bringing Kaplan to masses at cheaper more affordable prices

[waseem2279]

*edited by DrMom*

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=95367

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[southerndoc]

It is actually illegal to sell Kaplan materials, even if you are selling the identical stuff that you purchased. You buy a license to use it. You never own the material.

 

[southerndoc]

DrMom, thanks for clearing that.

I just reported it.

 

[DrMom]

No problem.

 

[Idiopathic]

It is actually illegal to sell Kaplan materials, even if you are selling the identical stuff that you purchased. You buy a license to use it. You never own the material.

I dont know about this...as long as no copies are made, there is still only one license, and it should transfer from buyer to seller. I dont know the specifics of this material, I assume it was copied, but if I buy Kaplan materials and then sell them when I am done, there should be nothing wrong with that.

 

[TysonCook]

No, the license is Non-Transferrable, that is the agreement you make, you never "own" the material, all you do is pay a user fee, regardless of the format you are learning from (CD, Web, Printed).

Kaplan does offer a group discount rate. Contact them for details, but in the end our class was able to get almost $200 off of Qbank/person.

 

[Spang]

The OP was selling bootleg copies of Kaplan videos among other copyrighted books, CDs, etc. Not just reselling his old copy of First Aid or whatever. He's a thief, plain and simple.

The thing with Kaplan licensing agreement is crap and if they want to try to sue you for reselling the books you "licensed", let them try. Just because they say it's their rules and you agree to it doesn't make it "legal".

Spang

 

[WatchingWaiting]

Kaplan is a bunch of sick, greedy bastards. Why doesn't every book maker try that strategy? In fact, why doesn't every television maker, appliance maker, home seller, contractor, whatever, eliminate your right of resale? "We're just selling you a license to use this product." It's a patently absurd proposition that they charge you $500 for a set of books, which you're apparently supposed to dumpster at the end of the proceedings.

 

[TysonCook]

Then don't use them . Nobody forces you to use Kaplan, nor do they say they are the only one in the market. You signed the bottom line under the legalities, if you can't respect property rights, then don't sign, and try and find another company that allows you to "resale" their goods.

They have a right to protect thier intellectual property, as does every business. The same laws apply for everything and just because the immediate item in your hand is "technically" a bunch of paper that you can do whatever with, the value comes from what is printed on it. The difference is that they don't want you to sell their intellectual property (they couldn't care less about the physical books). You are purchasing a teaching tool, and the actual medium that is presented on is free for you to do with whatever you want, you do not have the right to resale their property which is PRINTED on the paper.

Trying to pass the "charging me $500 for a bunch of books...." line is about as absurd as saying that you "own" what is in the books since you purchased them, and you can do what you want, when you neither invested in that company nor helped with the development, marketing, or manufacturing etc.

Cost is always irrelevent to the product. Supply and demand, plus market competition is what matters. If you don't think that it is fair then don't use it.

 

[Spang]

Cost is always irrelevent to the product. Supply and demand, plus market competition is what matters. If you don't think that it is fair then don't use it.

Or buy it on eBay

 

[WatchingWaiting]

Then don't use them . Nobody forces you to use Kaplan, nor do they say they are the only one in the market. You signed the bottom line under the legalities, if you can't respect property rights, then don't sign, and try and find another company that allows you to "resale" their goods.

They have a right to protect thier intellectual property, as does every business. The same laws apply for everything and just because the immediate item in your hand is "technically" a bunch of paper that you can do whatever with, the value comes from what is printed on it. The difference is that they don't want you to sell their intellectual property (they couldn't care less about the physical books). You are purchasing a teaching tool, and the actual medium that is presented on is free for you to do with whatever you want, you do not have the right to resale their property which is PRINTED on the paper.

Trying to pass the "charging me $500 for a bunch of books...." line is about as absurd as saying that you "own" what is in the books since you purchased them, and you can do what you want, when you neither invested in that company nor helped with the development, marketing, or manufacturing etc.

Cost is always irrelevent to the product. Supply and demand, plus market competition is what matters. If you don't think that it is fair then don't use it.

Your argument is remarkably weak. If a company is engaging in a practice that is equivalent to a rape of basic societal economic organizing principles, I can very much object to it.

Do you think society would be better off if car dealers didn't let you resell your car, but instead claimed they sold you and only you a "license" to use it and explicity made resale of it illegal because it lowers their profit and the value of their intellectual property-- after all, they get nothing when you resell your used car to someone else (by the way, a lot more intellectual property goes into making a car than kaplan's books). Their argument easily applies to every good and service sold in our society. If I can resell a computer, a car, and other things, why are books somehow different. Point being, the right to resale is a very basic feature of property ownership and Kaplan's sickening strategy of trying to undermine people's right to ownership is really galling.

 

[southerndoc]

Your argument is remarkably weak. If a company is engaging in a practice that is equivalent to a rape of basic societal economic organizing principles, I can very much object to it.

Do you think society would be better off if car dealers didn't let you resell your car, but instead claimed they sold you and only you a "license" to use it and explicity made resale of it illegal because it lowers their profit and the value of their intellectual property-- after all, they get nothing when you resell your used car to someone else (by the way, a lot more intellectual property goes into making a car than kaplan's books). Their argument easily applies to every good and service sold in our society. If I can resell a computer, a car, and other things, why are books somehow different. Point being, the right to resale is a very basic feature of property ownership and Kaplan's sickening strategy of trying to undermine people's right to ownership is really galling.

Most software programs are licensed and not sold. In fact, some explicitly state they expire after 25 years.

