Pay for 2257 info?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[amadman]

Originally Posted by serenity

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.

Sorry, but my intent was not to bash you guys at all. I just stated the situation with out naming names. Then people where wanting the names and I was getting pm's were people were naming you guys so I went ahead and posted the name so it would be out in the open.

I still feel the same but as I said in my first post maybe I am wrong.

The way I see it you guys are trying to get the same amount of money the old rbc ever made in less than a months time. All off the back of past customers. Even at $5/model I would pretty much be buying all the content again. Fair? I don't know.

I am sorry I brought this up but I really only wanted to know if others felt the same as I did. And it seemed like many did.

[Ramster]

Originally Posted by serenity

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.

That's not true actually. He originally came here to ask everyone's opinion. And the general consensus was no content providers should be charging for docs now needed by law.

Some people now agree with you based on your purchase of the company and some don't.

[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.