Forum Moderators: phranque
The buyer gave me the impression of being a good candidate to further the site however he immediately took down all content and placed links to spammy sites on one page. He then set up a redirect so that all site visits forward to that one page.
Several hundred articles, many of them with page one results, are gone from that domain name and Google has promptly removed them from serps. The articles don't appear to be anywhere online anymore.
I own another site that would make a good candidate to host these articles, would it be ok to republish the articles myself? I'm inclined to think no since they were sold as part of the website however if you sell a baseball to someone and they throw it in a field but never retrieve it why not go get the ball? What do you guys/gals think?
Google liked the articles before the sale and now they're gone from the net completely.
You can always contact the new owner and offer to buy or license the content back. If he allows you to use the content again, make sure you get that permission IN WRITING.
Oh, have they bought 'every-thing'? Oh well...
As LifeinAsia points out, you've sold out - the lot!
Why the retrospective attitude? Didn't you know what you were selling?
Syzygy
I DO see your point LifeinAsia, hence this topic, but I disagree in part. I'll be able to grab the domain back too in about 9 months. He's let it go and the site no longer resolves to anywhere, it's pagerank is now grey bar as well.
I don't think the logic you describes prevents me from re-registering the domain once it becomes available and I'm not sure it's any different for the articles he discarded.
If the domain name lapses, you are free to try to buy it just like anyone else. But it's not the same case as with the content.
To you, the content has been "discarded." To the buyer, it may be "in storage." He has the legal right to do anything he wants with it, including not use it.
Unless you have a written agreement from the buyer allowing you to use the content again, it is NOT yours to use.
Now, if the purchase contract specifically states that the content was NOT part of the sale (i.e., the purchase was just of the domain name and not the site itself), then you never sold the content in the first place and you are free to use as you like.
Another issue is that if the domain name is now associated with SPAM, the value of getting the domain name back again is questionable.
"Hey look joe, that guy who bought my sports car last month is just letting it sit on his drive, he hasn't taken it out once, a car like that isn't just meant to sit there, it should be taken out, used and enjoyed. Well if he's not using it I may as well have it back, I think I'll go round tonight with the spare set of keys I kept and take it, after all it doesn't matter, he's not using it anyway"
Resurrect the old website with a new domain name but don't invest huge time or money in it. If this guy sets a lawyer on you (something I doubt because he sounds like an idiot) you can give him the new site.
Provided you are not diminishing his profits in any way, I don't see an ethical problem. You probably shouldn't sell the website again though!
Kaled.
Resurrect the old website with a new domain name but don't invest huge time or money in it. If this guy sets a lawyer on you (something I doubt because he sounds like an idiot) you can give him the new site.Provided you are not diminishing his profits in any way, I don't see an ethical problem.
Different spectacles, I guess.
Incidentally, a good lawyer would have drafted the contract so that the new owner had free use of the copyrighted material rather than ownership of the copyrighted material. Clients don't always notice when a lawyer does a good job, they just assume that the deal was done a certain way.
Kaled.
