As an investor (both property, shares, businesses) I read an awful lot of books, and attend a heck of a lot of seminars. For example, John Burley, Tony Robbins, Robert Kiyosaki, Peter Spann, Robert Allen and Henry Kaye (yes the dreaded HK).
I also attend all the ‘freebie’ intro seminars that are out there.
Sooooo, what i really hate is when these ‘new’ guys come along, and write their books, and claim all the ideas as their own.
For example, Jamie McIntyre’s book talks about what he calls RPA – Results, Purpose, Action (from memory). Funnily, it’s very very similar to Tony Robbins RPM, Rapid Planning Method (Results Focused, Purpose Oriented, Massive Action Plan). OK, so we change a letter, and then we haven’t copied the idea? I also noticed a few jewels that were Kiyosaki’s, and one that John Burley has been teaching for years – although he is the first to admit that he didn’t come up with it first – he says he and another guy in the states both came up with it and taught it at the same time.
In Jamie’s book, there’s also a passage on the ‘6 basic human needs’ – at least he acknowledges Tony there! Then he goes on to the ‘4 Classes of feelings’, again developed by Tony, but not acknowledged as such!
Jamie’s not the only one though. I saw Roy McDonald – OneLife seminars (?) (SIS, the guy whose book we almost bought? – I ended up with it for free from this seminar[biggrin]). Roy has obviously studied with/under Deepak Chopra, cos he acknowledged some of his ideas that he has implemented – as has Tony. But Roy has a strategy he calls ICAN (Improvement, Continuous and Neverending). Hmmmmm, Tony calls his CANI! Continuous and Neverending Improvement! Which one was around first? Hmmmmm. Must have both come up with them at the same time.
That’s enough from me.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, feels so much better![baaa]
You have a keen eye to spot these things. I am pretty sure Tony and others you mentioned trademarked and protected their Intellectual property.
So what irks you, may well actually put sued dollars in their pockets. I am sure they would appreciate your concern though.
lifexperienceAdministratorKeymaster@piadminJoin Date: 2013Post Count: 3,225
>>You have a keen eye to spot these things. I am pretty sure Tony and others you mentioned trademarked and protected their Intellectual property.<<
Ideas cannot be trademarked and protected of course.
Are you being sarcastic?
lifexperiencekay henryMember@kay-henryJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 2,737
Mel, that would definitely be a case of breach of copyright in the ICAN/CANI situation. If the originator wished, he would be able to prevent the copier from using it. That one, I would say, is a CLEAR case. Of course, any person is able to refer to any other person’s ideas- as long as they acknowledge the originator of ideas. Merely shifting the words around and pretending they are one’s own is not good enough- paraphrasing still requires acknowledgement of the use of another’s work.
I think what you’ve referred to is happening so much because it seems many of these guys are using the “initial” method of marketing. Use three letters and create the solution to everyone’s financial problems- so ABC becomes “Action Brains Creativity” or something. Then I call that my “formula” for success, and work out some theory behind it.
And some just flog other people’s ideas! But i guess we all do it to some extent. I might write that it’s a bad thing to rip off pensioners (for example, but I don’t then acknowledge in a footnote that I was paraphrasing God’s famous statement of “Thou Shalt Not Steal”.
Sounds like the examples you’ve used are blatant examples of breach of copyright and possible plagiarism, Mel.
You guys, there are so many people out there willing to express their opinions, especially on making money.
If you want to learn how to be a millionaire – ask a millionaire. (or should I say self-made millionaire so as to exclude those that have inherited or won it).
The motivational books are there to motivate people and make a buck for themselves as well. The basic recipe to the cake is the same, how it is presented on the plate will differ. If you can gain something out of these books then they have worked and there is no better way to really learn things than through repetition.
Don’t knock the guys for making a dollar.
Nice angle man. But, stealing other peoples ideas and using them to make money is illegal.
It is also immoral, not so bad for these big guys with the $$$ to sue and enforce their rights, but if you condone theft of Intellectual Property, what about the poor struggling/upcoming entrepreneur that has his idea ripped by a large company.
Encouraging the making of cash illegally at other peoples expense. is akin to drug dealing to the parts of society with bigger social problems.
This attitude is at the root of the problems of corporate greed.[smash]
Where’s the integrity?
I’ve learned property and motivation techniques from an American guy Mark O’Haroldson over 20 years ago. He’d been doing it for over 25 years then. These techniques are not new.
I studied objective setting and strategic planning at Uni, again the concepts are not new. To put an adjective in front of a term to make something look more attractive is purely marketing.
I agree, stealing others ideas should not be encouraged but there is nothing wrong with presenting general concepts in an easy to absorb fashion – it’s how we learn.
