News Blog Comments
Just did some random pokeing around, oddly their domain names are all registered to their lawer Nina Yablok as opposed to the company itself? Sure its a way to do it, but its not like shes an employee of PJ media, shes a hired gun, specializing in small busniess IP and contract law. weird
Three words: Likelihood of confusion.
OK, so I'm confused: just what IS Open Sores internet address? "opensourcemedia.net" still goes to the radio site, "opensourcemedia.com" goes to some software company, and "opensourcemedia.org" isn't registered.
These guys really do think it's 1998, don't they? No plan, no clue... hey, we're all gonna be rich!
The goal of our enterprise is to bring gravitas and legitimacy to the blogosphere,
Nothing to bring a little gravitas and legitimacy than lying your ass off and making shit up.
to amplify the individual voices that compose it, and bring you the best of blogging as we know it, and to do so, we felt it wise and appropriate to arm ourselves with all of the conventional tools of business--including a trademark.
This has to be one of the worst sentences ever constructed.
Someone deserves their $3.5m back. Fuck - I can't even get an interview around here, and these morons are wallowing in it. The world is truly fucked.
Uh Steve, I hope you have a good copyright lawyer because according to OSM, by entering their site you give up any rights under the Fair Use Doctrine.
I am literally risking a lawsuit to do this but I am going link and quote from their site
From their Privacy and Terms of Use page:
Welcome to OSM ("OSM" or "we"). By using Our Site you agree to be bound by all of the terms of this TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT ("Agreement").
3. You may not reproduce, distribute, copy, publish, enter into any database, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this site. The only exceptions to this are that you may download material from Our Site for your own personal use, provided such download is limited to making one machine readable copy and/or one print copy that limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. No other use of the content of Our Site is permitted. Please contact our Sales Department if you wish to have rights other than those stated above.
8. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason at any time. Sections two (2), three (3) and five (6) through nine (9) of this Agreement shall survive such termination.
What is absolutely amazing is that OSM is taking full advantage of the Fair Use Doctrine by using other people’s copyrighted material on its website but it bans everyone else the same rights to use its material. OSM could quote and attack something on The News Blog (fair enough) but Steve could be sued if he then quoted OSM’s original attack while trying to respond! Talk about a one-way street. This is total hypocrisy to call themselves open source and to then hide from criticism behind their lawyers skirts.
I love it. All their stuff says "Open Source Media", they've trademarked OSM, and use opensourcemedia.com as a web address, but they're not calling themselves 'Open Source Media', so, really, there's no possible grounds for confusion.
Uh huh.
And making up a story about how Lydon gave them their web address with his permission and blessings and wishes for success - when he's clearly paying close attention to the story and is considering his legal options - is just suicidal.
At least they've dropped their novel claim that copyright and trademark law had a ‘but it’s really hard to come up with an original name sometimes!’ exception.
This is even better than learning that Steven den Beste is blogging again - but only about Japanese cartoons where underaged schoolgirls flash their panties.
Heh, heh. Well, Wolcott tried to warn David Corn about the company he was keeping here...
I used to love that "Bananas in Pajamas" commercial.
Wolcott certainly did. He said this was doomed.
I guess he was right.
Did anyone else notice that neocon Michael Ledeen is on their board?
http://www.osm.org/site/articles...dmichaelledeen/
Open Sores Media looks like some sort of Repug circle jerk. Why does Dave Corn think he needs to be involved in this fiasco?
I'm really hoping that Chris Lydon goes after them, full bore. I mean, how incredibly effin' stupid can these people be? (Okay, don't answer that, they are giving us all a demonstration.)
How long has Lydon's show been on the air now? Like a year? Ever since he wrapped up Blogging of the President, I think. And he has been screwed on copyright in the past, so I would think he's not going to take this sitting down.
Open Sores Media looks like some sort of Repug circle jerk. Why does Dave Corn think he needs to be involved in this fiasco?
Red_Neck_Repub
Maybe because he wants to be "in the center of things"?
OSM has issued a correction:
Due to a miscommunication, OSM inadvertently wrote on our site that Christopher Lydon of Radio Open Source "graciously agreed" with us to give up the url opensourcemedia.net. This is incorrect. He gave up the use of that url entirely of his own volition and after no discussion with us. We had never contacted him before he took his action.
