Print

[ira01]

A little while ago, I posted the text of the Prosper email, to ensure it doesn't disappear in the future.  Somehow, that post itself disappeared from here. 

Sorry, Ira, that was me.  The power went out in my office just after I split off your post, before I had a chance to post an explanation. 

Thanks, Caladia.  I'm glad to know that I am not simply losing my mind.  

Anyway, there was a report that the letter was copyrighted, so I moved it to Moderator Discussion pending... discussion. 

Although the letter might be copyrighted, Rate Ladder is NOT the copyright owner.  The AUTHOR of a creative work is the copyright owner.  Have you received an official request by Doub Fuller (or whomever wrote the email) to remove it?  

[RateLadder_com]

The letter was sent to me, it involved specifics to my particular case. No one else would get that exact letter. It was first posted on my site by me.  It is not in the public domain. please removed it.

I perfectly reasonable response to this request is for someone to post their letter or to remove anything specific to my loans.

[ira01]

@Ira

IANAL

IAAL (although TINLA).

I read it as you own your portion of the pool based on the amount of the lender dollars in the opt in pool.  Hence, the pool needs to reimburse Prosper for the expense of buying the junk debt from the opt out lenders.

If the Pool reimburses Prosper for buying the debt from the non-participating lenders, that means the Pool will own 100% of the 68 (or however many) loans in the test.  Let's make a simple example.  If there is 1 loan in the test, for $10K, with two lenders each owning $5K of it.  One chooses to participate.  So the Pool buys the other lender out at JDB prices, and the participating lender now owns 100% of the $10K loan to be litigated.  So that lender gets all of the litigation proceeds (after expenses are subtracted).  

Please remove my letter from this thread.  It is duplicate content from google's point of view (bad for RL and prospers) and as the copyright holder of rateladder.com I do not grant reprint.

You are NOT the copyright holder of the email -- the author of the email is.  It is irrelevant that you posted the email on rateladder.com.  Simply posting someone else's possibly copyrighted material gives you no copyright interest in it.  Furthermore, it is presumably a Prosper boilerplate email sent to every lender with a loan in the New Agency Test, so I don't see Prosper claiming a copyright in the email either.  But if it does, I'll carefully consider their claim (maybe getting 112233's Public Citizen's lawyer's opinion).  I deleted your specific list of loans (not that I needed to), so it discloses no PII about you either.  Please let me know if you have any other (legitimate) reason why I should delete the email.  It is certainly relevant to everyone here.[/quote]

[RateLadder_com]

@Ira

IANAL

IAAL (although TINLA).

I read it as you own your portion of the pool based on the amount of the lender dollars in the opt in pool.  Hence, the pool needs to reimburse Prosper for the expense of buying the junk debt from the opt out lenders.

If the Pool reimburses Prosper for buying the debt from the non-participating lenders, that means the Pool will own 100% of the 68 (or however many) loans in the test.  Let's make a simple example.  If there is 1 loan in the test, for $10K, with two lenders each owning $5K of it.  One chooses to participate.  So the Pool buys the other lender out at JDB prices, and the participating lender now owns 100% of the $10K loan to be litigated.  So that lender gets all of the litigation proceeds (after expenses are subtracted).  

Please remove my letter from this thread.  It is duplicate content from google's point of view (bad for RL and prospers) and as the copyright holder of rateladder.com I do not grant reprint.

You are NOT the copyright holder of the email -- the author of the email is.  It is irrelevant that you posted the email on rateladder.com.  Simply posting someone else's possibly copyrighted material gives you no copyright interest in it.  Furthermore, it is presumably a Prosper boilerplate email sent to every lender with a loan in the New Agency Test, so I don't see Prosper claiming a copyright in the email either.  But if it does, I'll carefully consider their claim (maybe getting 112233's Public Citizen's lawyer's opinion).  I deleted your specific list of loans (not that I needed to), so it discloses no PII about you either.  Please let me know if you have any other (legitimate) reason why I should delete the email.  It is certainly relevant to everyone here.

[/quote]

the list of loans was all loans in the pool and is not specific to me... what is specific is my number of loans in the pool, the amounts of my loans, and the equivalent percentages.  I make no claim against the boilerplate only my information.  My information is copyright.

[RateLadder_com]

In addition, even though you could reduece the quote to boilerplate your purposes are better served by finding someone's letter that doesn't mind if their information is used.  I even provided an on prospers link and am doing so again: http://www.prospers.org/forum/collections_letter-t5293.0.html

please remove my information.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

I don't accept the claim of copyright.  Further, it's perfectly conceivable that two different lenders would receive letters from Prosper with identical numbers.  There is no PII - so, I don't necessarily even accept the claim that this is "your" letter.