And in 20 years someone else will present it slightly differently to another batch of likely enthusiasts who have never heard of Burley, Robbins, Kiyosaki and the like.
Will you be saying those ideas have been stolen or repackaged.
JeffAdministratorKeymaster@piadminJoin Date: 2013Post Count: 3,225
Are you being sarcastic? <<
I guess at times I am. I wasn’t however in my post.
If someone teaches someone else how to make money using a particular technique what is so sacred about the method ? You can bet that many others have independently arrived at the same method.
PiscesJetDollarsParticipant@jetdollarsJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 2,435
I can’t see the problems. If they can make money then by all means do it, but not copy word by word tho…
There are so many way of making money and that’s what they choose to do.
[Retire Young, Retire Rich] [strum]
But… when i start my own hamburger chain called Nacdonalds and sell Big Nacs, can I count on you guys to back me financially in case i get sued, it seems this would be legal according to you guys.
Your personal opinions contradict Intellectual Property Law.
Has anyone heard of OPS?
Objectives, Planning, Strategies.
You set your objective, you devise plans to achieve those objectives and implement strategies to follow the plan. Your results can be measured against your objectives to see if your sticking to your plan.
The concept gets expanded much further than this but was taught to me in the early 80’s
Does this concept sound a bit like the RPA or RPM?
Jeff, I get your point.
However, my point was that for anybody who had studied with, say Tony Robbins, would completely recognise that Jamie McIntyre had ‘adapted’ his strategies and rebadged them. Jamie says himself he’s only ‘been around’ for about 5 years if that. He also acknowledges Tony for one thing (that Tony himself definitely developed – ie the six human needs), and then tries to flog something else – RPA as completely his own invetion. Understood that you learnt it as OPS, and you’ve acknowledged it, rather than teaching it as PSO, or OSP and making it look like your idea.
I’m not going to run to IP or RRI and say that Jamie’s stolen ideas, I was just making the point that it annoys me.[evil4]
Hi Mel, fair comment.
I suppose there’s nothing wrong with making the Hamburgers but calling them NacDonalds might be crossing the line. Where is the line drawn?
My view is that if you stifle concepts and teachings in general by allowing people to say “patent” them then we might not get taught anything through fear of litigation.
Anyway, I haven’t read Tony Robbins book. What are the 6 human needs he describes?
I vaguely remember something about physiological needs, safety/security, etc etc from Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. I went into the Anthony Robbins website but they don’t tell you on the site, I guess you have to buy the book.
Not sure if I read them in his books (one of them I didn’t finish!), but definitely learnt them in his seminar. They are, however, in Jamie’s book, and as that is closer to hand (or foot, as it’s at my feet as I type ) than my seminar workbook, I’ll quote from there….
Tony says ‘Everything human beings do, they do for a reason. They’re trying to meet one of six basic human needs. While human values may vary, we all have different beliefs, strategies and desires. We all share the same needs.’
The 6 human needs.
Growth and Contribution are the two primary and essential needs. The first four are the basic needs.
Thanks for that Mel,
JeffMichael RMember@michael-rJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 302
“Tony himself definitely developed – ie the six human needs”
This “needs-based motivation theory” belongs to neither Jamie McIntyre or Tony Robbins.
The “6 human needs” outlined in this post stems from “Maslow’s Hierarchy” formulated by Abraham Maslow an American psychologist who died in 1970.
The basis of this theory has simply been reinvented by McIntyre and Robbins so as to position it as their own.
Almost everything these motivational speakers preach is simply a different translation of theories, strategies and so forth which in many cases have been around longer than they have.
P.S. Although not ethical, it can be relatively easy to get around “intellectual property rights” with a few slight modifications.
Michael I disagree. Tony’s six needs are quite different to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
I would also go so far as to say that Tony’s ‘theory’ is not a ‘needs based motivation theory’
MelMichael RMember@michael-rJoin Date: 2003Post Count: 302
“Tony’s six needs are quite different to Maslow’s hierarchy”
Although different, I think you would find the basis of Tony, etc theory “stems from” Maslow’s Hierarchy. There are too many parallels to suggest otherwise.
My point being, “Almost everything these motivational speakers preach is simply a different translation of theories, strategies and so forth which in many cases have been around longer than they have.”
“I would also go so far as to say that Tony’s ‘theory’ is not a ‘needs based motivation theory'”
This contradicts your earlier statement “They’re trying to meet one of six basic human needs.”
Everything about Tony Robbin’s is motivational.
Michael, perhaps I should have written my post like this:
needs based motivation theory
I also (again[biggrin]) disagree that everything about Tony is motivational – I would argue that Tony is more about self development. Unless you’re then going to say that these two things are one and the same…