Jason McCabe Calcanis replied by email to my post about the launch of WeblogsInc.com. I suggested he post in the comments section of the posting and he said he would, but to save him time here is the thread:
Very insightful comments... thank you for taking the time, we're flattered. I've cced our CEO Brian Alvey on this if you don't mind. I think you've brought up a very important point about content ownership and something we have worked really hard on.
Granted, that sounds fair, but what if the partnership hasn't worked? Is the injured party, should some financial or ethical transgression have occurred, obliged to leave their work in the partnership?
Granted, that sounds fair, but what if the partnership hasn't worked? Is the injured party, should some financial or ethical transgression have occurred, obliged to leave their work in the partnership? There is something to be said for ownership (really, we're talking about control over our reputation) that allows us to refuse to be associated with another party if we've decided that the business relationship hasn't worked. If I feel the value of my contribution hasn't been honored and leave the partnership, why should what I was not compensatead for continue to be the property of another? Typically, partners separating agree on how to split the assets of the partnership. For the small business or the freelance journalist, the continuing control over the product of their labor is one of the few bits of leverage they have and it should not be forfeited lightly.Certainly if either party did something illegal the courts would be a way to remedy this (i.e. if we were to cook the books or if a writer were to plagiarize). Now, we don't think it would not come to this because a) we're not looking to do anything shady and our model is based upon having hundreds of happy partners. If they are not happy they go away. We both know that bloggers are not the silent types, word will spread instantly if we are jerks. Also, I think/hope that the dual-license concept (I don't think that is a legal term, I just made it up) solve some of this issue. We're not saying we own it at all. Someone can take their content back and do whatever they want with it and we still have the historical archive so we don't build a house of cards in WeblogsInc that would collapse if, say, all our webloggers decided to go work for a similar concept at Google. The only reason I can see to take the content out of our system is because you were, as you allude to, angry at us. Now, if our deal isn't acceptable to someone they can certainly a) do their own blog and do the business side themselves (which many will do, I'm sure) or b) partner with someone else (although I don't know of anyone out there offering a deal, certainly not with the terms spelled out on their website... I looked!). Like you say our business is based on successful partnership. Some people will love this deal, others will hate it. We want to see where this collaborative model takes us with an open mind. Either way we're going to give this our full effort and try to do something truly innovative. best jason
Jason,
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a very natural one. Not sure it will work, but I am glad you are trying it.
Mitch
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at September 25, 2003 09:56 AM | TrackBack