Businesses license things all the time. Do you think they sell it to another business? No. The same holds true to personal licenses.

Personally I think Kaplan should require individuals to send the books back to them once they pass the test.

 

[TysonCook]

You are not buying a "product", it has absolutely nothing to do with the physical aspect of the $ is going towards. You are licensing a "tool" to use for a determined amount of time that YOU AGREE TO, if you can't handle a binding contract then STOP USING IT. This is applied across all of america's commercial products from Kaplan's teaching tools, to ski passes at ski resorts...hence the term "non-transferrable". If you have a hard time differentiating between intellictual property vs. physical, then please do a search before ranting and raving about the unfairness of Kaplan.

When you buy a car, you are not licensing the use of that item, you are actually purchasing the physical property, but you can bet your a$$ that if you pulled out a V-Tech engine and then diagrammed the parts then tried to resale that, Honda would have you in court in a heart beat. The same goes for a computer and software, hence the legalities of reverse engineering. Go to any lab in the US and look up their regulations on intellectual rights, from assays to reagents to proceedures, you can not, and never will be able to purchase a "license to use" and transfer it.

Bottom line is that YOU signed a binding contract, and if you think that it is rape, THEN DON'T USE IT! It isn't rocket science. They make a great product that is availible for purchase, your immature whining about how it is unfair is a crappy way of justifying theft, and bottom line is not what I would expect to be morally acceptable from my physicians. There are plenty of other products from other venders, go ahead and use those if you have such issues w/the contract that YOU signed.

Here is a basic definition:
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY [patent-trademark-unfair competition-copyright-trade secret-moral rights]. Creative ideas and expressions of the human mind that have commercial value and receive the legal protection of a property right. The major legal mechanisms for protecting intellectual property rights are copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Intellectual property rights enable owners to select who may access and use their property and to protect it from unauthorized use.

I would like to reiterate that I don't work for or am affiliated w/Kaplan, I just hate when people try to justify theft and bitc* that the system is unfair, when they have a choice not to use it.

 

[Idiopathic]

Most software programs are licensed and not sold. In fact, some explicitly state they expire after 25 years.

I can also sell a piece of software (with the license) if I no longer want or need it. Once you pay the money, all durable goods, that are not demanded back, are yours to do with as you see fit. This is my interpretation.

 

[southerndoc]

I can also sell a piece of software (with the license) if I no longer want or need it. Once you pay the money, all durable goods, that are not demanded back, are yours to do with as you see fit. This is my interpretation.

*Some* software have clauses allowing you to transfer the license to another person, but many strictly forbid it. If you sell such software to an individual, you can be charged with selling pirated software.

 

[ttac]

It is actually illegal to sell Kaplan materials, even if you are selling the identical stuff that you purchased. You buy a license to use it. You never own the material.

Is it illegal to allow others to view the materials without paying? For example, if my roommate buys the kaplan books, am I committing a crime if I look at them too, despite the fact that no money has changed hands?

 

[ttac]

...and as a follow question, let's say that I have a qbank subscription. I know that you cannot 'share' the subscription with anyone, even in no money changes hands.

If it isn't legal to let someone look at books without any money changing hands, then is it illegal for a medical school library to have the qbooks available for checkout? Also, let's say I decided to let someone look at my First Aid book, and they 'paid' me by letting me look at the qbooks. Is that a legal swap, even if no money changed hands?


Thanks

 

[southerndoc]

I don't know what the stipulations are for qBook.

To answer your roommate question, the answer is yes and no. There is no crime, but you could be held liable if they really wanted to pursue it AND they could actually prove it.

It's similar to me buying a movie ticket, watching the movie, and then allowing you to use the same movie ticket to get into the theater to watch the same movie. (Not all movie theaters tear your ticket when you enter into the theater.) The same is true if you rent a video rental and loan it to a friend. You are violating your rental contract that you signed when you became a member of the videostore.

I doubt these people have the time to pursue such petty offenses, but they are technically violations of their respective contracts.

 

[ttac]

I don't know what the stipulations are for qBook.

To answer your roommate question, the answer is yes and no. There is no crime, but you could be held liable if they really wanted to pursue it AND they could actually prove it.

I understand the part about not letting people share kaplan qbank licenses, but if it is technically illegal to let someone look at your qbooks for free then that is just ridiculous. Libraries couldn't exist at all.

 

[kedhegard]

Borrowing or loaning (as in libraries) is not illegal persay, but it's against your specific contract, and breaking that contract is the illegal part. If you signed their contract, and it said that you could only breath twice a minute, well that's it, you signed it. Stupid example, but it's what you agree to that matters. Like the guy a few posts up said, you're not going to get hunted down for this stuff, it's just technically against the contract so that they can catch people like the original poster who specialize in ripping them off.

 

[southerndoc]

Borrowing or loaning (as in libraries) is not illegal persay, but it's against your specific contract, and breaking that contract is the illegal part. If you signed their contract, and it said that you could only breath twice a minute, well that's it, you signed it. Stupid example, but it's what you agree to that matters. Like the guy a few posts up said, you're not going to get hunted down for this stuff, it's just technically against the contract so that they can catch people like the original poster who specialize in ripping them off.

In the case of Kaplan's home study program, there was something in there that stated that if you opened the sealed package, you agreed to the terms. They offered a complete refund if you did not agree to the terms.

 

[Spang]

Can we all just agree that what the OP was doing, that is selling outright bootleg copies of videos and books on CD is morally, ethically and legally wrong? I really need to learn these gyne cancers for my exam next week and if I have to keep coming back here to set you guys straight, I'm never going to get that done!