We apologize to Mr. Lydon for this error on our part
This still sounds like they are taking Brendan's URL without his permission. On this thread he says he has sought legal advice so this could get interesting.
You can put whatever "Terms of Use" you like on your website, but visiting a website does not constitute an enforceable contract. In particular, you cannot unilaterally do away with the doctrine of fair use simply by posting a notice and styling it as a "Terms of Use Agreement."
I laugh at how they call it "ironic" for anyone to try and trademark the term "open source," but they fail to see the irony in calling their own product "open source" when it is the precise opposite.
They really don't get it, do they?
There isn't anything wrong with a company claiming to be open source trademarking its name. Linux(TM) is trademarked. The problem with the name Open Source Media is that it suggests that they content is published under an open content license like the Creative Commons license or the GFDL. It most decidedly isn't, however.
Maybe OSM is a good thing for its members--a potential learning experience. The driving assumptions behind it seems to be that (a) the MSM, being 'way liberal, isn't giving people the facts--i.e., stories that would support whatever cluckery the OSM-ites pull out of their collective ass; (b) people are hungry for facts; and (c) people will pay good money to get said facts.
Assumption (b) is true enough (although (c) is iffy). But their real problem is (a): OSM's people (and the Right in general) simply can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion. So everthing they hear that they don't like is seen as the product of spin, and conversely, every spin they do themselves is seen as the equivalent of a fact.
Failure might offer some of them a much-needed reality check. Not the 2x4 upside the head that most of them need, but it's something.
Atrios posted this link to an amusing account of the launch party:
http://www.jimlowney.com/mt-arch...ves/
000314.html
"OSM Media, LLC". What? Why not "Open OSM Media, LLC"? Will they need a PIN Number to log in?
Why are still talking about opensourcemedia.net? This is what you get if you do a whois-lookup on it:
Registrant:
Open Source Media
20 Hubbard Ave. 10
Cambridge MA 02140
So, unless they have some evidence to the contrary, this domain clearly still belongs to Open Source Media (aka radiopensource.org).
Kevin:That enrages me, to be honest. It breaks the whole idea of the blogosphere. The whole idea behind it, of course, is that they can sue anybody who criticizes them, or at least shut them up.
It's more proof that the right doesn't get it.
Simon,
Brendan has another post up discussing the "correction" and he agrees with what you say.
The Uber wingnut Steven Den Beste is reaming OSM a new one.
The very name is illustrative of the instinctive Orwellian character of the right wing.
Kevin de Brux,
Don't be bamboozled by the bs.
What if Gilly wrote:
"By commenting on this site you hereby agree to pay me $5?"
How enforceable would that be?
Never forget the "reasonable person" standard....
"OSM inadvertently wrote on our site that ..."
How do you "inadvertently" write something?
Do they mean they meant to write something else -- maybe about some other person entirely, who had not agreed with them to do some other thing altogether unrelated to the URL -- but unknowingly had their fingers on different keys and wrote an item about Christopher Lydon istead?
Hell of a start for a media company.
Or whatever the hell they figure to become.
Jen:Of course they could never get away of it. But the whole concept of it is just so against the whole spirit of things it makes me sick to be honest.
Remember the original DailyKos copyright notice. "Steal what you want". Now, that's a bit changed now, to account for the new community structure, but the spirit is still intact.
Oh, man. This is pathetic beyond my wildest dreams. I didn't think it would turn out to be quite as bad as Wolcott had warned, but this has far exceeded his lowest expectations. Has Corn had anything to say as yet? Wolcott's been pretty quiet too; he's too much of a gentleman, I expect, to let us all know that he's been rolling all over the floor in stitches with each and every successive comic turn.
3. You may not reproduce, distribute, copy, publish, enter into any database, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this site.
You may not display any part of this site.
So merely reading the terms of service is a violation of them.
Dufoids.
If only there was a lawyer involved.
Oh...errrr.
Never mind.
And if you use wireless, you've transmitted it. Damn these tricksy lawyers and their cleverness!
And if you use wireless, you've transmitted it. Damn these tricksy lawyers and their cleverness!
Doesn't that also preclude linking to it?
There is a reason IP lawyers charge $400+ per hour. They can get it. Even this poor dumbass lawyer can tell these guys are winging it. They appear to be even stupider than when SCO lauched its idiotic suit at IBM over this issue.
One other thing: the burn rate on IP litigation is faster than any other legal spend, bar none.
Commenting by HaloScan