Even if it is, it's irrelevant to the baseless claim of copyright.

[Caladia]

the list of loans was all loans in the pool and is not specific to me... what is specific is my number of loans in the pool, the amounts of my loans, and the equivalent percentages.  I make no claim against the boilerplate only my information.  My information is copyright.

RL, Ira is correct (of course).  The recipient of a letter does not own copyright in the letter.  Feel free to look it up for yourself. 

Ira seems willing to accommodate your privacy concerns, but frankly, those concerns seem a bit belated, considering that you posted the letter on your own blog for all the world to see. 

[Erasmus_Darwin]

My information is copyright.

You can't copyright facts.

(Hey, does this count as yet another empty legal threat from Prosper?)

[RateLadder_com]

the list of loans was all loans in the pool and is not specific to me... what is specific is my number of loans in the pool, the amounts of my loans, and the equivalent percentages.  I make no claim against the boilerplate only my information.  My information is copyright.

RL, Ira is correct (of course).  The recipient of a letter does not own copyright in the letter.  Feel free to look it up for yourself. 

Ira seems willing to accommodate your privacy concerns, but frankly, those concerns seem a bit belated, considering that you posted the letter on your own blog for all the world to see. 

I posted my information at my blog.  This is not my blog and I did not post my info here.  My protest is with my info.  I would much rather we were dicussing the letter.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

I would much rather we were dicussing the letter.

It doesn't appear that way.

ETA: RateLadder's comments above, since I just quoted, are now copyright of Urbi_et_Orbi.   

[RateLadder_com]

I read it as you own your portion of the pool based on the amount of the lender dollars in the opt in pool.  Hence, the pool needs to reimburse Prosper for the expense of buying the junk debt from the opt out lenders.

If the Pool reimburses Prosper for buying the debt from the non-participating lenders, that means the Pool will own 100% of the 68 (or however many) loans in the test.  Let's make a simple example.  If there is 1 loan in the test, for $10K, with two lenders each owning $5K of it.  One chooses to participate.  So the Pool buys the other lender out at JDB prices, and the participating lender now owns 100% of the $10K loan to be litigated.  So that lender gets all of the litigation proceeds (after expenses are subtracted).  

So we are agreeing, right? If you opt in, your portion of the pool increases as lenders opt out.

[Mtnchick]

Good lord, someone has sand in their vagina regarding whining about copyright info they obviously don't understand. 

[j9359]

I've got one loan (#8204), I'm going to pass on the $4.12 and participate in the test.
john.

[ira01]

the list of loans was all loans in the pool and is not specific to me... what is specific is my number of loans in the pool, the amounts of my loans, and the equivalent percentages.  I make no claim against the boilerplate only my information.  My information is copyright.

Sorry, but you cannot legally copyright information.  You can only copyright your own creative expression.  There is nothing creative in your loan amounts, percentages, and the like, so this is not copyrightable.  If you had posted your original thoughts and opinions on your site, that would be a different story.  But you didn't (and if you had, and if I had posted them here, I would remove them). 

Furthermore, there is nothing private about that information which would give you rights in it, for at least two reasons.  First, you posted it on your publicly accessible site, thereby waiving any privacy interest.  Second, as you know, Prosper makes information about every lender's loans, including the late ones, available to the public, including to the third-party sites which then make that information publicly available.  So everyone knows (or can easily determine) which of your loans are late, which of those are part of the New Agency Test, and what the amount of those loans is.

[ira01]

I read it as you own your portion of the pool based on the amount of the lender dollars in the opt in pool.  Hence, the pool needs to reimburse Prosper for the expense of buying the junk debt from the opt out lenders.

If the Pool reimburses Prosper for buying the debt from the non-participating lenders, that means the Pool will own 100% of the 68 (or however many) loans in the test.  Let's make a simple example.  If there is 1 loan in the test, for $10K, with two lenders each owning $5K of it.  One chooses to participate.  So the Pool buys the other lender out at JDB prices, and the participating lender now owns 100% of the $10K loan to be litigated.  So that lender gets all of the litigation proceeds (after expenses are subtracted).  

So we are agreeing, right? If you opt in, your portion of the pool increases as lenders opt out.

Yes, I believe so.  I just wish Prosper had actually stated that in its email.  Although I believe it is the necessary implication of the fact that the participating lenders have to pay off the non-participating lenders, Prosper is not exactly well-known for correctly following its legal agreements and other obligations.