomContent.com from Isis Enterprises in October of 2004. All we bought was the URL and the content. We did not acquire any of the debt, nor producer contracts, nor customer contracts nor members lists. We don't sell bulk CD's nor unrestricted licenses.

With the new 2257 regs, we are suddenly getting hundreds of webmasters requesting docs for models that they bought from the previous owner. Even our attorney Becker & Poliakoff re-iterated that the responsibiity to supply and support all the customers prior to October 2004 falls on Isis Enterprise and not us. We are trying out best to provide 2257 docs to everyone as best as we can. We are not trying to screw anyone or take advantage of the situation.

Here is our dilemma, we have had to bring on extra staff to deal with all the requests. We are trying to get the new site launched, shoot new content and market the business. To offset some of our costs, we thought if someone spends close to what they originally purchased, they would get the new content plus all the 2257 docs for their original content. A win win situation. What we have since discovered is that bulk CD's were sold of most of the old content. So then we figured we would charge a $5 administration fee per model to offset our expenses so as not to take a loss.

We don't think we are being unreasonable. We are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. We are not some large corporation, we are a small business owner like most of you. We are certainly not trying to burn our bridges before they are built and with the new 2257 regulations everyone is scrambling with a sense of panic.

All I ask from former customers of Rock Bottom Content is to at the very least provide the information we request so we can expeditiously provide what you need.

Are we being so unreasonable?
I would like to hear some feedback without the bashing.

DB Stuart
RockBottomContent.com

Okay, I can understand that. There was a point where I owned nearly ever set on RBC. Now, can you tell me something. If I pay this fee am I getting an un altered ID or is it blacked out? If it is un altered, frankly I will pay it just to make my headache easier because I own so much RBC content.

[serenity]

Mr Blue, you are correct about retaining customers. That is important to us. We are not asking people to rebuy original content. Just an equal amount in new content. Win win, no? Some guys don't even know what content they bought, have old invoices and different names for models etc, etc. It is taking us hours just to find the right regs. I don't think $5 per model is a high fee.

We received an email from "amadman" requesting 2257 regs. We sent out a form letter telling him that he could buy new content for the same amount he purchased originally. He came back and said he bought bulk CD's of everything. We then went to $5 per model.

The next thing we know, is he has posted on this forum and is trashing us. How is that fair to us or him or anyone else that owns content. It doesn't solve anything.

As I said before, we are trying to sort this out reasonably.

Unfortunately, the previous owner is no longer in the business and won't even return our emails anymore.

Listen, if you guys have content from Rock Bottom email us and we will work with you. We want everyone to be legal and not have to worry about 2257. We will handle things on a case by case basis.

[Sarah_Jayne]

I'm not trying to be an ass...but can we know about the state of the ids (edited or not?). I am just in a bad mood beause a few companies have been giving me headaches today over IDs.

[serenity]

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

I'm not trying to be an ass...but can we know about the state of the ids (edited or not?). I am just in a bad mood beause a few companies have been giving me headaches today over IDs.

No problem.
The only thing that will be blocked out of U.S. I.D's, are: some of the address, a couple of numbers from the drivers license and a social security number if applicable.

Foreign passport I.D's will be unblocked.

[Sarah_Jayne]

forgien ids are interesting..I need someone to tell me the Russian words for various months (i will ask google) so I can acutally read some of the passports.

So, If I buy new sets they automaticlly come with such documents and I don't have to chase anyone?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by serenity

No problem.
The only thing that will be blocked out of U.S. I.D's, are: some of the address, a couple of numbers from the drivers license and a social security number if applicable.

Foreign passport I.D's will be unblocked.

The new 2257 regs require that the copies of model ID's for secondary producers have enough info that the DOJ can trace them back to the originals. If you're blocking part of the license numbers those ID's may no longer be 2257 compliant.