Pajamas Media/Open Source Media Faux Pas?
Dean
Here are some pictures of the Pajamas Media get-together.
I don't know who, if anyone, was actually comped to attend. Although some seem to think people were, I'm listed as a senior contributor and all I got was an invite, not an all-expenses paid offer. It's why I didn't go, I don't have the scratch to run to New York at the moment. Maybe I'm not important enough, but maybe most people there weren't comped. My guess is it's the latter.
There seems to be some major skepticism from respectable circles about the viability of the new project. These, I can understand. All I can say is, what I've seen of the business plan looks quite promising to me. Will it be another '90s style dot-com fizzle? Perhaps. Most new ventures do fail. Then again, Amazon and eBay didn't. Will this be the same level? Enh. I doubt it, but I think it's got the potential to give existing news and opinion portals a run for their money. But we'll see.
There is one genuinely sour note for me, however: the company appears to have possibly stepped on another organization's trademark. This is upsetting and I hope they have an answer for it. I also have to say, while I love the spirit of referring to blogging as "open source journalism," the truth is that if you limit your material's distribution you are not entirely in the spirit of the Open Source Initiative--it shares some similarities to the concept but it's not the same.
If they'd asked me I would have suggested something along the lines of "Citizen Journalism" or "Citizens News Wire." But they didn't ask me.
Related Posts (on one page):
- OSM Roundup
- Pajamas Media/Open Source Media Faux Pas?
Their silence feels like "deer in the headlights". In fact, what it feels like is how CBS reacted last year to the blogswarm about the memos. I thought that PJM/OSM was supposed to be "new media"; they're acting just like the old media now.
Maybe the name will grow on me. And perhaps the group will return to doing what they do best after their opening shot.
I do think it's the wave of the future - and many of these bloggers are super ... including YOU, Mr. Dean! I wish you &the rest great success.
Given Althouse's and your acerbic, condescending criticisms of the venture - who exactly was spending "plenty of time ... heap(ing) abuse(?)"
I have no judgment on Pajamas/OSM either way, really, but it's fairly clear that you lack perspective.
And it's also surprising how catty and perhaps premature certain individuals came off in their criticisms of the new venture, as well as interesting how willing they are to play the "hypocrisy!" card, "they're just like the MSM!", etc., on such a nascent effort. I mean, give me a break.
For the record, I was asked to join and eventually demurred, but was maintained on the invite lists, etc. And from my understanding, the bloggers (at least the majority of contributors) were NOT comped, and anyone employing such assumptions to imply that money is being flushed down the toilet is really irresponsible.
She does seem prone to let fly at every opportunity. One would expect an adult to at least let the new group get their act together before cracking on them. It reminds me how many conservatives went nuts over every little glitch encountered by Air America.
As for the LGF comment which "heaps abuse", here it is:
"The Epitome of Taste
Althouse jumps the shark.
Classy."
That's abuse? Snarky, perhaps...
The screw-up with the name does seem like a bonehead manuever. I've had to study up before, to get at least a nodding aquaintance with copyright, trademark, and patent rights during technical writing classes. I got the definite impression that researching the provenance of a proposed company name would require at least minimal detective work, to avoid any infringement.
A quick google gives 178 million hits, this being the first; and it's not even to radioopensource.org!!
The Pajamuhadein leaders have some 'splainin to do.
Atlhouse is a big girl and can take car of herself. My beef is that in the beginning they solicited bloggers of all sizes to signup (I didn't and had no interest in it). And made promises they had no idea—if any intentions at all—how to keep, like they were going to support smaller blogs in their advertising plan and other perks.
I'm not interested in PJM/OSM personally but it ignites my ire that those who set this up strung along some not so large blogs the way they did.
I'm not down on them, in fact I wish all those involved with it great success, especially Dean. But they set it up and kept everything close to their vest until the end, and then dumped their initial claims to all but the select elite.
They now owe some of the smaller blogs that were strung along an appology.
If the lawyers said the trademark is good, if the domain name was available, that really should be the end of it.
As for smaller bloggers having been strung along: were they? Or was it just a matter of their being put on a backburner for a while? Let's wait and see.
I would agree that OSM has done a poor job of letting people know what's going on. I'm a contributor and sometimes I've wondered what they're up to on some things. But I've also been a part of startup ventures before and I know how crazy things can get when you're starting something new.
There's no problem with multiple businesses having the same trademark as long as they don't compete in the same markets. As soon as you have any situation where customer confusion could be a factor, it's no longer OK.
The fact that there are a lot of people out there using "OSM" or even "Open Source Media" to mean different things doesn't matter.
What does matter is that Radio Open Source (a product of Open Source Media, Inc.) is competing in essentially the same marketplace that OSM competes in, and there definitely is the potential for confusion as a result.
That means there's a likelihood of infringement going on. And any competent intellectual property lawyer would have told them so.
Unfortunately, Homocon may have it right. OSM may be relying on the fact that Open Source Media is small and not wealthy and won't have the resources for a court fight. If that is in fact their real point of view, it's sleazy as all hell.
But if it isn't, then the only other conclusion is that they were careless, which is little better.
Finding a unique name is your problem. Just because it's a difficult one doesn't give you carte blanche to stomp all over someone else's trademark.
I believe them when they say they concluded that Open Source Media, Inc. is not doing business under that name, and has not asserted a trademark claim on the name, and is running a substantially different line of business, and that was that.
If I'm mistaken, it's easy enough for Open Source Media, Inc. to complain legally, and they should be able to find a lawyer who looks at the fact that OSM has money and will take their case on contingency. I doubt one would though, since the more I look at it the more it seems there's no case here.
I could be wrong about all of this, but I think they are reasonable conclusions and neither sleazy nor evil. I'm obviously biased since I want the venture to succeed, but, what is the strong emotional investment some people seem to have in shooting this down?
I wish it luck; I honestly do.
BTW: You try anything new, whether it be a business or band and there will be people wishing you to fail. Its just life.
I believe the phrase you are looking for is "screwed the pooch."
smirk.